Leeds City Council (202328244)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202328244

Leeds City Council

27 November 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 the landlord’s:
1. Decision to demolish the resident’s block of flats.
2. Handling of the resident’s concerns relating to the property’s energy performance certificate (EPC).
3. Response to the resident’s report of poor staff conduct.
4. Handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance at the property.
5. Handling of the resident’s request for a reasonable adjustment.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. He lives in a 1-bedroom flat on the sixth floor of a 10 storey block. The tenancy began in August 2017. The landlord is aware of the resident’s health vulnerabilities and his requests for reasonable adjustments.
The original build for the resident’s block used a system called Reema construction. This method used prefabricated reinforced concrete panels. The landlord assessed several blocks as beyond their lifespan and considered it no longer economically viable to maintain them. As such, the landlord informed all residents affected by this decision of its 2-year demolition and rehousing programme. The resident considered the landlord had failed to purchase land to build enough housing and his complaint sought to stop or delay the demolition.
On 24 January 2023 the resident raised concerns regarding the property’s EPC. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 23 February 2023 and offered £200 as a goodwill gesture.
On 13 June 2023 the resident raised a complaint regarding staff conduct. He said a plumbing operative would not let him talk and kept repeating himself. He said he found this “annoying and patronising.” The landlord investigated the resident’s concerns and provided responses on 19 June 2023 and 17 July 2023. It apologised, arranged staff training, and offered £50 compensation.
On or around 19 September 2023 the resident said the landlord should purchase more land to build other properties and not demolish the blocks of flats. The landlord provided detailed responses on 21 September 2023 and 16 November 2023.
On 16 October 2023 the resident raised a complaint regarding the landlord’s handling of noise nuisance at the property. The landlord provided responses on 30 October 2023 and 4 December 2023. The landlord offered £300 compensation for identified failures.
Within the resident’s complaint of 16 October he said the landlord had failed to consider his individual needs and his requests for reasonable adjustments. The landlord did not uphold this complaint.
The resident remained dissatisfied with each of the landlord’s responses. He brought his complaints to us and also the Local Government Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). He considered the landlord should offer him significantly more compensation for each of his complaints, quoting sums between £1,000 to £100,000 per complaint.
We note events beyond the landlord’s final complaint responses in 2023. In which, on 30 April 2024 it found it necessary to write to the resident. It considered that he was abusing the complaints process under appendix 2 of its compliments and complaints policy. On the 9 July 2024 the landlord reminded the resident of this, having received a further 17 emails in June 2024, whereby he sought compensation by way of multiple complaints.
The landlord’s complaint policy adopts the LGSCO definition of unreasonable behaviour. This being ‘complainants who, because of the nature or frequency of their contact with an organisation, hinder the organisation’s consideration of their or other people’s complaints.’ The landlord considered the resident’s contact excessive and unreasonable. It explained the difference between service requests and complaints. It also provided him comprehensive contact details of various departments, organisations, and external support relating to matters he raised.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a resident brings a complaint to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why we cannot investigate a complaint.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.o. of the Scheme, we have determined that the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. Decision to demolish the resident’s block of flats.
Paragraph 42.o. states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which concern matters where the complainant is seeking an outcome which is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to provide.
We recognise the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord’s decision and his desire to stop or delay it from demolishing the blocks of flats. We also note his comments during our telephone call on 13 November 2024 when he described the landlord’s management of its funds as “wasteful.” In particular, with its “failure” to purchase more land and the lack of housing in Leeds.
However, we are unable to influence or order the landlord to meet the expectations of the resident. The landlord has a duty to assess the condition of its stock and viability of future maintenance costs. Its decision is a commercial decision and the outcomes the resident seeks are not within our authority to provide. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice and or approach his local MP to express his views on the landlord’s decision making and performance.

Scope of investigation

We acknowledge that the resident has a complex complaint history with the landlord. Within the case files and during our telephone conversation on 13 November 2024, he informed us of further dissatisfaction. These matters included, the landlord’s previous handling of his right to buy questions, council tax and valuation matters, disrepair claims, support to complete forms for a variety of matters (including complaints), communication, historic repairs, and separate historic noise disturbances.
While we do not doubt the resident’s comments, and acknowledge the distress these matters may have caused, we are unable to assess historical complaints. Nor complaints that have yet to complete the landlord’s own internal complaints process (ICP).
In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint, we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine the complaint by reference to what is, in our findings, fair in all the circumstances of the case. Where we identify failure by a landlord, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.
During the call on 13 November 2024, the resident included a friend who acts as his support worker via a 3-way conference call. We agreed the role of the Housing Ombudsman Service. We also confirmed our understanding of the resident’s complaints, desired outcomes, and matters which fell outside of our jurisdiction.
We have agreed to include complaint point c. which the resident raised separately. We initially allocated this case reference number 202313970. We have combined these cases to assist all parties with the resolution of these complaints.

Handling of the resident’s concerns relating to the property’s energy performance certificate (EPC)

On 24 January 2023 the resident queried the validity of the property’s EPC survey, completed on the landlord’s behalf on 2 October 2022. He described the certificate as “fake.” The resident considered the survey had errors and the EPC ‘C’ rating had prevented him from applying for a Warm Homes Discount.
The Warm Home Discount Scheme is a one-off £150 discount off an eligible households electricity bill. The Government offer this support to those on low income, with health vulnerabilities, and or households living mainly or wholly in fuel poverty.
Upon receipt of the resident’s concerns, the landlord arranged for an energy assessor to return to the resident’s property on 8 February 2023. The landlord also attended the property and identified its first assessor had incorrectly assessed the properties wall insulation. It completed a new survey and issued the resident with a revised EPC ‘D’ rating certificate.
While the landlord’s housing asset management strategy 2023 to 2027 sets targets to provide a minimum EPC Band C by 2030, it was at this stage under no further obligation to do more work.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance handbook says it will respond to non-emergency repairs within 20 working days. The landlord demonstrated acting on the resident’s concerns. It took steps within the timescales of its repairs policy to investigate the resident’s concerns. In doing so, it put right identified errors and updated its property records. This was appropriate and demonstrated its actions to resolve the resident’s concerns and accurately record the findings for its asset management strategy.
On 23 February 2023 the landlord provided a final complaint response to the resident. In which, it summarised its findings. It acknowledged errors in the first energy assessment, apologised, and offered the resident £200. This was to recognise his time and trouble raising matters to the landlord.
The resident also raised a complaint about this matter to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). On 31 August 2023 the LGSCO informed the resident that it discontinued its investigation. It said when the Council commissioned the EPC assessments, it acted in its role as a registered social housing provider. As such, it could not consider the complaint.
It is reasonable for the landlord to rely on the expert opinion of an independent contractor, which it did. While the landlord does not dispute that an error occurred with the initial assessment, it demonstrated acting on the resident’s concerns. It revisited within 20 working days, identified the error, reassessed the property, issued the resident with a new EPC certificate, and offered compensation. This provided the resident with redress for the error and also gave him sufficient time to reapply for the energy grant.
When there has been service failure, the remedies guidance available to us suggests redress between £50 to £100. The landlord’s offer exceeded our suggested level of redress. It is therefore our finding that the landlord’s offer provided the resident with reasonable redress.

Response to the resident’s report of poor staff conduct

The resident said he felt the landlord’s plumbing operative had not allowed him to talk, talked over him, had not cleaned up after completing work, and had not considered the resident’s mental health vulnerabilities. He said the lack of communication skills and mental health awareness did not meet his reasonable adjustment needs. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint definition and its understanding that he wanted £50 compensation.
When a resident raises concerns about staff conduct, the landlord should complete a thorough investigation into these concerns. From the evidence provided by the landlord, we are satisfied that it took appropriate steps to investigate matters. This included speaking with the relevant contractor and the operative sent to the resident’s property on its behalf.
While the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was apologetic, it informed the resident that the operative had a different assessment of events. While the landlord did not disclose the content of the meeting to the resident, this was appropriate and in line with the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR).
That said, the landlord’s stage 1 response acknowledged that the operative had not contacted a manager when asked by the resident. The landlord explained the operative considered they had been able to fully answer all questions about the repair, while on site. The landlord informed the resident its contractor apologised if he had found the operative rude. It said it would ensure staff were aware of the resident’s mental health conditions and operatives would complete customer service training during staff meetings, known as ‘tool box talks.’ This demonstrated the landlord taking steps to learn from the resident’s feedback.
As the landlord said it would not be offering any financial compensation, the resident asked to escalate his complaint.
An independent member of the landlord’s staff completed the stage 2 investigation. This was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s complaints policy and expectations of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). Upon completion of the review, the landlord reiterated its apology. It said:
The operative would not have intentionally looked to stop a conversation from happening. However, the operative in question was not aware of how his behaviour was coming across to the resident. As such, he had since its stage 1 response completed training to ensure that he could identify how behaviour may affect residents.
It had fed back to its contractor the resident’s reports that the operative had not cleaned up after the repair. The landlord said that the contractor would ensure its teams are aware to clean up debris and have the appropriate tools and equipment to do so. It apologised that the resident had need to clean up himself on this occasion.
It acknowledged that the devices used by the contractors operatives had limited information regarding a resident’s complex needs. The landlord said it would raise this for discussion to identify ways to avoid such situations in the future.
It was satisfied it had thoroughly considered and addressed the resident’s staff conduct concerns. It had learned from it and arranged training to prevent similar happening again. However, as a gesture of goodwill, it offered £50 compensation.
The landlord recognised that it could have handled the situation differently during the visit, had its operative known all the facts. This was something it would consider and ensure it received all necessary information before attending the resident’s property. Its gesture of goodwill recognised it had caused distressed in how it communicated and its actions demonstrated its desire to put things right.
The landlord demonstrated learning from the outcomes of this complaint. It investigated the resident’s reports, identified and delivered training, and offered compensation which matched the resident’s expectations. The landlord communicated apologetically and demonstrated that it had taken the resident’s concern’s seriously. Its offer was proportionate to the failings identified in this investigation and in line with the remedies guidance available to us. Therefore, we find the landlord provided the resident with reasonable redress.

Handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance at the property

The purpose of this investigation is not to establish if antisocial behaviour (ASB) had occurred, or who may have been responsible. Our role is to determine whether, in response to reports, the landlord responded in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures and if its actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances of the case.
The landlord’s ASB policy says that it will respond to urgent ASB reports within 1 working day and all other reports within 5 working days. The landlord will open an ASB case where appropriate and contact the resident and alleged perpetrator.
Paragraph 3.21. of the landlord’s ASB policy states that the housing organisations responsible for the landlord’s housing stock have a responsibility to manage tenant behaviour. This should be in accordance with the responsibilities and obligations outlined within their tenancy agreement.
Paragraph 3.26 states having followed the appropriate investigation and intervention, the housing organisations are able to make a referral to Leeds Antisocial Behaviour Team (LASBT). This would be where they have been unable to resolve reported problems or problems escalate to include behaviours, which could require a more robust ASB remedy.
LASBT are a multi-agency service comprising of staff from the local authority, police, and partnership organisations. LASBT typically deal with behaviour that housing providers cannot reasonably resolved through tenancy management or mediation. Examples include harm to individuals, harm directed at communities, and environmental harm.
The landlord investigated the resident’s concerns and spoke to him further on 30 October 2023. Its stage 1 investigation and response letter on 30 October 2023 said that it:
1. Acknowledged he had reported noise nuisance on 13 December 2022. It had acknowledged his report in writing and opened a case the same day.
2. Had been unable to identify any further record of contact between it, the resident, or the alleged perpetrator prior to the assigned member of staff leaving the business. It apologised that it had failed to progress his case.
3. Had received a further email from the resident on 19 May 2023. While LASBT left him a voicemail on 22 May 2023, there was no further record of contact between it, the resident, or the alleged perpetrator prior to the second member of staff leaving the business in July 2023.
4. Apologised for the unnecessary delay to investigate his reports of noise nuisance.
5. Requested a new member of LASBT to review his case as of 6 October 2023. The ASB team recommended that the housing officer discuss the case, and issue nuisance diaries to the resident, prior to contacting the alleged perpetrator. Which it did.
6. Had organised additional training to remind all staff of its policies and service standards and to help staff better respond to reports of ASB.
7. Apologised that it had been unable to identify whether its staff had interviewed the neighbour who he alleged had caused noise.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response acknowledged failings. While it had initially responded within its expected ASB policy timescales, it identified it had not progressed the resident’s reports. Nor progress the resident’s concerns in line with its ASB policy expectations. It failed to ensure effective communication and case management between the housing team and LASBT. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord acknowledged its failures.
The landlord’s stage 1 response demonstrated its efforts to put things right by apologising and offering compensation. Furthermore, it demonstrated learning from outcomes by organising refresher training for staff, to prevent something similar happening again.
While the resident remained dissatisfied and asked to escalate his complaint, the landlord’s stage 2 response reiterated its findings. It apologised for its previous failures and summarised the action plan it had taken following its stage 1 response. This included providing the resident with a noise diary, discussing the allegations with the alleged perpetrator, writing to the alleged perpetrator, writing to the wider community, door knocking to gather further intel, agreeing a named contact for the resident, and reminding him of the process of gathering evidence. The landlord offered the resident £300 compensation in recognition of the identified earlier case management failures.
Within the resident’s complaint he expressed dissatisfaction regarding the local authorities out of hours telephone services. While the landlord explained that this service did not fall under its housing responsibility, it contacted the service on the resident’s behalf. It shared its findings regarding the operating times, availability of staff, and encouraged him to also inform the landlord as soon as possible of any out of hours noise reports. This was reasonable in the circumstances. It demonstrated the landlord’s efforts to provide him with a thorough response to his concerns and how he could help it gather evidence.
A landlord must decide upon the tools it can use based on the individual circumstances of the case. In each case, it could use multiple tools if it can justify escalation. This may include warnings, tenancy breach letters, or court action. However, all enforcement action must be reasonable and proportionate. Furthermore, it must have evidence to justify its enforcement decisions.
While the resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s actions, we have seen no evidence which suggests it did not act on the resident’s reports following his complaint and its stage 1 response. Its summary of actions within its stage 2 response demonstrated it had opened his case, acted on his concerns, had communication with its multiagency network, and issued warning letters following meetings with other residents.
When there has been an admission of failure, as is the case here, our role is to assess whether the landlord offered proportionate redress. In situations of maladministration, our guidance on remedies recommends that a compensation payment should be £100 to £600 to put things right.
The landlord’s actions and offer of £300 compensation was, in our findings, in line with our remedies guidance. It provided proportionate redress which recognised that its initial failures had adversely affected the resident. Therefore, we find that the landlord has offered reasonable redress in this matter.

Handling of the resident’s request for a reasonable adjustment

The landlord’s compliment and complaints policy says it is committed to understanding the impact of a complaint on a customer, taking their individual circumstances into account. To assist in this, it aims to accommodate reasonable adjustment requests where possible.
On 30 October 2023 the landlord mutually agreed reasonable adjustments with the resident. These being:
1. To provide help completing forms where needed. This may also include telephone contact to report nuisance issues should the resident be unable to use nuisance diaries.
2. That staff should consider appropriate use of language and phrasing to allow the resident to express himself during conversations.
3. That it would give him extra time during telephone contact to help clearer communication.
4. To provide explanations in clearer language, to improve the resident’s understanding of the information provided or requested.
This demonstrated that the landlord discussed the resident’s requirements and agreed to support him with his needs. Therefore, we consider this evidence of the landlord giving due regard to the resident’s vulnerabilities and its duties set out in the Equality Act 2010.
Furthermore, there is evidence that the landlord updated the resident’s records on its customer management system. As such, the system alerted the landlord’s staff to the resident’s reasonable adjustment requests. This demonstrated effective record keeping by the landlord in its attempts to ensure it met his needs.
We also note that within the landlord’s complaint responses, it offered the resident additional support. This was by way of a specialist advocacy officer. The landlord explained the officer would work alongside other teams, to assist the resident with any other unmet support needs. This included support with understanding complaint responses, referrals and signposting to physical or mental health support, financial support, or other external care and support services. It said it would assist him with any paperwork and applications.
This demonstrated the landlord’s attempts to support the resident with the complexities of its own housing functions. Furthermore, to ensure he was able to access the appropriate external support. This action was reasonable in the circumstances. While we have been unable to identify that the resident accepted its offers of support, this would be a matter of his choice. The landlord’s records also indicate that the resident declined this support.
Given that there was no evidence to support the resident’s position that the landlord failed to consider his vulnerabilities and reasonable adjustment requests, we are satisfied that there was no maladministration.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.o. of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s decision to demolish the resident’s block of flats is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the matter of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns relating to the property’s energy performance certificate (EPC).
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the matter of the conduct of a member of the landlord’s staff.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the matter of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a reasonable adjustment.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

We recommend that the landlord reoffer the resident the £200 compensation for his EPC complaint, if not already paid.
We recommend that the landlord reoffer the resident the £50 compensation for his complaint about the conduct of a member of staff, if not already paid.
We recommend that the landlord reoffer the resident the £300 compensation for his noise nuisance complaint, if not already paid.
If it has not already done so, we recommend that the landlord ask the resident if he consents to adding his support worker to his customer records. This may assist with it future communication with the resident.