Leeds City Council (202332435)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202332435

Leeds City Council

13 May 2025


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 given information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlords handling of recurring garden drainage issues.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of a local authority landlord. The property is a 3-bedroom house.
  2. On 30 May 2022, the resident reported concerns about flooding and drainage issues in their garden, which the landlord marked as inspected with camera on 29 June 2022. The resident reported the reoccurring flood in January and May 2023 affecting his downstairs toilet. The landlord attended to again investigate the source of the flooding and noted the water company had stated it was not their responsibility.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 22 August 2023 by email. He said he had been reporting the garden flooding for 7 years. He was dissatisfied that a recent repair had been completed to the back garden only and had been cancelled to the front (the landlord’s file does not provide any details about this repair). He reported the flood was causing slip risk (exacerbated during the winter when the water froze), issues with access to the property and had contributed to damage to the fence. He stated that he was concerned about the safety of his child who had autism and was visually impaired. 

 

  1. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 24 August 2023 and provided its stage 1 complaint response on 8 September 2023. The landlord stated as follows:
    1. It acknowledged the resident’s repeated reports and apologised.
    2. It had spoken to the contractor about the repair not being completed and had scheduled them to reattend on 5 September 2023 to complete a survey.
    3. It acknowledged responsibility for the repair. It would provide updates about the repair and what work was needed to be carried out to complete it.
    4. A contractor for the fence would attend on 19 September 2023.
  2. The resident was unhappy with the stage 1 complaint response and on 28 September 2023 asked for his complaint to be escalated. He acknowledged contractors had attended on 5 and 28 September 2023. He was not happy that the front gully had been inspected for a third time with camera and no inspection had been completed to the side gully. He requested the works to be completed in 1 appointment and before the winter when freezing could cause a slip risk for his household and the public. 
  3. The landlord acknowledged the complaint escalation request on 03 October 2023 and provided a stage 2 complaint response on 25 October 2023. In this response the landlord said as follows:
    1. It apologised that the matter had not been resolved.
    2. The contractor had replaced the front gully on 28 September 2023 but could not access the side gully. It had rearranged an appointment on 21 October 2023 and would follow the repair recommendation and keep the resident updated.
    3. With regards to the waterlogged front garden causing access issues and slip hazards for the household and the public, it had reviewed the evidence and would refer this to its technical officer for further investigation.
  4. The resident brought his complaint to the Ombudsman on 13 December 2023. He said he wanted the landlord to be more proactive in solving the issue and to put something in place to reduce the risks of someone getting hurt from falling on the ice. He also said the kitchen floor and the downstairs toilet had been affected by rising damp and mould due to the floodings.
  5. In response to the Ombudsman’s information request in June 2024 the landlord provided evidence of works completed on 24 May 2024. The resident contacted the landlord on 09 January 2025 to advise that the drainage issue had not been resolved. He stated to us he had provided photographs to the landlord to show ice on the front path. The landlord recently confirmed with us that it had received this evidence from the resident and acknowledged the drainage issue was still ongoing.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The landlord’s file shows that the resident raised repairs relating to the kitchen and toilet in May 2022. He stated that the flooding affected those areas and caused rising damp. He further reported this in bringing the complaint to us in December 2023. However, we have not seen evidence of those issues related to damp being raised through and exhausted the landlord’s complaints process.
  2. Under paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. Therefore, to provide the landlord an opportunity to try and resolve these repair reports under its complaint’s procedure, this investigation will not look at those concerns. The focus of the investigation will be on the landlord’s handling of the reported garden and drainage issues which has exhausted its process. Given the nature of the works involved this investigation will also consider events that occurred after the landlord’s internal complaint procedure that relate to resolution of the issue.
  3. The resident also reported that this issue had been ongoing for 7 years. However, in accordance with paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme, residents are generally expected to raise complaints with their landlord within 12 months of the issue arising. This allows the landlord a fair opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and relevant evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred. As such, this investigation will focus on events and evidence since May 2022 leading up to the complaint. Historic events will be considered for background and context only.

The landlords handling of repairs to garden and drainage issues.

  1. The landlord’s tenancy agreement states it is responsible for the structure and exterior of the dwelling house including drains, gutters, external pipes and external decoration.
  2. The landlord’s compensation policy allows for compensation as a good will gesture for time and trouble and categorises payments by impact on residents as moderate, substantial, severe or extreme.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy states the landlord is responsible for external structures including paths and fences. It also refers to non–urgent repairs, repairs that may require a pre-inspection and or need time to order any materials. Examples include non-urgent repairs to paths repairs to path or steps repairs to fences and gates. The landlord aims to complete these repairs within 60 days.
  4. The landlord’s repairs policy states that surveyor’s pre-inspections are only carried out for complex repair issues for example, structural repairs, reports of damp or where there is an on-going problem. It also states it will ‘undertake a risk assessment before we start work, so we know all the potential health and safety risks to you, your visitors and the public.’
  5. The resident initially reported in May 2022, and then in January and April 2023 excess water that stayed on garden surface making the garden ‘boggy’ and leaks onto the front footpath creating a slip hazard when frozen. It is recognised that identifying the source of leaks and drainage issues can often be complex and require various tests. We have seen evidence that the landlord completed surveys on the following dates to investigate the issue, 27 June 2022, 3 October 2022 and 7 February 2023. The date is unclear but the landlord completed a repair to the back garden between May and August 2023. However, in his complaint of August 2023, the resident reported that the repair to the front garden had been cancelled. He also reported potential risk for his vulnerable son and the public due to the front garden issues.  
  6. While the landlord did not provide any reason for the cancelled work to the front garden, at stage 1 of its process it acknowledged multiple appointments, and that the resident had had to report issues on numerous occasions. It apologised that the resident had to complain as the issue was still ongoing. It said it would keep him updated following a survey on 5 September 2023 however records provided by the landlord do not show evidence of updates to the resident. This was unreasonable and did not show a customer focused approach.
  7. The landlord’s repair logs show multiple inspections with repeat recommendations with little progress, examples include as follows;
    1. A contractor report on 23 June 2022 identified a defect in the drains that was similar to the defect identified during site visit on 23 October 2023.
    2. Repeat orders to assess the “boggy” garden including 30 May 2022, 4 January 2023, 5 April 2023 and 5 April 2024.
    3. Contractor report on 22 May 2023 recommended to soak aways at rear and side path. A soakaway was also recommended on 5 May 2024.
  8. While the landlord was responsive to the resident’s garden repair reports and evidenced that it arranged multiple inspections, it could not demonstrate that it had followed the recommendations of those inspections in a timely manner and fully resolved the issue. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not effectively progress the works or monitor them. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on repairs recommends that landlords monitor repairs and regularly review its approach for effectiveness. In this case regardless of the landlord’s statement of learning taken at stage 1, it did not demonstrate that it had followed up or resolved the issue. 
  9. In its stage 2 complaint response of 25 October 2023, the landlord apologised for the further delay in resolving the matter and said a detailed action plan had been provided by the contractor to complete the work in stages. A site visit was scheduled with the relevant technical staff, and it would keep the resident updated about appointments and progress of works.
  10. However, records show no further action until 27 November 2023 where a further camera survey and leak test was completed by the landlord. The resident had to chase for an update in January 2024 and the site visit was not completed until 23 January 2024. Despite this the next recorded action was not until 05 April 2024 where further surveys were conducted. The works were recorded as completed on 24 May 2024 when land drainage was installed, this was significantly outside the 60 days timescales to complete non routine works and just about 2 years since the resident’s initial repair report from 30 May 2022.
  11. This further delay following stage 2 response was unreasonable and particularly concerning given the risk of ice throughout the winter period and the fact that this hazard directly affected the front access to the property. Furthermore, the landlord was aware of the resident’s son’s vulnerabilities including autism and visual impairment which reasonably increased the risk of harm. There is no evidence to show that a risk assessment was completed by the landlord in advance of works starting or at any point which would have been appropriate and in compliance with its repairs policy. In failing to follow its own policy the landlord missed an opportunity to assess the potential impact of this hazard on the household.
  12. The landlords call logs and the resident’s complaints to the landlord evidence that the resident informed the landlord multiple times about his son’s disability. The landlord however later told the Ombudsman that no vulnerabilities were recorded in this case. This inconsistency raises concerns about the landlord’s record keeping and its approach to recognising and responding to vulnerability. Landlords are expected to identify and record vulnerabilities so that decisions and actions reflect the individual circumstances of residents. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider how it could escalate solutions to address the ongoing risks more promptly.
  13. Overall, while the landlord acknowledged and apologised for failings in its stage 2 complaints response it failed to rectify the issues in a timely manner, if at all. It took further 7 months (until May 2024) after its stage 2 response to complete the repairs as per the inspection’s recommendations (from September 2023 and January 2024). The delay, poor communication and multiple appointments were a reported source of frustration for the resident who was left uncertain and worried about the ongoing risk posed by the drainage issues. Additionally, in providing an update for this investigation, in January 2025, the resident reported the issue as not fully resolved and stated he had provided evidence to the landlord. The landlord agreed the drainage issue being outstanding following a review of the evidence.
  14. Furthermore, despite acknowledging failures, the landlord did not offer the resident compensation for the inconvenience and distress caused by the lack of progress which would have been appropriate and in line with its compensation policy. As such, the landlord missed an opportunity to put things right during its complaint’s process and acknowledge the impact its failures had on the resident.
  15. For the above reasons, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the recurring drainage issue. We order the landlord to pay the resident £600 compensation which is in line with our remedy’s guidance where ‘‘the landlord has acknowledged failings and/or made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident and/or the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.’’
  16. The landlord recently acknowledged that the matter was unresolved. The most recent update from the landlord to us suggested the issue may be linked to the gardens slope. It is therefore appropriate that the landlord prioritises resolution of this issue in consultation with the resident. The landlord is ordered to arrange an independent inspection and to consider any outstanding remedial options identified.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the drainage issue.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the delay and failings identified in this report.
    2. pay the resident £600 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failures in handling of the drainage issue.
  2. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the Ombudsman orders the landlord to arrange a new independent inspection of the garden and path area and consider all remedial actions identified. The landlord should provide the Service and the resident with the outcome of the inspection and any schedule of works or an explanation for its decision in case it decides to not follow any recommendations.
  3. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within their respective timeframes.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord review and update the resident’s tenancy file with particular attention as to how household vulnerabilities are recorded. This is to ensure that the residents household vulnerabilities are properly recognised and considered in the landlord’s service delivery.