Leeds City Council (202215437)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215437

Leeds City Council

18 April 2024

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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs and a pest infestation.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s decant.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority since 2014. The property is a 3 bedroom house which he resides at with his son. Both the resident and his son have mental health issues. The resident’s daughter acts as his representative. For the purpose of this report both the resident and his daughter will be referred to as “the resident”.
The landlord’s technical officer and housing officer visited the resident on 14 November 2019 following concerns raised by his daughter about the condition of the property. Visit notes recorded that the property was in a bad state of disrepair, with rotting floorboards, water penetration and evidence of a rat infestation. Although no emergency works were highlighted, the technical officer noted that the property was “hoarded” and it would be difficult for contractors to work in the areas needed.
A case was opened with pest control, but was recorded as closed a month later because of access issues within the property. The landlord tried to carry out repairs with the resident in situ, but by October 2020 it had noted 12 appointments had been cancelled by the resident. A decision was later made to decant the resident complete the repairs and he moved into alternative accommodation on 14 July 2021.
An extensive schedule of works was produced in September 2021, once the property had been fully cleared. Remedial works then took place and the resident was given the keys back to the property on 14 June 2022. The following day, the resident made a complaint to the landlord saying that it had kept the property in disrepair for over 2 years, and had taken too long to resolve the remedial works. He reported he was “extremely disappointed” in the condition the property had been handed back in, and included photographs of the property in a poor decorative state. The resident reported feeling “invalidated”, stating that a particular member of staff had not acted with compassion or understanding. He also reported that items had been damaged by storing them in the cellar of the decant property, which he had been given written permission to use.
The landlord responded to the resident at stage 1 of its complaint process on 14 July 2022. It apologised for the length of time it had taken to complete the repairs whilst the resident was decanted and referred to a subsequent visit that took place on 22 June 2022 to discuss the resident’s outstanding repair concerns. It did not uphold that it had lacked compassion or understanding and said it had found no written evidence to demonstrate the resident had been advised he could store items in the cellar of the decant property.
The resident advised the Ombudsman he wanted the complaint escalating to the next stage, as he remained unhappy with the condition of the property. He said the decant property had been unsuitable for his needs and he wanted compensation for damaged belongings. The landlord responded on 18 November 2022. It addressed each point the resident raised and concluded that there were no outstanding repairs. It said the resident was fully supported during the decant, which it deemed to be appropriate. It concluded it found no fault with the service or information that it had provided and therefore did not feel he was entitled to any compensation.
The landlord informed the Ombudsman that the property has been ready to move back into since July 2022. However, as there were outstanding gas and electric debts on the token meters belonging to the resident, it says it has been unable to complete the appropriate safety checks which would allow him to move back into the property. The resident remains in decant accommodation to this day.
In recent contact with the Ombudsman, the resident has advised he feels the stage 2 response was an inaccurate reflection of his experience, where he alleges the property was without running water for 3 years. As a resolution, he wants compensation for the amount of time it took the landlord to address the issue and to move back into the property. He reports that arrangements have been made to clear the debt on the utility meter, but he has had no further contact from the landlord for over a year.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs and a pest infestation.

The resident has an obligation within their tenancy agreement to report repairs in a timely manner. It is clear that there were a significant amount of remedial works identified during the landlord’s visit to the property in November 2019. The resident has advised the Ombudsman that he was in verbal contact with the landlord before this time, and reported repairs in person. However no evidence was seen which documented that any repairs were reported in the 4 years prior to the visit. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the landlord was unaware of the extent of the repairs required prior to the resident’s request that it visited to inspect them.
The resident’s tenancy agreement states that residents have an obligation to keep their home “reasonably clean, free from pests and in a reasonable condition”. It goes on to explain that residents should not allow an accumulation of personal property or rubbish that obstructs access to the home. In this case, it is clear that the landlord had significant concerns about hoarding in the property. Hoarding is listed as a concern for self-neglect under the landlord’s safeguarding people policy, which explains that if concerns are identified, a referral should be made to the safeguarding lead officer, or directly to adult social care. In this case, it recognised that the resident required further assistance and it took appropriate steps to make referrals to support services and adult social care on the same day.
Despite the number of belongings in the property, the landlord had an obligation to complete the repairs. Records show that between November 2019 and March 2020 there were approximately 6 attempts to complete the repairs, which were unsuccessful as the resident did not allow access to the property. On 26 February 2020 internal correspondence shows that the landlord considered referring the matter for legal intervention, as it was confident that the resident had been offered and provided appropriate support. However there is no evidence that it pursued this and sought further advice, which ultimately prolonged the situation for both parties.
As a result, by 23 October 2020 there had been approximately 14 repair appointments which had been cancelled by the resident and the landlord recorded that it was “going around in circles”. It noted that the resident would agree to but later cancel appointments, stating that it was the contractors who would not complete the works. There is no evidence to suggest this was the case. However it is not clear what steps the landlord was taking to monitor whether the hoarding had improved and it did not make it clear to the resident that he was at risk of action being taken against his tenancy if he was to continue to refuse to allow access to the property.
Records show that the landlord was aware of the vulnerabilities within the household and tried to engage with the resident to see what support it could offer him. Records show that in November 2020, it supported him with a housing application, made referrals for food parcels and for financial support. It also referred the resident to its housing support service again and discussed the case with adult social care on several occasions. This was appropriate and showed that the landlord had considered additional support for the resident to allow it to complete the repairs, and before it pursued possible legal action.
On 10 March 2021 the landlord’s social care team confirmed to the landlord that the resident had refused support, and the situation he was living in was a “life choice” with no safeguarding risk. It was at this point that the landlord made it clearer to the resident what the consequences would be should he continue to not engage with it. Records show that the landlord was in regular contact with the resident about further support options available to him and continued to liaise with social services until he was decanted in July 2021, which was appropriate.
The prospect of moving caused the resident considerable worry and distress. It was therefore important that the landlord communicated a clear schedule of works with him so that he could understand what remedial interventions were taking place during the decant and by when. It is accepted that until the resident was decanted and all items were removed from the property, the landlord could not have anticipated the full extent of the works which were extensive. However once it gained full access to the property around September 2021, there is no evidence that the landlord communicated the plan directly with the resident, which was a missed opportunity to have better managed his expectations.
As a result, the resident raised a complaint about the condition of the property the day after he was given the keys back. Records show that although the landlord believed the reports of what was outstanding to be minor in nature, it treated his concerns seriously. It arranged a meeting with a technical officer and senior technical officer, as well as representatives from gas and repairs for the following week which was appropriate and demonstrated a willingness to put matters right for the resident. The agreed additional works were completed within 10 working days, and in accordance with the landlord’s repair policy.
Although it had taken approximately 2 and a half years from when the landlord was first aware of the repairs until it had completed them, records show it had encountered considerable difficulties in gaining access to the property at the start of the process. When responding to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 on 14 July 2022, the landlord accepted that it had taken longer than originally anticipated to resolve the repairs and apologised for the inconvenience, which was appropriate. However it did not go far enough to recognise the impact the delays had on the resident, particularly where there were considerable gaps in direct communication with him about its progress.
The resident contacted his local MP and the Ombudsman after the stage 1 response, stating he was unhappy with the condition the property had been handed back in. The landlord contacted the resident directly to obtain further information which was appropriate and within its final response, it provided a clear explanation of what steps it had taken to address each outstanding repair concern, which was reasonable. The landlord also explained it had referred the resident to its housing support team for assistance to manage his utility debt, which was appropriate.
Aspects of the resident’s request for an escalation to his complaint relate to his dissatisfaction with the way that the landlord handled his reports of a rat infestation. The landlord’s records show that when it first visited the resident in 2019, it noticed that food waste had been left and engrained on the floor which it believed to be encouraging rats. As a result, it raised an order for pest control on the same day, which was appropriate.
The landlord’s records noted that its pest control team were later unable to gain access to the property because of the level of hoarding, however there is no evidence that they reattended at a later date. Pests and infestations are a category of prescribed hazards included in the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The category also includes domestic hygiene and refuse. The HHSRS includes health hazards due to poor design, layout, and construction making it hard to keep clean and hygienic, attracting pests.
In this case, there is no evidence that the landlord raised a further visit from pest control once it was able to gain access to the property. Although the landlord’s final response confirmed there was no visual evidence of rats during its post-inspection visit in July 2022, there is no evidence that it confirmed that it had addressed possible access routes to prevent a future infestation. An order has been made for the landlord to revisit this in consultation with its pest control expert where appropriate.
This Service recognises that the situation has caused the resident distress and leaving his permanent home has caused him considerable upheaval. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact on the mental health of himself and his family. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. The Ombudsman accepts that the resident has complex mental health needs, however unlike a court we cannot determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts.
In recent contact with the Ombudsman, the resident has advised that he wants further compensation where he alleges that the property was without running water for a period of 3 years. No evidence has been provided which indicates that there was no running water at the property, or that a repair of this nature had been reported to the landlord prior to the decant. An order has been made for the landlord to discuss any outstanding repair concerns directly with the resident.
Overall, there was service failure with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs. There were initial difficulties in gaining access to complete the repairs with the resident in situ, which caused considerable delays. It is clear that the landlord was empathetic and understanding of the resident’s vulnerabilities, which is evidenced in its regular communication with specialist support services. However, it missed an opportunity to explain the schedule of works to him. Its failure to be transparent about why there were delays in completing the repairs did not effectively manage the resident’s expectations, causing him inconvenience and distress.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s decant.

The landlord’s initial observations of the property in November 2019 were that the property was in a poor state of repair, but was “structurally sound” and therefore the remedial works did not warrant a decant. The landlord continued to try to support the resident to allow access throughout 2020, which was reasonable and in accordance with its decant policy which states that a decant is a last resort, where all other measures to allow the resident to remain in the home have been exhausted.
It is unclear from the landlord’s records the date it first discussed a temporary decant with the resident. However it recorded that a decant was appropriate to minimise the impact having contractors regularly attend the property would have onhim, and he was in agreement with the move. Dates that alternative offers of temporary accommodation were made to the resident were not evidenced in the landlord’s records, but by 9 March 2021it noted that they had refused3 offers. It is reasonable to conclude that the offers it made the resident were suitable as the landlord was in regular contact with adult social care and the occupational therapist (OT) from November 2020 as to the suitability of possible alternative accommodation, which was appropriate.
A fourth property was offered to and accepted by the resident, and he signed a “temporary decant tenancy agreement” on 26 April 2021. The property had 2 bedrooms and was within the catchment area the resident had requested. A 2 bedroom property would have met the requirements for 2 adults living in the household and a clause within the agreement said that the resident had agreed to accept the property on the basis of the “current provision of facility and amenity”. Although the resident later complained to the landlord that the property was not suitable for his needs and in a “dangerous area”, no evidence was seen to support these claims. This includes no evidence from any professionals, including support workers who were engaged with the resident during the time of the decant.
The landlord was empathetic to the resident and was understanding that the prospect of moving, even temporarily, caused him considerable worry. Records show that the landlord made arrangements to pay for removals to and from the property, and arranged for carpet to be laid in the decant property. In addition, it provided the resident with a comprehensive furniture pack, which included furniture, cooking utensils and white goods. Once these had been sourced and agreed with the resident, he moved into the temporary property in July 2021. The landlord demonstrated a willingness to engage with the resident about the pending move and it took reasonable steps to support him so that the temporary property was as comfortable as possible.
The temporary tenancy agreement made it clear that the landlord would not insure the contents of the decant property, and the resident was given advice to arrange for adequate insurance to protect personal possessions. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to damage caused to personal items through storing them in the cellar of the decant property, which he alleged he was given written permission by the landlord to use. No evidence was seen to demonstrate that this was the case, and therefore the landlord’s decision not to compensate the resident for damaged belongings stored in this area was reasonable.
It was made clear to the resident that he was to give up occupation of the temporary home once remedial works were completed at the permanent property. This is evidenced in several conversations with the resident and was listed as a clause within the temporary agreement. Although the resident had specialist support during the time of his decant, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have remained in regular direct contact with him to update him of the progress of the repairs. However there is no evidence of communication with the resident between September 2021 and 14 June 2022, when it handed back the keys for him to inspect and start to plan his return to the property. This was unreasonable and contributed to the resident’s feeling of distress and uncertainty about what repairs had been completed.
It is not disputed that after all remedial works had been concluded in July 2022, the landlord offered the resident support with the pending return, including with removals, funding carpets in 2 rooms and clearing the garden for him upon his return which was reasonable. New carpets were in addition to the required schedule of works and demonstrated a willingness from the landlord to work with the resident to ensure his transition back home was positive.
Aspects of the resident’s complaint and the reason he remains decanted to date, relate to the issue of outstanding utility bills. Records show that around 2017, the resident’s gas had been capped off because of debt he had accumulated. The landlord’s stage 1 response failed to address the issue of outstanding debt on the utility meter, which was causing further delays in it completing the final safety checks. This was a missed opportunity to explain to the resident what steps they needed to take in order to return to the property as soon as possible.
The landlord later made it clear to the resident in subsequent conversations that he needed to clear the debt to allow for it to complete the required gas and electrical safety tests. It also reiterated its stance within its final complaint response in November 2022 where it referred him for financial support, which was appropriate.
In recent contact with the Ombudsman, the landlord has explained that the situation remains unchanged as it “cannot intervene” in the outstanding debt that is owed by the resident to his utility supplier, and this is preventing it from carrying out appropriate safety checks. It further stated that the situation had resulted in a loss of its income where one property had been left. Whilst it is not disputed that the situation has had a financial impact on the landlord, there is no evidence that it has discussed the situation with its legal team and considered a long term solution which is inappropriate.
Furthermore, there is no evidence that it has maintained regular contact with the resident and his support worker about the matter since 2022. It has only very recently contacted the resident following recent communication from the Ombudsman. The resident reports that the lack of communication has left him feeling confused and frustrated, where he says it remains his intention to return to the property as soon as possible. By failing to take ownership of the decant and explore what options are available to complete the final safety checks, the landlord has prolonged the situation for both parties over a period of approximately 18 months, resulting in a finding of maladministration.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The resident first made a complaint to the landlord on 15 June 2022, the day after he was given the keys back to his permanent property. Records show that the landlord reacted promptly to the resident’s complaint and arranged for a number of operatives to meet with him a week later to try to resolve the issues, which was appropriate.
Whilst there was a focus on repairs during this meeting, there is no evidence that the landlord discussed the full extent of the resident’s complaint in more depth, which was a missed opportunity to gain a full understanding of all that he was dissatisfied with. This was of particular concern, as the resident had raised further concerns on 1 July 2022 about the manner in which he felt a member of staff had acted “unfairly and unprofessionally”. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time said that it would respond to complaints within 15 working days. In this case, a stage 1 response was not given to the resident until 14 July 2022. Although the delay in responding to the resident was not considerable, the landlord failed to acknowledge or apologise for it which was unreasonable.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) emphasises the importance of impartiality when responding to a resident’s complaint. This is so that complaints can be responded to sensitively and fairly. In this case, the same member of staff who the resident was complaining about responded to the complaint. This was inappropriate, as the member of staff could not have reasonably had an objective view of whether the case had been handled with compassion and understanding.
The landlord offered the resident an opportunity to request a review of the decision, which was appropriate. There is no evidence that the resident contacted the landlord to say he was dissatisfied with the response, but it is accepted that he was unhappy at the time he approached the Ombudsman in October 2022. The landlord acted promptly once the Ombudsman requested that a final response was given to the resident. It made arrangements to speak at length with the resident on 7 November 2022 before responding to his complaint in a timely manner. This demonstrated that it wanted to fully understand his complaint and it responded to each point he had made which was appropriate.
Despite taking the time to understand why the resident was dissatisfied, the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about whether he had been treated fairly inappropriately. Rather than identifying it had failed to act impartially by assigning the complaint response to the member of staff he had complained about, it reiterated elements the stage 1 response it had provided using direct quotation marks. This was inappropriate and showed a lack of understanding and thorough investigation into the resident’s concerns, which caused him frustration.
Overall, there was service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling. Although the landlord’s final complaint response addressed the resident’s repair concerns appropriately, it failed to recognise that there had been initial delays in responding to the residents complaint, or that it had not responded impartially at stage 1. As a result it failed to adopt the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles of be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. An order has been made for the landlord to review its complaint handling procedures against the new Complaint Handling Code, and provide the resident with reassurance of how it will ensure complaints are handled impartially in the future.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s decant.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs and a pest infestation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the failures noted within this report, within 4 weeks.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay directly to the resident a total of £1,000 in compensation, within 4 weeks. The amount is comprised of:
1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repairs.
2. £800 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s decant.
3. £100 in recognition of the time and trouble the resident experienced in bringing his complaint.

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to provide the resident and the Ombudsman with confirmation of its intended plan of action to assist the resident to return to the property. In doing so, it should also make arrangements for a single point of contact for the resident and establish any outstanding repair concerns.
Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to visit the property with a pest control specialist, to ensure that it has addressed potential access routes to avoid a future pest infestation.
The landlord is ordered to carry out a full review of this case to identify learning and improve its working practices. The outcome of the review to be shared with the resident and the Ombudsman within 6 weeks. The review must include, but is not limited to:
1. confirmation of management oversight of long-term decants.
2. confirmation of its process for ensuring that appropriate safety checks are completed in decant properties where there is outstanding utility debt.
3. a review of its complaint handling procedure against the new Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code which became a statutory requirement on 1 April 2024.
4. confirmation of how it will ensure that staff complaints are responded to fairly and impartially. In doing so, have consideration to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Attitudes, respect and rights
5. confirmation of its hoarding procedure for staff to follow which includes best practice, such as the use of a clutter image rating tool.
6. confirmation of the process for staff for referring to legal intervention when there has been a series of no access appointments for repairs.