Leeds City Council (202007155)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007155

Leeds City Council

22 March 2021

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint concerns the landlord’s decision to not reimburse the resident for the costs incurred when carrying out improvement works to the property.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord.
3. The property is a three-bedroom house.

Summary of events

4. The landlord’s internal communication records, dated 28 April 2020, state that it contacted the resident via telephone to advise that a work order for “the plastering to the bedroom” was raised on the previous day, but a timeframe for completion was yet to be confirmed due to Government Covid-19 restrictions.
5. On 17 July 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to lodge a stage one complaint regarding its decision to reject her request for a “reimbursement” of the costs incurred by her when carrying out her own works at the property. Additionally, the resident provided the landlord with three invoices issued to her on 3, 5 and 10 July 2020 for plastering walls and ceilings in two of the property’s bedrooms, the living room and the conservatory, which totalled £1,230.
6. On 4 August 2020, the landlord issued a stage one complaint response to the resident, comprised of the following:

1. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had instructed a private contractor to carry out plastering works “in three rooms”, and that she was looking for a reimbursement of the costs incurred.
2. In respect of this, the landlord explained that a work order was raised by its surveyor, on 27 April 2020, “to replaster the bedroom walls”. The landlord confirmed that, at that time, it advised the resident that there would be a delay in completing these works because of the Government restrictions imposed by the Covid-19 pandemic.
3. The landlord confirmed that it contacted the resident on 4 May 2020, to advise that the work order was still ongoing and that its contractor would contact her, once the above Government restrictions were eased, “to arrange a date to undertake the works”.
4. The landlord informed the resident that it did not hold any “evidence” that it had agreed to reimburse the resident for any costs incurred should she choose to not wait until it could complete the above works. The landlord also advised that it was “not within” its “policy to reimburse tenants for repairs they have chosen to undertake themselves” and that “any improvements carried out to the home is the responsibility of the tenant”, as defined in the resident’s tenancy agreement.
5. The landlord mentioned that the resident had carried out “some plastering in an upstairs bedroom” the previous year after she had moved in to the property. The landlord advised that the works were carried out, by the resident, while a complaint was under investigation and it confirmed that it would have completed those works, for which it would look to reimburse her if she sent it the invoice for them.

7. The landlord’s internal communication, dated 17 August 2020, addressed a recent telephone call that it had with the resident and an offer of a goodwill gesture to her of £500, for the above works carried out by the resident in 2019. The landlord confirmed that, during this telephone call, it discussed the recent plaster works carried out by the resident, along with the works completed in the previous year. Subsequently, on 18 August 2020, a “customer acceptance form” was completed, stating that the resident had accepted the amount of £500 to be paid to her “as full and final settlement for the inconvenience caused” in the matter of the previous works.
8. On 1 September 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to:

1. Thank the landlord for reimbursing her for the “work carried out last year with regard to the plastering carried out in one of the bedrooms”.
2. Report further issues with the property, including a crack in the ceiling of one of the rooms that was recently plastered, and “advise” that the landlord allocated a surveyor to inspect the structure of the house.
3. Request for her complaint to be escalated to the second and final stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure.

9. The landlord issued a stage two final complaint response to the resident on 7 September 2020, confirming that:

1. Its surveyor had attended and assessed the property’s structure on 3 September 2020.
2. It had raised further work orders for the issues reported by the resident to be remedied.
3. The plaster works, ordered on 27 April 2020, could not be completed in time due to Government restrictions around “non-essential” repairs.
4. As per its policy, it would not “reimburse tenants for repairs they have chosen to undertake themselves”; therefore, it would not reimburse the resident “for the money spent having the plastering completed”.
5. In respect of the resident’s report of a crack in the ceiling of one of the rooms that was recently plastered, the landlord confirmed that, as a result of the assessment carried out on 3 September 2020, it believed that the plaster works were carried out incorrectly; however, as these were done by a private contractor, it was not responsible for them.
6. The landlord apologised “for any inconvenience or distress” caused by the delay in completing repairs during the lockdown period. Furthermore, the landlord advised that it had raised work orders for the additional repair issues reported by the resident, but that these “may not be completed within the usual timescales due to staffing issues, local lockdowns and social distancing measures.”

Assessment and findings

The tenancy agreement

10. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that if the resident is a “secure tenant” then the resident “must not make improvements, additions or structural alterations to the property” without obtaining the landlord’s written permission first.

The landlord’s repairs and maintenance handbook

11. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance handbook states that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the plastering work of its tenants’ properties.
12. The landlord categorises and schedules repairs based on urgency.
13. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance handbook defines batched repairs, including plastering, as “non-urgent repairs and items of replacement that may require a pre-inspection; need time to order and/or manufacture materials”, and states that these “are completed within 60 days”.
14. In respect of improvements made by the resident, the landlord’s repairs and maintenance handbook states that these could be carried out only if its written permission was obtained first. Furthermore, it states that the resident will be responsible for the upkeep of the improvements made unless the landlord agrees to take responsibility for the future maintenance of some items correctly installed to an acceptable standard, such as central heating.

The landlord’s decision to not reimburse the resident for costs incurred when carrying out improvement works to the property

15. It is noted that the landlord does not have a separate compensation policy and that any compensation is awarded on a case-by-case basis, subject to the investigating officer’s consideration. Additionally, none of the landlord’s policies or procedures state that it would reimburse residents for the works that they choose to carry out themselves.
16. Based on the information provided to this Service, an order for plastering works to be carried out to the resident’s property was raised on 27 April 2020. The landlord contacted the resident on 28 April and 4 May 2020, to advise that this was still ongoing, but it could not proceed with arranging an appointment at that time because of Government Covid-19 restrictions. By taking the above into consideration, the landlord complied with the guidelines set out in its repairs and maintenance handbook above at paragraphs 11 to 13. This is because it accepted responsibility for the plastering repair and acted appropriately as a consequence of this by raising a work order for the remedial works to be carried out, which was delayed by circumstances beyond its control.
17. On 17 July 2020, the resident raised a stage one complaint with the landlord, disputing its decision to not reimburse her for the plastering works, that were carried out by a private contractor, instructed by the resident. The landlord issued a stage one complaint response on 4 August 2020, explaining why it would not reimburse the resident for the costs incurred. In respect of the above, it is noted that the landlord was permitted to refuse to reimburse the resident for the costs incurred because:

1. It had accepted responsibility for the works and was looking to complete these, once the Government restrictions eased; however, it was not given the chance to do so because the resident instructed a private contractor to carry out the works before it was able to do so.
2. Under the landlord’s repairs and maintenance handbook above at paragraph 13, plaster works are categorised as batched repairs, which are to be completed within 60 days. In this instance, it is evident that the landlord did not comply with this timeframe due to reasons outside of its control.
3. The resident’s tenancy agreement above at paragraph 10 states that, should a resident wish to carry out improvements or alterations, it must obtain written permission from the landlord. In this instance, the landlord was not made aware, by the resident, that she had instructed a private contractor to carry out the works before she arranged these and there is no evidence that she sought or obtained the landlord’s permission to do so.
4. None of the landlord’s policies or procedures state that it would reimburse the resident for the costs incurred by works that she decided to carry out herself. Additionally, the landlord confirmed that there was no separate agreement between it and the resident that it would reimburse any costs.

18. Following the landlord’s stage one complaint response, issued on 4 August 2020, the resident requested for the complaint to be escalated to the second and final stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure on 1 September 2020 and the stage two final complaint response was issued on 7 September 2020. In respect of the resident’s request for reimbursement, the landlord decided to uphold its initial response, that this would not be something it would offer, which was reasonable, considering the above obligations on it and the resident.
19. During the investigation of the current complaint, the resident mentioned that she was looking to be reimbursed for previous plastering works carried out to the property in 2019. In respect of this, the landlord found that the resident had raised a complaint, in 2019, and then instructed a private contractor and carried out plastering works while the complaint was under investigation.
20. As the complaint logged in 2019 did not progress beyond the first stage of its complaints procedure, the landlord offered compensation of £500 for the inconvenience and distress caused in that matter. While this did not form a part of the current complaint or plastering works, it provided context and further supported the fact that the landlord acknowledged its responsibilities and took reasonable steps to put things right for the resident, where necessary when it had accepted that it was responsible for works that she had undertaken.
21. To conclude, based on the information provided to this Service, the landlord took responsibility for the plastering works and was looking to complete these; however, it was not given the chance to do so. The landlord acted in a reasonable manner by keeping the resident informed throughout the process, managing her expectations as to when it would carry out the works, and apologising for the inconveniences caused by the delays in completing the works, despite these being outside of its control.
22. This Service appreciates the inconvenience experienced by the resident; however, the landlord is not accountable for the costs incurred by the resident because she chose to carry out the repairs, through a private contractor, without informing or giving the landlord the chance to do this itself.

Determination (decision)

23. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its decision to not reimburse the resident for the costs incurred when carrying out improvement works to the property.

Reasons

24. The landlord raised work orders for the repairs, kept the resident informed throughout the process and managed her expectations. The landlord was therefore not responsible for the costs incurred by the resident because she chose to carry out the repair works through a private contractor without giving it the opportunity to do so.