Leeds City Council (202121644)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121644

Leeds City Council

29 March 2023

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

The complaint relates to:
1. The landlord’s management of a repair.
2. The landlord’s management of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy and their property is a one bedroom bungalow. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident or any other household members.
In October 2021, the resident reported a fault with the toilet at the property. The toilet was a specialist automated unit, specifically installed to meet the residents particular needs. At this time, essential functions had stopped working. It took several visits over an extended period for a lasting repair to be provided by the landlord. During this time, the resident was unable to utilise the toilet fully and had to rely on support from their partner.
The resident raised a complaint around the repair process itself, the time taken and the impact on them. The resident was also not satisfied with the landlord’s response to the complaint.

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s responsive repair policy has three repair priority types, these are:
1. Emergency – This is defined as when ‘urgent action is required to prevent a serious risk to health and safety, major damage to the structure of the property or results in the property being insecure’. These jobs should be attended within three hours with an emergency repair carried out within twenty four hours.
2. Priority – These are defined as repairs that would ‘seriously affect comfort or cause damage to the property’. There is a three working day timeframe for these repairs.
3. General – These are standard, non-urgent repairs that do not fall into one of the other categories. The timeframe for these repairs is within twenty working days.
The landlord’s complaint policy is a two stage policy. At both stages the landlord should follow this process:
1. Acknowledge the complaint within three working days.
2. Provide a response within fifteen working days.
3. If a response cannot be provided within fifteen working days, provide updates every two weeks with a reason and estimated response time.
The landlord’s goodwill and compensation guidance for staff.
The Complaint Handling Code says:
1. Landlords should recognise the difference between a service request and a complaint.
2. Complaints should be acknowledged and logged at stage one of the complaints procedure within five days of receipt.
3. Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint.

Summary of events

On 22 October 2021 at around 10am, the resident reported that the toilet was not working and requested a repair. The landlord logged the request and issued a works order for its contractor to attend. This contractor was the company that had initially installed the toilet and was the chosen contractor for repairs and servicing. On the day of the repair the landlord chased it’s contractor twice for an idea of when they would attend. The resident continued to chase responses after reporting the issue.
At around 5pm on 26 October 2021, the contractor attended but was unable to resolve the fault. Whilst at the property, the contractor contacted the manufacturer’s helpdesk but despite this it was also unable to remedy the fault. An engineer visit was then arranged for further investigation. The manufacturer explained that it did not offer an emergency call out service but it would try and attend within 48 hours.
On 27 October 2021, five days after the landlord was made aware of the issue, the resident raised a formal complaint. The complaint was about:
1. The service provided since logging the fault, as it still was not repaired.
2. The lack of emergency cover/process.
3. The landlord’s chosen contractor being unable to repair the fault.
4. The resident being unable to utilise the toilet during this time.
5. The ‘abuse of the resident’s dignity’ caused by the situation.
The manufacturer attended on 28 October 2021, they removed batteries from a sensor that was not used and this had apparently resolved the issue. The resident confirmed that the toilet was now functioning but also raised a concern around the batteries in the remote control. These had not been replaced and the resident expressed concern that this could cause the same fault as the sensor. The resident also questioned the response time for the job, given the urgent nature of it.
The landlord’s records show internal emails in which it discussed the service contract with the assigned contractor. In these emails, they discussed a previous issue with the toilet in February 2021. At that time there was a dispute around the responsibilities of the resident and what should be carried out by the contractor. Following this, the landlord’s changed its position around residents responsibilities and this led to a change in its service contract with the contractor. This meant that the contractor would then carry out filter changes and descale the toilet unit during its annual servicing. During this discussion, it was agreed that battery replacements should be carried out during future servicing visits, to reduce the possibility of similar issues.
On 4 November 2021, the resident reported that the toilet was not working again. The same error message was flashing on the unit, suggesting that the previous visit had not resolved fault. The resident reported that prior to this fault, the toilet had been prematurely flushing. The resident also questioned why they had not had a response to their complaint. The landlord reported this to it’s contractor and requested an urgent call out. It also reopened the resident’s complaint, as it had previously closed the complaint when it believed the fault to have been resolved.
On 8 November 2021, the landlord emailed it’s contractor to chase a response as the resident had informed it that nobody had attended yet. Further concerns were raised, as the resident had indicated that there had been 25 faults with the toilet since it was installed. They said that on each occasion, they contacted the helpline number and were told to reset the unit. They said that although this fixed the problem on each occasion, the problems had later reoccurred. They reiterated their concerns around the lack of emergency call outs for repairs, as while awaiting repairs, the resident’s partner had to assist them when using the toilet.
On 11 November 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to chase a response to the repair and the complaint.
On 12 November 2021, the landlord received an email from the manufacturer that said the previous engineer had replaced the side controls in the unit, rather than just removing batteries from the sensor. They said they would contact the resident directly to arrange a repair on the new fault.
On 15 November 2021, the manufacturer attended and repaired the toilet. This was done by replacing the main control board.
On 17 November 2021, the landlord provided a stage one complaint response and it upheld the complaint. Within the response it;
1. Acknowledged the resident’s frustration around the delay in repairing the toilet.
2. Acknowledged the inconvenience it had caused the resident and their partner.
3. Explained that it had made every effort to arrange for an engineer but the contractor had not responded to its requests.
4. Explained that the type of adapted equipment it provided was recommended by the Occupational Therapist (OT) and it acknowledged that further consideration needed to be made around aftercare arrangements.
5. Advised that it had requested that the contractor arrange a visit for the batteries to be changed in the remote control.
6. Advised that the annual service for the toilet should now include battery replacement, filter replacement and descaling.
On 18 November 2021, the resident requested an escalation to stage two of the complaint process. They said that the landlord’s stage one response incorrectly stated that the toilet was ‘operational’ and that their request for compensation to address their experience had been ignored. They also expressed concern around the contractor, as they offered no emergency cover and did not know how to repair the toilet. The resident said they felt disadvantaged as the emergency repair process for a standard toilet would involve a three hour turnaround target, while their repair took weeks.
On 22 November 2021, the resident requested an update on when the batteries would be changed in the toilet remote. On 24 November 2021, the batteries were replaced in the remote control and the unit was confirmed as working by the landlord’s agent who had attended.
Internal landlord emails after 23 November 2021 show that discussions are held around the service contract for this kind of toilet due to the issues in this case. The landlord indicates in these that it will be discussing matters with the manufacturer and then another service provider about taking over the contract for future maintenance of this type of equipment.
On 29 November 2021, the landlord provided a stage two response to the complaint. Within the response it:
1. Acknowledged that some functions (auto cleaning) were not working but says that the toilet remained operational.
2. Acknowledged that this caused some inconvenience to the residents and it offered another apology.
3. Noted the resident’s concerns around emergency cover and said it still should apply for specialist toilets but it would be addressing concerns around the contractors and any call outs.
4. Said that it felt it had covered the resident’s concerns around the ‘lack of dignity’ that they were afforded during the time without full functionality of the toilet, within its stage one response. It offered a further apology.
On 21 December 2021, the resident contacted this Service as they were not satisfied with the response from the landlord.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s management of a repair

The landlord’s repair policy does not define which repair category that a toilet repair would fall into. However, it has since indicated that it would now be in a position to repair this kind of fault in line with the timeframes set out for an emergency repair in it’s policy. As it has confirmed the definition for this kind of work would be an emergency under its policy, it should have attended within three hours and have repaired the fault within twenty four hours. It is clear that on both occasions that the fault was reported by the resident, the landlord failed to carry out the repair, in line with those timeframes.
It is evident that the landlord did not have an agreement in place for emergency or priority repairs for the specialist toilet with their contractor. In the first instance, it took over three working days for the contractor to attend and when it did, it was unable to diagnose or fix the problem. When the second fault was reported, the contractor failed to provide timely responses to the landlord’s requests for information. It took eight days for the contractor to provide an update and this was an email from the manufacturer to say that they would contact the resident directly and arrange a visit. Ultimately, it took eleven days for the toilet to be repaired this time, again, outside the timeframe for emergency repairs.
The initial OT assessment and recommendation for the specialist equipment would have involved some communication with the landlord. When this was recommended for installation, the landlord should have considered the adequacy of its arrangements to manage and carry out repairs to that particular equipment. The resident noted in their emails that the contractor used by the landlord to maintain the previous model of toilet, worked well and provided sufficient cover. The landlord has noted that the contractor it chose to use with the newer toilet was a ‘recommended installer’. However, it does not appear to have carried out due diligence to ensure that the new contractor could also carry out repairs and provide emergency cover.
The landlord has indicated that delays with the contractor were responsible for the overall time taken to repair the toilet. However, the resident has a contract with the landlord and therefore the landlord is ultimately responsible for ensuring that repairs are carried out within its repair timeframes. As part of the installation of any specialist equipment or adaptations, the landlord should have made arrangements within its service contract to cover emergency repairs. However, it is evident that no process had been agreed as part of the service contract for emergency or urgent repairs for this particular equipment.
The landlord’s emails, both internally and with the contractor, only show any real urgency when there has been several days without any response. The landlord does express a concern around the length of time that the contractor was taking to respond or complete the work. However, outside of sending further emails, it does not seem to have taken any steps to have these repairs completed sooner. The actions of the landlord show a real lack of urgency to meet its own repair timeframes. However, more disappointingly, it suggests a lack of understanding of the inconvenience and unenviable position that a vulnerable resident is experiencing throughout these delays.
After the first fault was repaired and it was reported as being an issue with batteries, the landlord discussed whether battery replacements would form part of servicing the units. This is a reasonable consideration for it to make, given the circumstances. However, there did not appear to be adequate consideration given to the issues around the time taken to resolve the repair. At this time, it failed to make any alternative arrangements that would ensure that future requests for repairs would provide the resident with the same level of service enjoyed by others.
Given that the landlord had experienced such issues with the first repair, it would have been reasonable for it to review its service contract following this issue. The contractor had failed to attend the job as an emergency, had not responded to requests for updates and was unable to repair the toilet when it attended. A temporary process could have been arranged until it was sure that it could attend emergency jobs for these models in line with the repair policy timeframe.
Despite the issues with the first repair, the landlord then followed the same process when the second repair was logged. Rather than allow it to follow the same process, it could have taken steps, such as contacting the manufacturer directly, to expedite the repair when it was reported for a second time. Following the same process that had exceeded its emergency repair timeframes less than two weeks prior, was always likely to lead to similar delays. In the case of the second fault, it took even longer for the repair to be completed.
Throughout these repairs, the landlord does not appear to have shown an appreciation of the unenviable position that these faults left the resident and their partner in. The resident has made it clear throughout that due to the faults they were not able to use the toilet without assistance from their partner. This is something that could have been avoided, had the toilet been repaired within the timeframe set out under the emergency repair process. In view of this, it is understandable that the resident has questioned the landlord around its process and perceived she was unfairly treated compared to other residents. This is evident as the resident had pointed out that a standard toilet fault would have a much quicker target resolution time than it had been in these cases.
The landlord has since confirmed that it is now in a position to answer such a fault within the emergency timeframe set out in its repair policy. It says that it’s chosen contractor can now carry out minor repairs and if they cannot repair a fault, it has a process in place for a specialist contractor to attend within the emergency timeframe. It is disappointing that it has taken the resident being placed in a humiliating position due to this failure before an adequate service contract is put in place. When considering the failures throughout this process, cumulatively this amounts to maladministration.

The landlord’s management of the resident’s complaint

It is evident that following the resident raising their complaint on 27 October 2021, the landlord did not provide an acknowledgment in line with the Complaint Handling Code. It’s emails show that it closed the complaint, once the initial repair was completed. The resident was not made aware of this closure. This suggests use of a ‘stage zero’ process, as the complaint is not acknowledged or responded to, until the resident questions why they have not received a response. The landlord has essentially dismissed the residents complaint, as a repair had been carried out. Given that the resident’s complaint was around more than the repair itself, the other elements of the complaint should still have been addressed in line with the Complaint Handling Code. This is another service failure in the complaint process.
Although the complaint was based around the repair, the resident’s concerns were centred on the lack of an emergency repair process and the position they had been left in. In view of this, the complaint should not have been closed just because the repair had been carried out. The Complaint Handling Code says that landlords should confirm their understanding of a complaint and the outcomes being sought by the resident. The landlord has not demonstrated that it sought or gained a clear understanding of the resident’s complaint or the desired outcomes in this instance. This is another service failure on its part. The landlord’s emails show that it then only reopened the initial complaint when the resident chased a response, after raising the second fault.
The landlord issued its stage one response on 17 November 2021 and it’s stage two response on 29 November 2021. Both of these responses were issued in line with the timeframes set out within its complaint policy.
Within the responses to the resident’s complaints, the landlord acknowledged the delays and the inconvenience this had caused the resident. However, in both responses, it failed to acknowledge that these were caused by its own failure to have a process in place for emergency repairs on the specialist toilet. It acknowledged that further consideration needed to be made around aftercare for this equipment but does not say that it would be able to carry out emergency repairs at that time. Given the reason for the complaint and as the resident had just experienced two significant issues within a week of each other, this does not offer any reassurance to the resident. The landlord therefore did not take the necessary action to resolve the complaint that the resident raised.
In its responses to the complaints, the landlord failed to show any real understanding of the position the resident was in during the wait for repairs. The landlord’s stage one response offers an apology and acknowledges that it was ‘difficult and inconvenient’. However, in the same paragraph it says that the toilet was operational during this time. This statement is dismissive of the resident’s complaint and shows no real empathy to the distress that the resident and their partner were experiencing throughout the delays. The resident’s emails continually make references to the support they were having to rely on in order to use the toilet and how they felt undignified in doing so. In the resident’s escalation to stage two, they say that they do not feel that this was considered at stage one. The landlord responded to this by saying that it was satisfied that this part of the complaint was covered within its stage one response. This suggests that no further consideration has been made and it again seems dismissive of the key issue that the resident was raising throughout. The Complaint Handling Code says that landlords shall address all points raised in the complaint. It is clear that in this instance, the landlord chose not to address this part of the complaint and instead referred them back to its response at stage one.
The resident made it clear that they felt some form of compensation would be appropriate. This is another part of the initial complaint and the stage two escalation that has been ignored by the landlord. The absence of any offer being made by the landlord, further displays a lack of any empathy towards the unenviable position that the resident had been left in while awaiting the repair. It is the view of this Service that the time taken to repair the toilet and the distress and inconvenience experienced by a vulnerable resident during this time warrants financial compensation.
The landlord said that its records did not record that the resident had any vulnerabilities. It also says it installed the specialist toilet in the property based on a recommendation from OT. As the assessment by OT found the need for specialist equipment, this indicates that the resident had difficulties in carrying out everyday tasks. Given the recommendation by OT and the installation of specialist aides and adaptations into a property it managed, it should have been clear that the resident had an acknowledged vulnerability. Therefore, it is unreasonable that the landlord did not incorporate information from OT around vulnerability and take this into account with the resident in this case. This would be particularly important when faults were reported by the resident, that it was responsible for resolving. This shows a clear service failure around the landlord’s record keeping.
One of the main disputes within the complaint is the landlord’s view that the toilet was operational while awaiting the repairs. The landlord’s view seems to be based on the toilet being able to carry out the functions of a standard toilet. However, the specialist toilet recommended by OT provided a wash and dry function for the residents use. Without this function, the resident was forced to rely on their partner to assist them when using the toilet. As any recommendation to provide the specialist toilet was to allow the resident to use the toilet without assistance, it is unreasonable to then say that the toilet was “operational” when those faults were apparent. In doing so, the landlord dismissed the undignified position the resident was placed in while awaiting an effective repairs. This undoubtedly exacerbated the distress of the resident.
It is evident that the resident was without the required functionality of their toilet for a total of nineteen days. This was across two separate periods, one of seven days and one of twelve days. Given the significant inconvenience and distress reported by the resident during this time, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not offer any sort of compensation payment as a remedy. The resident had made it clear on numerous occasions that they felt this would be a reasonable expectation given the circumstances but the landlord ignored these requests. The landlord’s compensation guidelines do provide a framework for awarding compensation in certain circumstances. Having reviewed them, it is difficult to understand why an award was not considered or offered, as the resident’s experience would definitely meet the criteria for compensation.
The landlord did not provide this information and it was not readily available on its website. The same issue was apparent when attempting to obtain a copy of its Complaint Handling Code self-assessment. There are references to it on its website but you are then required to make a request for it. Having this kind of information available would be beneficial to residents when utilising the complaint process with the landlord.
In considering the landlord’s management of this repair and the complaint, it has since changed the contractor it uses to carry out servicing and repairs of the toilet. It says that it is now in a position to ensure it can answer this kind of emergency repair within the timeframe set out in its repair policy. This demonstrates that the landlord has followed the Dispute Resolution Principle of ‘Learning from Outcomes’. This is a positive improvement but it is disappointing that the resident has had to experience two similar issues before this change was made. Cumulatively, the failings in the management of the resident’s complaint constitute maladministration.

Determination (decision)

The landlord’s management of a repair

In accordance with section 52c of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the time taken and overall management of the repair.

The landlord’s management of the resident’s complaint

In accordance with section 52f of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the management of the complaint.

Reasons

The landlord’s management of a repair

When changing the resident’s toilet to the specialist model, the landlord did not agree an appropriate service contract to ensure it could attend to emergency repairs. This led to a significant delay in repairs being carried out on two separate occasions. These delays left the resident without the ability to use the toilet for nineteen days, unless they had somebody to support them in doing so. The landlord acknowledged that the first delay was not acceptable but still followed the same process when the second fault occurred. The delays experienced during the second fault could have been reasonably foreseen but the landlord failed to ensure an adequate arrangement was made to avoid a repeat of the issues. It knew that it’s contractor had used the manufacturer for the repair in the first instance and despite knowing that the second fault was not being managed, it continued to just request updates by email. The second, and longest delay, could have been minimised by cutting out the contractor and going directly to the manufacturer, until it could arrange an appropriate service contract for the toilet. As a consequence the resident experienced significant but avoidable distress, time and trouble in seeking an effective repair.

The landlord’s management of the resident’s complaint

The landlord failed to acknowledge the complaint in the first instance and prematurely closed it without informing the resident, utilising a ‘stage zero’ type process. This failed to take into account that the complaint was about more than the repair itself. The landlord did provide responses in line with the timeframes laid out in its policy. However, those responses failed to show any understanding or empathy towards the resident’s situation during the delays. The key theme throughout the resident’s correspondence is the inconvenience and ‘lack of dignity’ they felt during this experience. The landlord offered a fairly basic apology and seemed dismissive, saying that the toilet was operational but ‘some functionality was lost’. Given that these functions were likely to be the reason that the toilet was recommended by OT, the lack of those functions meant that it was not operational for the resident. When the resident raised this at stage two, the landlord didn’t even address it as they “feel the point was covered within the original response”. This statement showing the same dismissive nature as the stage one response. The lack of any offer of a compensation payment towards inconvenience or distress in this case highlights the lack of sympathy shown by the landlord in this case. It has also failed to take into account the time and trouble that the resident has incurred in trying to obtain what they consider to be a sufficient response to their complaint.

Orders

The landlord’s management of a repair

The landlord is ordered to make a payment of £700 to the resident towards the distress and inconvenience caused by the time taken to repair the toilet. This should be provided within 28 days of the date of this report. This comprises £500 for distress and £200 for time and trouble.

The landlord’s management of the resident’s complaint

The landlord is ordered to make a payment of £300 to the resident. This should be provided within 28 days of the date of this report. This comprises £200 for distress and £100 for time and trouble.
The landlord must contact the resident and carry out a vulnerability check and update its records accordingly. This should be carried out and noted on the resident’s account within 28 days of the date of this report.
The landlord must review the learning from this report, it must advise this Service of its intentions within four weeks of the date of this report and then effect its intentions within three months of the date of this report. This review must include:
1. Identifying all its managed properties with installed aids and adaptations to ensure that the tenancy details are updated with details of associated vulnerabilities and that such details are available for its staff to use in operations.
2. Ensuring that both it’s Compensation Policy and Complaint Handling Code self assessment are published and easily available.
3. Ensuring that staff understand that all elements of a complaint need to be understood and addressed within the responses.
4. Ensuring that complaints are not prematurely closed down until all complaint elements have been addressed in full.
5. Ensuring that accurate record keeping is promoted across the entire business.

Recommendations

Reviews the efficacy of its contractual arrangements for the maintenance of installed aids, adaptations, and specialist equipment.