Leeds City Council (202212888)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212888

Leeds City Council

27 July 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 the resident’s reports of:
1. Repairs to the radiators.
2. Repairs to the electrics.
3. Poor plasterwork in the living room.
4. Damp and mould.
5. Repairs to the back garden fence.
The landlord’s complaint handling was also determined.

Background

The resident is the secure tenant of a three-bedroomed house where she lives with her two children, the younger having significant disabilities. The tenancy agreement was signed in late October 2021 with a start date of 1 November 2021, but the resident was unable to move into the property until 22 December 2021, some seven-and-a-half weeks later. The resident reported that was because the property was uninhabitable, and the landlord needed to complete outstanding repairs.
The landlord’s records show that it visited the property on 6 July 2021 whilst it was empty following the departure of the previous tenant. The electric and water supply were turned off and the cooker was capped. The boiler was drained and removed. The landlord noted there was only partial heating at the property as there were no radiators upstairs and that that needed to be resolved before the property was re-let. The radiators downstairs were determined to be in an acceptable state of repair.
On 19 July 2021 an inspection took place which identified that plastering works were required to the lounge and kitchen with extensive works required to the rear garden. An electrical inspection was then carried out on 20 September 2021 and marked as “satisfactory”. Finally, the landlord completed a quality inspection form on 14 October 2021 noting the garden was not “clear and presentable”, but the property met a lettable standard.
The landlord attended the property on 11 November 2021 to assess what work was needed but two weeks later, on 25 November 2021 the resident emailed it noting nothing had been sorted and she still could not move in. In addition, at least one of the existing downstairs radiators was now leaking. A survey was then arranged for 30 November to measure up and by this point it had been decided that the existing radiators would need changing. The resident was then given a date for the work of 16 December 2021 even though she had advised the landlord that she was under pressure to leave her existing home – having told the landlord of that property that she would be moving out by the beginning of November 2021. The work was then brought forward to 13 December 2021 but still two radiators could not be installed. The work was finally finished by 21 December 2021, and this included resolving a further leak.
Meanwhile on 1 December 2021, the resident complained to the landlord about its handling of the repairs required to the property. The landlord accepted that the heating in the property had not been installed by the start of the tenancy. It arranged for its installation. It also attended to electrical repairs and actioned changes to the rear garden. The landlord offered the resident a goodwill payment of £50, later increased to £100 by way of compensation. It also agreed to credit her rent account with £600 for the time that she could not live in the property.
The resident remained dissatisfied with this response. She considers the compensation offered does not reflect the impact on her and her family of the delayed move and all of the uncertainty that the situation caused. The resident maintains she was put to significant time and trouble in travelling to the property from her existing home (some thirty miles away) to facilitate works and check on progress. She reports that the landlord failed to compensate her for the monies she had spent resolving issues within the property herself and that it cost her money in terms of an aborted carpet fitting, and also regarding decorations that were subsequently ruined by ongoing remedial works.
By way of resolution, the resident wants any outstanding works to be completed and she wants increased compensation. The landlord has confirmed that all works have now been done.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

It is the approach of this Service to only consider complaints once a landlord has had the opportunity to respond to them through its internal complaints procedure. This is because the landlord must be given the opportunity to respond to concerns raised and put things right before the Ombudsman looks at matters.
This is set out in our Scheme Rules at paragraph 42(a) which states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure …”
Often complaints are made about situations that are still developing and new issues emerge during the course of the complaints process. Under these circumstances the landlord may decline to look at those new issues, stating they must be put forward as part of a fresh complaint. Alternatively, the landlord might accept the additional issues and address them in its response.
One of the issues which the resident has referred for investigation relates to the boiler in the property. She reports it was not properly installed and ready for use at the date when she was due to move in.
It is clear from the landlord’s records that the resident was in regular contact with it about a number of issues, including the boiler. However, in her email to the landlord of 1 December 2021 where she summarised the problems she had been experiencing, she did not mention this issue. The resident stated that the landlord should take that communication as a formal complaint. Accordingly, the landlord did not investigate its handling of the boiler reinstallation or respond to it in its stage one complaint response. The resident did not correct the landlord in her subsequent communications requesting escalation of the complaint. She did not say it had failed to address this part of her concerns.
This issue cannot, therefore, be included as part of the complaint to be investigated here because the landlord has not had the opportunity to look at it through its internal complaints procedure. The boiler will be referred to however because it provides context to the situation as a whole.
Following the landlord’s stage one complaint response the resident raised the issues of its handling of a repair to the fencing in the rear garden and of the presence of damp and mould at the property. The landlord addressed these issues and therefore voluntarily included them in the complaint, and they will be considered as part of this investigation.
However, after the stage two complaint response was given, the resident raised further, new issues. These repeated her concerns about the fencing but also included the fact the rear garden turfing was dying as the landlord had not tended it; she also complained about the landlord’s contractor cutting through her wi-fi cable; about it making a mess on her tarmac; and about it leaving external drainpipes unconnected. The landlord treated these issues as a new complaint, although it also included the fencing even though that had been referred to in the previous complaint.
Those issues were then examined and responded to by the landlord according to its internal complaints procedure which concluded stage two on 31 October 2022. However, by that point, the resident had already referred the issues she wanted investigating to this service. They did not include these new points, which, as can be seen, had not completed the landlord’s procedure at that time anyway. Accordingly, those issues will not be considered as part of this investigation report. The resident should let this Service know if she wants the Ombudsman to investigate these matters and we will set up a new complaint reference number.

Reports of repairs to the radiators

Following a visit to the property on 9 November 2021 the operative reported back to the landlord that there were only three radiators in the property with none upstairs. It is unclear why this matter was not identified when the quality inspection took place in October 2021. This was a failing on the landlord’s behalf.
The evidence shows that, at the time the resident was meant to move into the property, no steps had been taken by the landlord to install the upstairs radiators. The landlord was aware of the start date for the tenancy therefore it was reasonable for the resident to expect that this matter would have been resolved before that date. Any timeframe for remedial works, set out in the landlord’s repair policy, would not be relevant in these circumstances as a specific deadline applied that is, the date the tenancy started.
Work to renew the downstairs radiators and install some upstairs was not completed until 21 December 2021; over seven weeks after the resident had been due to move in. The time taken was not appropriate; there was a lack of urgency by the landlord, especially given the resident’s pressing need to move out of her previous property. The landlord’s handling of the works fell below a reasonable standard.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether any redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
In this case the landlord offered of a rent adjustment of £600 for the period during which the resident was bound to pay rent but could not move into the property. This offer amounted to an acceptance by the landlord that the property was not ready for occupation and therefore confirmed a significant service failing. The tenancy agreement shows a weekly rent of £78.10, and the amount offered does cover the period in question. That rent adjustment was an appropriate step for the landlord to take.
The landlord then offered a goodwill gesture of £50, which was subsequently raised to £100 but the wording of this offer suggested that in the landlord’s view it had got little, if anything, wrong and that this sum was offered purely to maintain good relations. The landlord’s stance did not represent a reasonable approach to dispute resolution; the offer made was at odds with the rent adjustment.
This Service’s guidance on remedies sets out that compensation may be offered for not just definable losses but also for distress and inconvenience and for the time and trouble that the resident is put to. Awards in the bracket of £250 to £700 are considered appropriate where there has been considerable service failure or maladministration but with no permanent impact. This case falls within that bracket.
The resident’s emails reflected the frustration and distress experienced by her and also her concern at the prospect of moving her family, including her vulnerable younger child into the property. There was considerable uncertainty about when she would finally be able to move coupled with the logistics of changing her plans and placating her former landlord. An order has been made for compensation of £500 to reflect the impact on the resident by the property not being ready for occupation. This replaces the £100 previously offered.
In addition, the resident was put to evident time and trouble. She was living some 30 miles away and explained to this Service that she had a school run and caring responsibilities to prioritise. She was expecting to move and had, no doubt, packed up all her belongings. She needed to arrange appropriate floor covers at the property ready for occupation and ensure it was suitably decorated. The resident explained that she was put to significant time and trouble in trying to accommodate all of the appointments for contractors to attend the property, given she had keys for it at that point. An order has been made below for compensation of £250 which includes consideration of the resident’s additional travelling costs which would not have been incurred had she been able to move in as planned.
In terms of quantifiable losses, the resident reports that she decorated the living room, but then the installation of a new radiator in that room ruined her efforts. The resident invited the landlord to pay compensation for this but did not provide any evidence of her costs. The landlord therefore made no offer in respect of this item.
However, in the landlord’s internal email dated 14 December 2021 it noted that the new radiator installed in the living room after decoration was “about 8” shorter than the previous one” with the comment, “who surveyed this?”. The landlord was aware that this action had impacted the resident and it might reasonably have offered some compensation to reflect the fact. A further order for compensation of £100 has been made below to recognise the additional decoration required.
The resident also reports that she arranged for the carpet/flooring fitters to come to the property only for the visit to be aborted when they could not complete the job due to the ongoing installation of the radiators. She states it cost her an additional £350 for a further appointment to be booked but has offered no evidence of this expense. The landlord declined to make an offer on this basis but did offer to reopen its stage two complaint response if the resident provided it. The landlord acted reasonably in this regard.

Report of repairs to the electrics

The resident reported on 25 November 2021 that some of the light fittings were unusable due to their age and the kitchen light only worked sporadically. This was not something that had been identified during the void period. The landlord had had a full inspection of the electrics in the property, and it acted reasonably in relying on that specialist report. This could, therefore, be classified as a repair rather than a” void issue”.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance handbook sets out that such electrical repairs are classified as “general” repairs and should be carried out within 20 working days. An electrician attended the property on 8 December 2021 and therefore this timescale was met; no service failing has been identified.
The resident is concerned that these items reflect a wider picture of electrical disrepair rendering the property unsafe. This Service does not have the remit to inspect properties for disrepair or to offer an expert opinion on their condition. There is no suggestion that there were further electrical issues following on from this and which might support the resident’s view. The landlord’s handling of this issue was therefore reasonable.

Reports of poor plasterwork in the living room

In the resident’s complaint she stated that the walls in the property were “practically falling apart” in the hallway and bedrooms and that she had arranged replastering of the living room herself. She later confirmed to the landlord that this had cost £255, although that included the bathroom.
The landlord’s response was that an inspection had confirmed the plasterwork upstairs was acceptable, but it gave a commitment to replaster where required. The landlord’s response was fair in this regard.
Further with respect to the living room replaster and the cost of it, the landlord noted that the resident had not reported the issue, thus preventing it doing anything about it. It commented it had received no evidence of the cost from the resident and made no offer in respect of it.
However, the landlord’s void inspection on 19 July 2021 had identified that the living room needed to be replastered along with the kitchen, and upstairs ceilings. It is reasonable to conclude this had not been done given the fact the resident felt the need to have the living room replastered. Had it been freshly plastered, the resident is unlikely to have concluded it needed doing.
The landlord’s failure to carry out this void work represented a failing in the service it offered to the resident. It had the opportunity to correct the issue before the start of the tenancy and the lack of a specific report from the resident was irrelevant. In terms of remedy, the landlord might reasonably have offered some compensation to the resident for her time and trouble in organising the work and an order for £100 has been made below.
With regard to the cost of the replastering, whilst the resident did not offer evidence, it is reasonable to conclude an inspection by the landlord of the living room would have revealed that it had been done. It might reasonably have been able to estimate the value of those works based on its experience as a landlord. An order for compensation of £200 has been made below. This is slightly less than the amount claimed by the resident because the bathroom plastering had not been identified in the void inspection and the landlord had not, therefore, had the opportunity to rectify it.

Reports of damp and mould

The resident reports that the property was suffering from damp and mould and she had to pay for that to be treated in the absence of the landlord dealing with it.
There is no suggestion of a damp and/or mould issue being present in the property in the records relating to the inspection(s) which took place whilst it was empty. The resident did not report this issue to the landlord for possible “repair” prior to treating it herself. The presence and extent of it has not been established. Consequently, the landlord cannot be said to have failed in dealing with this issue. Accordingly, no award can be made for the resident’s claimed expense of a mould treatment.

Reports of repairs to the back garden fence

On 21 February 2022 the resident reported the rear garden fence had fallen and needed repair. On 2 March 2022 the landlord confirmed it had been booked for a repair on 28 March 2022.
However, the resident reports that nobody turned up for that appointment and it was then rescheduled for 3 May 2022 when it could not be dealt with because, according to the landlord, there was scaffolding in the way. The landlord reattended on 9 June and removed the existing fencing but realised there was lots of rubbish in the garden which needed to be disposed of first. Its contractor confirmed it had dealt with this on 12 August 2022 and the repair was concluded on 24 August 2022. In the meantime, the contractor had taped the garden off so that it could not be used. This was to safeguard the children as some of the items found there were a potential danger to them. The resident was unable to use the garden for at least three months during which time her freshly laid turfing had not been cut and was dying due to lack of maintenance.
The landlord’s records do not set out if it had cleared the garden and replaced the fencing and therefore the failure was with the new fencing; or whether it had not conducted any work in the garden. In any event, it took the landlord at least from the end of February to 24 August 2022 to resolve that issue and this meant the resident and her family could not use the garden for much of that that time. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance handbook commits it to conclude general repairs in 20 working days although it does envisage that jobs may not always be concluded on the first visit. There was therefore a significant delay in the landlord resolving this matter and that represents a failing in the service it offered to the tenant.
In its complaint handling the landlord did not offer any explanation for the delay in repairing the fence or consider the impact on the family. It would have been reasonable for the landlord offered the resident compensation to reflect the fact the garden could not be used for such an extended period. An order for compensation of £300 has been made below.

Complaint handling

The landlord sets out in its compliments and complaints policy how it aims to deal with complaints. It operates a two-stage process. Firstly, it commits to acknowledging complaints within three working days with an initial investigation and response within 15 working days. If the resident remains unhappy then they can ask for the complaint to be escalated to stage two – which is a review by a ‘senior officer’. It is expected that residents will do this within one calendar month unless there are exceptional circumstances. The landlord then commits to providing its response within a further 15 working days. The policy states “when escalating a complaint, it is beneficial to be clear in your reasons for progressing your complaint and what your desired outcome is”.
In this case the complaint was made on 1 December 2021 and acknowledged the same day. A response should have been provided by 21 December 2021, but this was not done until 21 January 2022, a delay of some four weeks. That delay was a service failing.
However, the landlord failed to properly address the issues raised by the resident in respect of the heating. The complaint response should address the issues raised, not merely confirm whether they have been/will be completed.
When resident requested a review explaining that the compensation offered was inadequate, the landlord did not escalate the complaint. Rather it increased its offer of compensation to £100, which the resident rejected. The landlord subsequently asked the resident if she wished the matter to be escalated and what her reasons were, despite the fact she had already made this request twice. Despite that, the landlord then repeated that the resident needed to give reasons for the escalation. However, its policy, as set out above, does not include this requirement as a precondition to escalation; it only says it would be helpful for the landlord to have this information. The resident responded the same day saying she wanted the complaint “moving on”.
On 22 February 2022 the landlord stated this could only be done if there was something new for it to consider. Again, its policy does not state this. On 2 March 2022 the resident emailed the landlord with a list of reasons for the review and the landlord confirmed it was escalating the complaint on 7 March 2022. The delay in escalating the complaint was not appropriate. The escalation of the complaint should have taken place on or around 21 January 2022 and this delayed the final response by about five weeks; that delay was not appropriate.
The landlord’s complaint handling fell below the standard the resident was reasonably entitled to expect. Her frustration on trying to escalate the complaint to stage two is clear from her communications. An order for compensation of £250 has been made below to reflect the impact upon her in terms of her distress and inconvenience and taking account of the time and trouble she was put to in pursuing the matter.
Finally, for the sake of completeness, the Ombudsman has noted the following point from the landlord’s records. On 3 November 2021 (just two days after the start of the tenancy) the landlord was provided with a report from an Occupational Therapist who had viewed the property. This related to the resident’s younger child and her needs given her disabilities. The therapist recommended works to the garden.
In the landlord’s response to this Service’s evidence request the landlord commented as follows: “There are no vulnerabilities recorded on our system. However, repair records indicate a child living in the property is disabled”.
The landlord is reminded of its duty to maintain appropriate records and the vulnerability of the child of the family might reasonably have been officially recorded on its system. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to attend to this.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of repairs to the radiators.
2. Reports of poor plasterwork in the living room.
3. Reports of repairs to the rear garden fencing.
4. Complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. Repairs to the electrics.
2. Damp and mould.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

A senior member of the landlord staff should write to the resident with an apology for the failings identified in this report.
The landlord should provide training to its complaints handling staff on its complaint procedures so that they can effectively recognise a complaint escalation request.
The landlord should pay the resident compensation of £1,700 calculated as:
1. £500 distress and inconvenience of not being able to move in on the tenancy start date.
2. £250 for the time and trouble pursuing outstanding repairs.
3. £100 decorating costs.
4. £100 for the time and trouble pursuing the replastering repair.
5. £200 plastering costs,
6. £300 for impact of the delay in the fencing repairs.
7. £250 for its complaint handling.
The landlord should confirm with this Service that it has complied with the Order within four weeks of receiving this determination.

Recommendations

The landlord to ensure its records properly reflect the vulnerabilities of the resident’s younger child.