Leeds City Council (202205740)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205740

Leeds City Council

12 January 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

1. The complaint is about:

1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a back-garden fence to be erected.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of foxholes in the back-garden.

Background

2. The resident, who is an assured tenant, lives in a property with a back-garden. The garden had no dividing fence between her garden and the garden of another property at the rear.
3. On 25 March 2022, the resident raised a formal complaint in which she requested that the landlord erect a dividing fence at the rear of the garden, and also for the landlord to clear foxholes that were present. She also said that she had been waiting for the work for one year and that, as well as the work being completed, she wanted reimbursement for the rent that she had paid over the year. She felt that the lack of a fence was a hazard for her young child and therefore believed the landlord should install the fence.
4. The landlord advised that it would not be obligated to clear the foxholes, yet agreed to proceed with the work nonetheless. This was completed on 24 June 2022. However, after several visits to the property, it advised the resident in its stage one response over the telephone that it was not in line with its fencing policy to erect the garden fence.
5. The landlord’s final response (12 July 2022) noted that the resident had confirmed that the work to the foxholes had been completed. However, following another request to install the fence by the resident, and having told her that it would not erect the fence, it advised the resident that it had made a further request for the work to be completed. As well as this, the landlord apologised for the inconvenience that had been caused and offered £100 as a goodwill gesture. However, it did not specify exactly what inconvenience it was referring to, nor did it confirm whether or not the complaint had been upheld.
6. The resident advised this Service that she wanted £800 compensation due to how the ordeal had affected her mental health, and that the garden fence had still not been erected. She believed that it should be installed as she felt that it was a health and safety risk to her young child. She also advised this Service that she had been living with her mother, and could not move into the property until the fence was installed, due to health and safety fears regarding her child. In regard to the completion of the work to the foxholes, the resident expressed no dissatisfaction with the final work, and only that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s overall handling of the issue.

Assessment and findings

Policies & Procedures

7. Section 3.2 of the landlord’s fencing policy states that it “will not replace or upgrade: dividing fences between properties”.
8. The landlord’s repairs handbook states that the resident is responsible for “gardens and trees”.
9. The landlord’s repairs handbook states that “general” repairs are to be completed within “20 working days”.

Scope of Investigation

10. The resident has referenced seeking £800 due to the effect the issue had on her mental health. However, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for a back-garden fence to be erected

11. As outlined in the landlord’s fencing policy, the landlord is not responsible for the maintenance or installation of dividing fences. Dividing fences would be the responsibility of the resident, and should the resident wish to install one, written permission would need to be granted by the landlord. As such, it was reasonable and in line with its obligations for the landlord not to install the fence.
12. Given that the landlord’s responsibilities were clearly set out in its policies, the landlord should have made its obligations clear to the resident upon her first request for the fence to be installed. However, the evidence and correspondence provided suggests that no definitive stance regarding the situation was given to the resident. This caused confusion and delay in resolving the situation.
13. Following the resident’s first request for a fence to be erected (it is unclear when this was made), the landlord should have explained its fencing policy to the resident and ensured that she understood the landlord’s obligations. This would have prevented any unnecessary confusion to be experienced by the resident.
14. However, it is clear that, on multiple occasions, the landlord raised an order to have the garden inspected with the intention to potentially install the fence, despite it being outside of its fencing policy. Due to this, it is clear that the resident received conflicting information regarding the landlord’s ability to carry out the work; and, due to the landlord repeatedly raising the job, the resident was potentially under the impression that the landlord would complete the work.
15. On 10 March 2022, an operative attended the property to inspect the garden regarding the installation of the fence. However, he noted that it was his third time visiting regarding the fence, and that installing the fence would not comply with the landlord’s policies. Evidently, it had been made clear to the landlord that the work was not within its remit. As such, this should have been communicated to the resident. However, it was not until the resident raised a formal complaint on 25 March 2022, that she was informed that it was contrary to its policy as part of the landlord’s response.
16. Following this, an internal email on 5 July 2022 confirmed that one of the landlord’s operatives had spoken to the resident, who advised that she still wanted the back fence to be installed. The landlord acknowledged the request in its final response (12 July 2022) and confirmed that although it would not normally fit a fence in her circumstances, it would make a request to the repairs team for it to be considered. A note from the landlord on the same date confirmed that the order had been raised, but that it had been cancelled as it did not comply with the fencing policy. No evidence has been provided to indicate that the resident was informed that the job was cancelled.
17. It is not immediately clear why the landlord once again ordered work that it had raised and cancelled several times due to it not being in line with its own policies. As such it is clear there were internal communication failures and there was a delay in the resident receiving a definitive explanation as to why the fence could not be installed as per the landlord’s obligations. Although it is the resident’s responsibility to read and understand the landlord’s policies, the landlord is expected to provide clarity to the resident should she make particular requests.
18. Communication is an important part of the landlord’s service delivery. It is vital that the landlord gives updates and keeps the resident informed as to decisions that have been made regarding her requests. Failure to keep the resident informed would have a detrimental effect on the landlord/tenant relationship, as it can convey the feeling that her requests have not been taken seriously.
19. Whilst the landlord’s efforts in communicating its responsibilities to the resident were below the expected standard, it is also important to note how long this had caused the delay in resolution. The resident’s formal complaint suggested that she had been waiting for the repairs to be completed for a year, as they had not been done since the date she moved into the property. Although the evidence provided does not go back that far, aspects of the correspondence given supports this, and it is is also not disputed by the landlord. The landlord clearly failed to manage the resident’s expectations multiple times throughout its handling of the resident’s request.
20. In regard to definitive answers, in response to the resident’s request to install her own fence, the landlord advised the resident, in a phone call following her formal complaint, that she would need to gain permission for her to do so. However, it has not been made clear to this Service that the landlord has progressed this request, or given an answer. It would be appropriate for the landlord to determine whether the resident still wished to install her own fence, and to provide a decision regarding permission to do so. Doing this could potentially have a positive effect on the landlord/tenant relationship and ultimately resolve the issue.
21. The landlord also failed to address the resident’s health and safety concerns that had clearly been raised. As the resident’s health and safety should be a top priority of the landlord, it should have addressed the resident’s concerns in its final response. Even if the landlord did not feel as though there was a health and safety risk, it should have explained why it held this stance, and demonstrated with policies, procedures or legislation as to why it would not be the case.
22. In failing to address the resident’s health and safety concerns, it also failed to address the fact that the resident had not been living in the property. Whilst the landlord made clear that it had not been aware of this until the resident’s complaint was being investigated, there is no evidence to suggest that this aspect of the complaint had been considered further.
23. It should be noted that whilst there were service failures with the landlord’s communication to the resident, it did offer £100 as a goodwill gesture and apologised for the inconvenience caused. This Service’s remedies guidance suggests that for instances of service failure that “may have not significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident” but where there was “inconvenience, time and trouble”, a payment of £50 to £100 would be reasonable.
24. However, given that the landlord failed to acknowledge and respond to the resident’s health and safety concerns, and the fact that she had not been living in the property, further compensation is warranted. Additionally, the final response, as a whole, was insufficient. It did not clearly advise whether the complaint had been upheld, nor did it go into detail to explain exactly what inconvenience had been caused, and subsequently what the redress was for. The final response is an opportunity for the landlord to provide clarity and detail on how it drew its conclusions and how it will learn from the complaint.
25. With this in mind, and in conjunction with this Service’s remedies guidance which states that further compensation can be paid for instances in which compensation was offered, but was not proportionate to the failings identified by this Service’s investigation. Therefore, a further payment of £300 on top of the £100 already offered is appropriate for the landlord’s failures., bringing the compensation to £400.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of foxholes in the back-garden

26. As stated in the landlord’s Repairs Handbook, the resident is responsible for “gardens and trees”. Therefore, the filling in of foxholes would not come under the remit of the landlord, and the landlord would not be obliged to fill them in or make any repairs. However, the landlord exercised reasonable discretion and agreed to proceed with the work. Whilst this was admirable, there was service failure in how it handled the repairs, particularly the delay in having them completed.
27. The resident raised a formal complaint on 25 March 2022, in which she requested to have the foxholes in the garden filled in. The landlord’s stage one response was in the form of a phone call (date unclear) and confirmed with the resident a “plan of action” regarding the foxholes. An internal email on 29 March 2022 confirmed that the resident was happy with said “plan of action”.
28. The details of the action plan have not been provided and, therefore, this Service is unable to determine what details were agreed with the resident. It is important for the landlord to maintain clear and detailed records regarding any planned actions and correspondence with the resident. This is to ensure there is an audit trail should particular claims be disputed. Additionally, it allows this Service to draw conclusions with the reliance of more accurate and specific information.
29. However, whilst details have not been provided regarding expected timeframes, an internal email on 21 April 2022 acknowledged that the issue had still not been resolved. This suggests that there was a delay and a deviation from the action plan. Given that the details of the plan were not provided, it would be reasonable to hold the repair to the standards of the landlord’s Repairs Handbook, in which it states that “general” repairs are to be completed within “20 working days”.
30. The work was completed on 24 June 2022, two months after it had been agreed with the resident, and double the time stated for general repairs. This Service’s remedies guidance suggests that for instances of service failure that were “minor” and “short in duration”, a payment of £50 to £100 would be appropriate. Given that the landlord had exercised its discretionary powers to carry out a job that it was not obliged to do, and the resident confirmed that she was happy with the outcome of the work, it is the opinion of this Service that a payment of £50 would be appropriate.

Determination

31. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for a back-garden fence to be erected.
32. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of foxholes in the back-garden.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

33. The landlord is ordered to pay £450, inclusive of the £100 originally offered to the resident, broken down as follows:
    1. £400 for the service failures identified in its handling of the request to install the back garden fence.
    2. £50 for the service failure identified in its handling of the foxholes repair.
34. This is to be paid to the resident within four weeks of this investigation.
35. The landlord is also ordered to provide the resident with confirmation on whether permission will be granted for her to install her own garden fence. This is to be completed within four weeks of this investigation.

Recommendation

36. It is recommended that the landlord conducts a review of its record keeping practises in order to maintain clear and detailed records that can provide an audit trail should such evidence be needed in the future.
37. It is also recommended that the landlord provides further training to its staff so as to ensure that all relevant operatives are educated on the policies and procedures regarding specific properties, and that decisions regarding works are communicated sufficiently.