Leeds City Council (202205555)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205555

Leeds City Council

11 December 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 is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. repairs, including to the roof, the front door, the side door, damp and mould in the kitchen, a kitchen plug socket, the toilet, holes in the concrete hallway floor, a hole in the bottom step, the bedroom radiator, silicone around the bath, and fencing in the garden.
2. the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB), and
3. the resident’s concerns about the conduct of the landlord’s staff and contractors.
The Ombudsman has also considered the associated complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and her concerns about the conduct of its staff and contractors, are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Paragraph 42(a) states that: the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
As the landlord’s handling of the ASB and the conduct of its contractors were not escalated via the landlord’s complaint procedure, these issues have not been considered in this assessment and are noted in the background for context only. This is because the Ombudsman is not able to consider complaints that are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaint procedure. This is so that landlords have the opportunity to respond to complaints and resolve issues before the Ombudsman becomes formally involved. If the resident wishes to pursue these matters further, she can complain to the landlord. She may be able to refer her complaint to the Ombudsman once it has exhausted the landlord’s complaints process.

Background

The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord.
The landlord’s repair records show that the resident reported the following issues:
1. On 19 August 2021, the bedroom radiator was not working and did not have a thermostat.
2. On 28 August 2021, the shower pull-cord was tripping the electrics at the property.
3. On 20 September 2021, the bathroom radiator was not working.
4. On 5 October 2021, the external drain cover, and the manhole cover to the sewer in the garden were both cracked and there was a gap between the front door and the door frame.
The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord on 14 October 2021. She said:
1. She had made lots of anonymous reports about anti-social behaviour in her area and had also called the police. She had completed nuisance diaries which she had emailed to the landlord. She said she wanted to move, and for her rent and the money she had spent on the property, to be refunded to her.
2. She had reported repairs but several remained outstanding and she had ended up paying for some of the issues to be repaired herself.
3. The landlord’s contractors did not book appointments and just turned up. This meant that repairs were not completed as she worked full-time and was often not at the property to allow access.
4. She wanted a hard copy of her tenancy agreement.
On 2 November 2021, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response. It said:
1. It would not have discussed any ASB during the letting process of the property as there were no live ASB cases about the issues the resident had complained about. It had received the nuisance diaries the resident had submitted and had opened an ASB case on 11 October 2021, to investigate the issues she had raised.
2. It had attached a copy of her tenancy agreement as requested.
3. It said it had repaired the bathroom and bedroom radiators and the shower pull-cord, on the same day or the day after the resident had reported these issues. It had not yet repaired the drain cover and the manhole cover or the front door, but it was still within its timeframe for completing these.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process on 26 January 2022. She said a note had been posted through her door saying that the landlord’s contractors needed to take measurements for the front door, however, she had been at work as the landlord had not told her the contractor was due to attend. The roofing contractors had told her that there had been numerous leaks to the roof and that there were sections where the membrane lining the roof, had been breached.
On 1 July 2022, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said it had met with the resident on 29 June 2022. It explained:
1. The resident had said the roofing contractor had told her the roof needed replacing, however the contractor had told the landlord that no further works were needed, and that all the leaks had been rectified. The landlord said it would therefore arrange for a different contractor to assess the roof on 6 July 2022.
2. It had replaced the front door.
3. The resident had said that the external walls in the kitchen were damp. It would arrange for a CCTV survey of the drains to be carried out on 6 July 2022, to try and establish the cause of the damp. If the drains were not the issue, it said it would carry-out further investigative work.
4. The resident had raised the following additional issues: the seal round the side door needed to be replaced, repairs were needed to the toilet, there were holes in the concrete hallway floor, a hole in the bottom of a step, the bedroom radiator was not working, there was black silicone around the bath, and a plug socket in the kitchen was loose. The landlord said it had arranged for all these repairs to be attended to on 6 July 2022.
5. The fencing was in need of repair. The landlord said this would be completed on 12 July 2022.
6. It apologised for the delays, the poor service, and its failure to answer the resident’s complaint. It offered the resident £50 compensation.
The resident contacted the landlord on 12 July 2022. She said that its contractor had said both the door and the frame of the side door to the property, needed replacing. She said that the following works were outstanding: the CCTV survey of the drains to investigate the damp and mould in the kitchen, the kitchen plug socket, the roof, and the fence on the left-hand side of the garden. On 14 July 2022, the resident said she would not accept the compensation offered by the landlord as the issues had cost her a lot more in time taken off work, and she had suffered disruption whilst the repairs were carried out as well as inconvenience, stress, and time in chasing the repairs. She said that work was still outstanding to the kitchen floor and another contractor had turned up without informing her in advance.
On 20 July 2022, the resident complained to the Ombudsman. She said the CCTV survey of the drain had not yet taken place. A roofing contractor had attended three weeks ago and said work needed doing to the roof and scaffolding would need to go back up. Work to the toilet had been completed, however, this had not remedied the water pressure. The kitchen plug socket had not been replaced. There was still light coming through the side door. The fence on the left-hand side of the garden had not been repaired.
A CCTV survey of the drain took place on 5 August 2022. The survey identified that there were some areas where the drain needed relining, and this work was completed on 9 August 2022.
On 23 August 2022, the resident confirmed to the Service that the bathroom and the plug socket in the kitchen had been repaired. She said that the landlord’s contractors had been passive aggressive and had made misogynistic comments to her.
On 31 August 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident. It said:
1. It was satisfied that the repair of the fence had been completed. However, it had asked its contractor to remove debris left in the resident’s garden.
2. It would repair the wooden floorboards in the property on 12 September 2022.
3. It apologised that the resident had not been informed in advance about the contractors erecting scaffolding at the property. It would ensure that she was contacted before repair work started on the roof.
4. Its contractor had surveyed the side door. A replacement door would take around six weeks to manufacture.
5. It said it would make an appointment to inspect all the works once the repairs were complete.
The landlord’s repair records state that on 13 September 2022, the roof underfelt was repaired, and several roof tiles were replaced. On 20 and 21 September, the landlord renewed the plastering and skirting board in the kitchen. The resident sent the landlord photos of the roof on 9 October 2022. She said she could see light coming through on both sides of the chimney.
On 29 March 2023, the resident contacted the landlord. She said there were still patches of daylight coming in through the roof. She said that there was still not enough water in the toilet system, the kitchen walls were damp again and the drains behind the kitchen were not draining properly.
The landlord has confirmed that further repairs were completed as follows:
1. On 4 May 2023, it replaced the toilet.
2. On 17 August 2023, it treated the mould on the kitchen wall and to the side of the kitchen unit and repaired an external tap which was leaking.
3. On 14 September 2023, it installed a channel drain to address the drain behind the kitchen not draining properly.
4. On 24 October 2023, it inspected the roof and replaced a tile which had slipped.
5. On 25 October 2023, it installed an extractor fan in the kitchen.
The landlord has told the Service that it has no specific records to show that the concrete flooring in the hallway was an issue and said that a surveyor’s visit on 25 August 2023, found no issue with the flooring. It said that the resident had confirmed on 3 November 2023, that all repairs had been completed.
The resident has told the Service that the landlord has replaced the fencing on the left-hand side of the garden. She confirmed that the landlord had replaced the toilet but that the water levels are still low. She said she had been told that this was due to the configuration of the pipework in the bathroom. She said that the concrete floor in the hallway is still wet when it rains, and this has stopped her from putting flooring or carpets down.

Assessment

Scope of investigation

It was appropriate that the landlord met with the resident on 29 June 2022, prior to issuing its stage 2 complaint response. This is good practice as it allows the landlord to ensure it has fully understood the complaint, to check which issues remain outstanding, and what outcome the resident is seeking. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the resident raised the repairs needed to the toilet, the kitchen socket, the side door, the holes in the concrete hallway floor, the silicone in the bathroom, or the fencing prior to meeting with the landlord on 29 June 2022. However, given that the landlord included these issues in its stage 2 complaint response, they fall within the scope of this investigation. This is because the landlord should have made it clear in its stage 2 complaint response, which issues it had not escalated to stage 2 of its complaints process and set out the reasons for this. It should have issued a separate stage one complaint response to these issues if it wished to consider them separately through its complaints process.
The landlord told the Service on 15 September 2022, that it did not agree that the toilet, kitchen plug socket, the side door or the fencing should be within the scope of this investigation as the resident had not raised these issues in her stage one complaint or in the escalation of her complaint to stage 2. However, the landlord had contacted the resident on 9 September 2022, to confirm that the repairs to the toilet, the kitchen plug socket, the side door, and the fencing had exhausted its complaints procedure and therefore would form part of the Ombudsman’s investigation. It would be unfair to expect the resident to start the complaints process again in respect of these issues when the landlord had responded to the complaint and given referral rights for the Ombudsman. The landlord has had the opportunity to consider the complaint points in respect of the toilet, plug socket, side door and fencing through its complaints process and has waived its right to do so in its correspondence with the resident and the Ombudsman.
The resident told the landlord that she suffered from stress caused by its handling of the repairs. The Service does not doubt the resident’s comments about her health. However, it is beyond the Ombudsman’s remit to consider whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions or inaction and the resident’s health. The Service can consider any distress and inconvenience caused by any errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her health.

Policies and procedures

Under the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining the structure and exterior of the property.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will complete general repairs within 20 working days. It states that where items need replacing or manufacturing, or where materials need ordering, repairs can take up to 60 days. The policy also states that the landlord will arrange appointments with residents prior to carrying out repairs.
The landlord’s complaints policy has 2 stages. The policy states that at both stages it will respond within 15 working days wherever possible. If it cannot respond within this timeframe, it will contact residents to let them know the reasons for the delay and when they can expect to receive a response. The policy states where an extension of time is needed, it will update residents every 2 weeks.
The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code), published on our website, sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling. The Code states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate.

The landlord’s handling of the repairs

The landlord acted reasonably in setting out all the repairs the resident had reported since she moved to the property, and what action it had taken so far to remedy these, in its stage one complaint response. This was a practical approach as the resident had not specified in her complaint which repairs remained outstanding.
The landlord has told the Service it had arranged for an inspection of the damp and mould at the property, to take place on 30 March 2022. It said the member of staff due to carry this out was unwell and the inspection was not reorganised. It is not clear when the landlord became aware that this inspection had been missed, and the Service has not seen evidence that it informed the resident that this had happened. This missed inspection suggests poor record keeping by the landlord and the delay will have caused the resident time, trouble, and inconvenience. It is recommended that the landlord review its existing systems to ensure that these are capable of accurately capturing information about planned inspections, and that the information is easily accessible, in line with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (published on our website).
It was reasonable that the landlord arranged a CCTV inspection of the drain to establish what was causing the damp to the walls in the kitchen. It acted appropriately in repairing the drain and in renewing the plastering and skirting board in the kitchen. The resident told the landlord on 29 March 2023 that the kitchen wall was damp again. The landlord carried out further repairs to address this damp on 17 August 2023 and installed an extractor fan on 25 October 2023. However, this was 4-7 months after the resident had told the landlord that the damp and mould in the kitchen had reoccurred. This was a failing as these repairs fell well outside of the landlord’s timescales for completing repairs within 20 working days. It is recommended that the landlord monitor the damp and mould in the kitchen to satisfy itself that the measures it has taken to remedy the issue, have been effective.
The landlord has told the Service that the original roof repair was raised on 8 July 2021, and works were carried out to realign the gutter. It has said that further works to the roof were raised with its roofing contractors on 14 December 2021 and the work was completed on 2 February 2022. The landlord has said it is unable to comment on what happened between the contractors’ initial visit and works being completed in February 2022, as there was a change to the system used to record repairs and some information was lost during the transfer. The Service has not seen evidence to show that the landlord informed the resident of the reasons for this delay.
It was appropriate that in its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord agreed to arrange for a second contractor to assess the roof, given that the resident had told it that it had not been fully repaired. The landlord’s repair records indicate that the roof underfelt was repaired, and tiles were replaced on 13 September 2022. The landlord has provided photos to the Service which show repairs around the chimney stack. However, the resident sent the landlord photos taken on 9 October 2022, which appear to show daylight coming through areas of the roof. The landlord carried out a further repair to the roof on 24 October 2023. This was a year after the resident reported that the roof had not been fully repaired and significantly exceeded the landlord’s timescales for completing repairs within 20 working days.
As noted above, the landlord has confirmed that it installed a channel drain behind the kitchen on 14 September 2023. However, this repair was completed over 5 months after the resident reported that issues with the drain had reoccurred. These additional delays in addressing the damp and mould, the delays in repairing the roof and the delays in the further repairs to the drain were unacceptable and will have caused the resident time, trouble, and inconvenience.
The resident has confirmed that the landlord has replaced the toilet but that the water in the toilet has remained low. It is recommended that the landlord inspect the toilet to identify the cause of the issue and consider whether it can take action to remedy this.
As noted above, the landlord has told the Service that it has no records to show that there was an issue with the concrete floor in the hallway. However, it clearly mentioned that the resident had raised this issue, in its stage 2 complaint response of 1 July 2022. It said that its surveyor had not observed any issues with the hallway floor on a visit on 25 August 2023. The resident told the Service on 16 November 2023 that the concrete floor still gets wet to the extent that she cannot put flooring or carpets down. The landlord is ordered to carry out an inspection of the concrete floor in the hallway, ensuring that it carries out repairs to remedy any identified issues.
The resident told the landlord she wanted compensation for loss of earnings for the time she had to take off work during the repairs. However, the Service will not propose a remedy of compensation to reimburse a resident for their time off work, loss of wages or loss of employment whilst repairs are carried out. Whilst such works will inevitably cause some inconvenience to residents, their occupancy agreement will require them to give access for repairs to be carried out as needed, and it would not be fair or reasonable for the Ombudsman to order a landlord to pay a resident reimbursement for loss of earnings for routine appointments. However, the Ombudsman can consider time, trouble and inconvenience caused where repairs appointments are repeatedly missed or fail to resolve the repair issue.
The resident told the landlord that she had suffered from stress caused by the landlord’s handling of the repairs. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to look at whether it could take any steps to support the resident and/or refer her to other agencies who may be able to provide support. It would also have been appropriate for the landlord to advise her that she could pursue a personal injury claim with its liability insurer should she wish to do so for damage to her health. The landlord should pass on its insurer’s details to the resident now so she can make a claim if she wants to. It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to comment on the outcome or handling of insurance claims and therefore we could not comment on the actions of the landlord’s liability insurer if a claim is made to it.
The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation. This offer is not proportionate to the failings identified by this investigation. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, published on our website, sets out our approach to compensation. The remedies guidance states that where maladministration has been identified that has adversely affected the resident, £100-£600 compensation should be considered. The landlord should offer the resident £250 compensation for its failures in its handling of the repairs, bringing the total compensation for this aspect of the complaint to £300, taking into account the landlord’s earlier offer of £50.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint procedure on 26 January 2022. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 1 July 2022. This exceeded its timescale for doing so by 4 months and the Service has not seen evidence that it wrote to the resident to explain that it needed more time to investigate her complaint. This delay was unreasonable and will have caused the resident time, trouble, and inconvenience as she was left waiting for a response to her complaint for longer than she should have been.
The resident told the landlord that its contractors were not pre-booking appointments with her in advance, in her stage one complaint of 14 October 2021, in her stage 2 complaint of 26 January 2022, and on 14 July 2022. In line with the Code set out above, the landlord should have addressed this aspect of the resident’s complaint. The landlord has told the Service that its contractors said they had booked all appointments with the resident in advance, however, the resident raised this issue multiple times and although it is accepted that the contractor apologised on one occasion for not notifying the resident in advance, the Service has not seen evidence to show that the landlord investigated this issue fully. This will have caused the resident frustration as well as further inconvenience. It is recommended that the landlord’s review its processes to ensure that all routine repair appointments are confirmed in writing with residents, giving at least 24 hours’ notice.
On 5 July 2022, the landlord sent the resident a customer acceptance form in relation to the £50 compensation it had offered her. The form contained the following wording: “this payment is accepted as resolving my complaint”. It is recommended that the landlord consider the language it uses when communicating offers of compensation, as the wording it currently uses may give residents the impression that if they accept any compensation, they cannot raise further complaints if the issues remain unresolved, or are prevented from taking further action, such as bringing a complaint to the Ombudsman or raising a legal claim for disrepair. Residents should be able to accept offers of compensation whilst still pursuing a complaint to the Ombudsman and we will assess whether we consider the compensation the landlord offered previously to be sufficient.
As noted above, the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that where maladministration by the landlord has been identified which adversely affected the resident, £100-£600 compensation should be considered. The landlord should offer the resident £200 for its failures in its handling of the associated complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repairs to the resident’s property.
In accordance with Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB, is outside the Service’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s staff and contractors’ conduct, is outside the Service’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident the following compensation within 5 weeks of the date of this report, ensuring that the Service is provided with evidence of compliance by the same date:
  1. £250 for its failures in its handling of the repairs to the resident’s property. This is in addition to the £50 offered by the landlord through its complaints process.
  2. £200 for its failures in its handling of the associated complaint.
2. Inspect the concrete floor in the hallway and carry-out any necessary repairs within 5 weeks of the date of this report, ensuring that the Service is provided with evidence of compliance by the same date.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Monitor the damp and mould in the kitchen to satisfy itself that the measures it has taken to remedy the issue, have been effective.
2. Inspect the toilet to identify the reasons for the low water level and consider taking action to remedy this.
3. Review its existing systems to ensure that these are capable of accurately capturing repairs information and that this is easily accessible, to ensure it can track planned inspections and repairs, to prevent appointments being missed.
4. Review its processes to ensure all appointments for routine repairs are confirmed in writing to residents, giving at least 24 hours’ notice.
5. Review the language it uses on its compensation forms, to ensure it does not give residents the impression that in accepting compensation, they cannot submit further complaints or take further action.