Leeds City Council (202332405)

Decision
Case ID	202332405
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Leeds City Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	10 November 2025

Background

1. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord about staff conduct, an issue with an internal door, a pest infestation, and the temperature of his property being too cold. He did not escalate his complaint about staff conduct to stage 2. He told the landlord that he believed his property was not adequately insulated and raised concerns about draughts throughout his home. He said he was worried about the health of his cats due to the cold temperature. The resident has physical disabilities and he lives with anxiety and depression. The landlord is aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to reports of:
   1. A pest infestation.
   2. Outstanding repairs to internal doors.
   3. Excessive cold and draughts within the property.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found that:
   1. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to reports of a pest infestation.
   2. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to reports of outstanding repairs to internal doors.
   3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of excessive cold and draughts within the property.
   4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to reports of a pest infestation

5. The landlord delayed raising the job to install mesh covers over the airbricks following the pest control team’s recommendation, which contributed to an overall delay of 3 months in completing the work. Although it acknowledged it missed an appointment without notifying the resident, it did not offer sufficient redress.

The landlord’s response to reports of outstanding repairs to internal doors.

6. The landlord unfairly raised the resident’s expectations when it arranged to replace an internal door, then refused to do so at the repair appointment.

The landlord’s response to reports of excessive cold and draughts within the property.

7. The landlord relied heavily on the EPC “C” rating when it responded to the resident’s concerns about his flat being cold. It did not offer an adequate resolution to the complaint or arrange to investigate whether there was sufficient insulation within the property.

Complaint handling

8. The landlord responded to the resident at both stages of the complaints process in line with its complaints policy.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order   The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a senior member of staff. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 08 December 2025
2	Compensation order   The landlord must pay the resident: £75 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to reports of a pest infestation. £50 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to reports of outstanding repairs to internal doors. £300 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to reports of excessive cold and draughts within the property.   This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 08 December 2025

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
6 November 2023	The resident raised a formal complaint by telephone. He raised concerns about staff conduct and asked why the landlord would not replace his internal kitchen door. He told the landlord that he could still hear noises from pests under his floor. He also said he did not think his property was adequately insulated as the temperature was 13 degrees, which he believed was lower than the recommended temperature and a danger to his life and the lives of his pets.
15 November 2023	The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response. It said: staff were allowed to end calls if they felt they were being spoken to in an aggressive manner. It apologised that an operative did not have ID when visiting the resident pest control had inspected the property on 10 July 2023 and confirmed that there were no signs of mice or rats. As a preventative measure it had installed mesh guards over the air bricks on 17 October 2023 it had agreed to renew the resident’s front door the double glazed windows were installed in 2012 and were not due for renewal until 2042. It had installed new glazing to the bedroom and bathroom windows on 26 May 2023 it had completed repairs to an internal kitchen door and bedroom door. It had checked all remaining internal doors and found them to be in full working order. it had offered to refer the resident to Green Dr for impartial advice and support as he felt his home was cold and draughty, but he had refused the EPC rating of the property was “C”, which was above its average energy rating. It confirmed it did not fulfil requests to fully insulate homes through its responsive repairs service and it regularly evaluated its housing stock to ensure its properties maintained appropriate energy ratings.
15 November 2023	The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2. He said he was unhappy with the landlord’s response as he had a rat infestation under his property and pest control had been unhelpful. He also said he thought the EPC rating was inaccurate, particularly in relation to the insulation. The resident did not escalate his complaint about staff conduct to stage 2.
13 December 2023	The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response. It said: it had inspected the internal doors on 18 September 2023 and 6 November 2023 and found them to be in a good condition it had agreed to replace the resident’s front door. Its contractor had measured the door but, as the resident wanted a door outside of its specifications, it had offered the closest match. It asked the resident to confirm he was happy with the specification offered. following an inspection in April 2023, it found that it did not need to repair the window frames. However, it installed new glazing to the bedroom and bathroom windows in May 2023. It noted the resident had blocked the trickle vent in the living room to prevent a draught, although it was satisfied the vent was working correctly. It confirmed there were no significant gaps or draughts around the windows. during a visit, it did not note any obvious draughts from the perimeter of the floor. It confirmed it was unable to insulate under the floorboards and it explained it could not remove the air vents to a boarded up chimney as the lack of air circulation could cause condensation and potential damp. it noted the smaller bedroom felt colder than the other rooms in the flat. It explained the bedroom was more exposed due to its position and it did not note any damp, mould, or required repairs. It suggested the resident lay carpet to improve the thermal efficiency of the room. It confirmed again that the energy rating of the flat was “C” and it provided a link to its website which gave information on affordable heating, energy efficiency, and grant schemes. it reiterated the work it had done to prevent mice from getting under the floor. It confirmed it had not found any evidence of mice or rats. It acknowledged that there had been a missed appointment in September 2023 for the installation of mesh due to materials not being available and it apologised that it had not informed the resident.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate as he said he was unhappy with the landlord’s response to his complaint. He said he wanted the landlord to replace all his internal doors and install triple glazed windows to stop the cold coming through the frames.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to reports of a pest infestation
Finding	Service failure

9. The resident raised concerns about rats in his property on 22 November 2022. The pest control team attended on 12 December 2022 and found no evidence of pests. This was 14 working days from the date of the report. The landlord does have a pest policy, which says the treatment of rats in individual properties is the landlord’s responsibility. However, there are no stated timeframes for inspections or follow up work within the pest policy. Therefore, we have assessed the response time against the comparable timeframe of 20 working days for general repairs set within the landlord’s repairs and maintenance handbook. We have therefore concluded that this was a reasonable response time.
10. The pest control team attended a follow up visit on 19 December 2022. The survey report shows that there were no signs of pests. The operative removed all control points and closed the job.
11. The resident raised further concerns about rats in his property on 23 January 2023. The pest control team attended on 1 February 2023, within 20 working days, and found no evidence of rats in the property. The operative closed the job.
12. The resident contacted the landlord on 9 July 2023 and said he had been waiting for an operative to inspect his property in relation to mice and rats. He said he had been reporting issues since 2022 and he had an audio recording to prove there were mice or rats under the floor. There is no evidence to show that the resident had made any further reports of pest issues between February 2023 and July 2023.
13. The pest control team visited the resident on 13 July 2023, within 20 working days. The inspection report shows that there was no rodent activity found in the resident’s kitchen, bathroom, living room, or cupboards. The operative inspected the outer area and found no evidence of rodent activity. The operative noted that the airbricks around the building had the capability to allow mice to access under the floor, however, the presence of cobwebs showed that there was no activity. The operative suggested that the landlord could fit mesh covers to the airbricks as a precaution and to help put the resident’s mind at rest. This was a reasonable course of action to take in the circumstances given the resident’s concerns. The operative also noted that pigeons were nesting in the boiler flue area and concluded that the noises heard by the resident were likely from the pigeons.
14. The pest control team sent the resident an email on 13 July 2023 confirming that they had found no evidence of rodents and no significant areas of disrepair to the structure of the property that would allow rodents to gain entry. They informed the resident that they had told the landlord that his property would benefit from the installation of mesh covers to the air bricks as a precaution.
15. The landlord contacted other residents in the block in August 2023 to see whether there were any rodent issues. It found no evidence of a block wide problem. It raised a job to fix mesh covers over the airbricks in the resident’s property on 24 August 2023 and it booked an appointment in for 8 September 2023. It is unclear from the evidence provided why it delayed raising the job for 6 weeks. It was aware that the potential for rodents under the floor was causing the resident concern. Had it fitted the mesh covers sooner, it would have likely reduced the distress caused to the resident.
16. The landlord did not attend the appointment on 8 September 2023 as the materials were out of stock. While this was out of the landlord’s control, it did not inform the resident that it would not be attending. This meant the resident had to chase the landlord for an update. The landlord did call the resident back and it apologised for the missed appointment. It completed the work on 17 October 2023. This was over 3 months from the date of the pest control team’s recommendation and outside of the 20 working day timeframe for general repairs.
17. The resident raised the issue of rodents within the block and under his floor in his formal complaint dated 6 November 2023. The landlord’s stage 2 response acknowledged that there was a missed appointment and it apologised for this. However, it did not recognise that there was a delay of 6 weeks in raising the job following the pest control team’s recommendation and an overall delay of 3 months in completing the work.
18. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, we will consider whether the redress offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take 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.
19. Given the observations above, the landlord has not shown that it put things right through the complaints process. As such, it has not done enough to fully resolve the complaint. On that basis, we find that there has been service failure. We consider the landlord’s apology alone insufficient redress given the resident’s circumstances and the impact of its failings.
20. We consider an order for the landlord to apologise and pay the resident £75 compensation to be appropriate. This is in line with our remedies guidance where there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided and it did not appropriately acknowledge this or fully put it right. This is also in line with the landlord’s remedies guidance.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to reports of outstanding repairs to internal doors
Finding	Service failure

21. The resident reported that his living room internal door frame was coming away from the wall on 20 April 2023. He told us that he believed the ill-fitting internal doors were contributing to the draughts within his property. The landlord attended on 3 May 2023 to inspect the door. As the door needed taking off, so the frame could be refixed, it arranged a further appointment for 23 May 2023 to complete the works. This work was completed within 21 days from the resident’s initial report and just outside of the landlord’s 20 day timeframe for general repairs. However, there is no evidence to show that there was any detriment caused to the resident due to this minor delay.
22. The resident reported a repair to his internal bedroom door and frame on 26 May 2023. The landlord attended and completed the repairs on 26 June 2023, again within its timeframe of 20 working days for general repairs.
23. The resident raised repairs on 4 August 2023 in relation to his internal kitchen door, which he said was coming away from the wall. An operative attended on 21 August 2023, within the required timeframe, and measured the internal door for replacement.
24. The landlord attended the resident’s property on 18 September 2023. The notes on the landlord’s records show that the resident was expecting a new door to be fitted, which the landlord measured for on 21 August 2023. However, at the visit, the operative concluded that the door was “like new” and did not need replacing. The resident disputed the operative’s conclusion and refused a repair, although it is unclear from the landlord’s records what repair it had offered to complete.
25. Landlords are not obliged to replace an item where it is possible to repair, therefore it was reasonable of the landlord to choose to undertake a repair rather than replace the door. However, it is unclear from the evidence provided why the landlord had taken measurements for a new door at the first visit if it did not need replacing. It is also unclear from the evidence provided why the second operative refused to fit a new door if that was the instruction on the job notes. There is no evidence to show the landlord told the resident that another operative might have a differing opinion and decide to carry out repairs instead of replacing the door. By agreeing to replace the door at the first visit the landlord unfairly raised the resident’s expectations. It is therefore understandable that he would be disappointed by the landlord’s change of decision at short notice.
26. The landlord attended the resident’s property again on 6 November 2023 in relation to the internal kitchen door. The operative confirmed that the door did not need replacing. The job notes show that the operative’s supervisor called the resident during the visit. The supervisor told him that they had spoken to the 3 joiners who had attended his property and they had all concluded that the door did not need replacing. The supervisor said that the pictures of the door showed it to be in full working order, with no gaps. As landlords are entitled to rely on the expertise and opinions of their staff and contractors when making decisions about repairs, this was a reasonable decision in the circumstances.
27. Although the landlord reasonably concluded in its stage 2 response that the resident’s internal doors were in good condition and did not need replacing, it failed to recognise that it had unfairly raised the resident’s expectations when it had initially agreed to replace the internal kitchen door. As such, it has not shown that it put things right through the complaints process. On that basis, we find that there has been service failure.
28. We consider orders for the landlord to apologise to the resident and to pay £50 compensation to be appropriate. This is in line with our remedies guidance where there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided and it did not appropriately acknowledge this or fully put it right. This amount is also in line with the landlord’s remedies guidance.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to reports of excessive cold and draughts within the property
Finding	Maladministration

29. The resident raised concerns that there were draughts coming through his window vents on 1 February 2023. The landlord attended the resident’s property on 9 February 2023 but found it was unable to access the property. The appointment was within the landlord’s timeframe of 20 working days for general repairs.
30. The landlord rebooked the appointment on 8 March 2023 for 3 April 2023. This was within the 20 day timeframe. It attended on 3 April 2023 and found no defects with the window frames. However, it is unclear from the evidence provided whether the vents referred to by the resident were the trickle vents designed to increase airflow to reduce condensation and mould. The landlord agreed to install new glazing to the bedroom and bathroom windows, although it is unclear from the evidence provided why it made this decision.
31. The landlord completed the work to reglaze the bedroom and bathroom windows on 26 May 2023. There is no evidence to show that the resident reported any further issues with his windows prior to his formal complaint.
32. The resident raised a repair to his skirting board in the living room on 11 July 2023. It would be reasonable to conclude that this repair request related to draughts from the floor area, given the landlord’s reference to gaps between the skirting boards and floor in the stage 2 response. The resident raised further concerns with his kitchen skirting board on 21 July 2023. The landlord replaced part of both skirting boards on 31 July 2023 within the 20 day timeframe for general repairs. There is no evidence to show that the resident reported any further issues with the skirting boards in his property following the repair.
33. The resident raised a repair on 4 August 2023 in relation to his external front door, which he said was letting the cold in. A joiner attended on 22 August 2023 and renewed the draughtproofing and external sealant to the front door. The landlord completed the work within the required timeframe.
34. The resident raised a formal complaint on 6 November 2023 about the cold temperature of his home due to draughts and a lack of insulation. The evidence shows that the resident had raised a previous complaint about the lack of insulation. However, the landlord has not provided any information in relation to this, or confirmed whether it had previously undertaken any investigations in this regard.
35. It is unclear from the evidence provided when the resident raised further concerns about his front door letting in cold. However, the landlord attended on 10 November 2023 and agreed to replace the front door as the frame was bent, which was affecting the closure of the door. This was a reasonable course of action to take in the circumstances.
36. The evidence suggests the landlord visited the resident at his home on 7 December 2023 following the resident’s escalation of his complaint to stage 2. However, the landlord has not provided us with any notes or evidence relating to the visit, apart from the information provided within the stage 2 response. This raises concerns with the landlord’s record keeping.
37. In its stage 2 response, the landlord explained the delay in fitting the new external front door was because the resident wanted a door outside of the landlord’s specifications. This was a reasonable explanation for the delay. The resident has confirmed that the landlord has since fitted the new door. Although the landlord attended to each repair request within the required timeframes, and it carried out all necessary work, it did not provide an adequate explanation in relation to the window trickle vents. It did not explain that any new windows would also likely have trickle vents, and that the vents were designed to create constant airflow.
38. The landlord concluded that there were no obvious draughts around the floor and skirting boards during its visit in December 2023. However, it relied heavily on the EPC “C” rating to discount the resident’s concerns that his flat was excessively cold. It did not offer a meaningful resolution or show that it had, or intended to investigate the level of insulation within the property, either within this complaint response or the previous complaint response. This was concerning given that landlords have an obligation under s9A Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to ensure properties are fit for habitation during the term of the tenancy. Excess cold is a potential hazard that can make a property unfit for habitation.
39. The landlord has confirmed that it removed the old cavity wall insulation on 11 February 2025 and refilled it on 18 February 2025. It said that although the EPC said cavity wall insulation had already been installed, it found it was missing in places.
40. Given the observations above, the landlord has not shown that it put things right through the complaints process. On that basis, we find that there has been maladministration. We consider an order for the landlord to apologise and pay the resident £300 compensation to be appropriate. This is in line with our remedies guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident and the landlord failed to acknowledge its failings and has made no attempt to put things right. This amount is also in line with the landlord’s remedies guidance.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

41. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 6 November 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day. This was within the timeframe of 5 working days set within the landlord’s complaints policy. It sent the resident a stage 1 response on 15 November 2023. This was within the timeframe of 10 working days set within the landlord’s complaints policy.
42. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 15 November 2023. The landlord acknowledged the escalation on the same day, within the required timeframe of 5 working days, and sent the resident a stage 2 response on 13 December 2023. This was within the timeframe of 20 working days set within the landlord’s complaints policy. Given the observations, we find that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

43. Landlords should ensure that they inform residents when appointments are unable to go ahead with sufficient notice where possible. Landlords should also take all reports of potential hazards seriously and ensure adequate investigations are carried out.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

44. The repairs information was lacking in sufficient detail. It was not clear what information the resident had given to the landlord when he reported repairs. The landlord also did not provide full details of its conversations with the resident in relation to his complaint or provide details of a visit that appears to have taken place prior to the stage 2 response. This did hinder our investigation somewhat.

Communication

45. The communication between the landlord and resident was poor on occasion. The landlord did not inform the resident that it was unable to attend an appointment, which meant the resident had to chase the landlord for an update.