Leeds City Council (202348268)

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

What we have not investigated

6. The resident believed the landlord’s handling of the repairs and its lack of notice breached the Equality Act 2010. She said she felt racially discriminated against and oppressed. She added she was vulnerable, had protected characteristics, and the situation caused her anxiety. We cannot determine whether a landlord has breached the Equality Act 2010, but we can assess whether the landlord acted appropriately in responding to the resident’s concerns. If the resident believes the landlord discriminated against her, she may wish to seek independent legal advice.

What we have investigated

7. The landlord accepted it failed to raise an urgent repair after the resident reported missing roof tiles and guttering repairs in September 2023. It took over 4 months to complete the repairs on 19 January 2024. This was far outside its 3-5 working day urgent repair timescale set out in its repair standards. It was therefore appropriate that it acknowledged the distress and inconvenience this caused to the resident.
8. Additionally, the landlord accepted it should have notified the resident before installing scaffolding, but it did not due to “human error”. It also apologised that its contractors returned the same day despite her concerns. It was appropriate for the landlord to recognise its failing. Especially given the landlord’s ‘Contractors Code of Conduct’ requires reasonable communication before visits. It was therefore good practice to discuss this failing with its contractor to learn from this going forward.
9. The resident said the lack of notice took away her choice to stay home during the works. She felt the scaffolding potentially left her home vulnerable, given she lived in a flat within a converted house. The landlord explained it had installed the scaffolding in line with industry standards, and it would remove the platform roof access as soon as it could. It accepted that the lack of notice, combined with the delayed repairs, caused the resident distress and inconvenience. This was appropriate.
10. The resident said the landlord’s contractor started work at 8am, and the noise impacted her. The landlord explained this was in line with standard construction hours. This was reasonable and in line with the Pollution Control Act 1974, which limits noisy works to 8am to 6pm on weekdays. The landlord was therefore entitled to install the scaffolding during those hours. However, it rightly acknowledged that the lack of notice increased the impact on her.
11. After the repairs, the resident said she was unhappy with the quality of the works. She reported that the new guttering obstructed her window and the wood used would not last. The landlord arranged follow-on repairs to resolve outstanding issues, which was an appropriate response. It also explained it replaced the guttering like-for-like with treated and sealed wood to ensure durability. This was a reasonable approach to repair the guttering. Landlords are not obliged to offer improvements or upgrades except where this is the only method of ensuring a full and effective repair. In this case, it was able to complete a like-for-like replacement which was appropriate.
12. The landlord completed a fair investigation into the resident’s concern that contractors moved her garden items. Although the resident disagreed with its findings, its actions showed the landlord took her concerns seriously. It asked her for any footage or evidence to investigate this further. This showed a willingness to resolve the issue.
13. The available evidence shows the landlord engaged with the resident’s concerns of discrimination and that it breached the Equality Act 2010. The landlord gave reasonable consideration to her concerns and responded appropriately. It investigated the matter with its contractor and considered its actions against its policies. The landlord clearly communicated its findings to the resident and explained why it found no evidence of discrimination or a breach of its duties under the Equality Act 2010. This showed it took her concerns seriously. We have seen no evidence that the landlord’s conclusion was wrong or unfair.
14. The resident disagreed with the landlord’s decision to recharge her for the external works in her service charge account. The landlord correctly explained that she was responsible for contributing towards such works under the terms of the lease. It only had to consult with her about works in advance where the costs amounted to over £250, and as such, its position was correct. It also explained why her neighbour did not contribute because they were not a leaseholder. This was good practice to show transparency of why it would recharge her, and not her neighbour.
15. The resident remained unhappy with the £250 compensation offer. She felt the landlord should increase this because it only covered the cost of the works. The landlord explained this was to reflect the impact of its failings and not the cost of the works. Given her obligation to contribute to the works under her lease, this was appropriate.
16. The landlord’s £250 offer was fair and reasonable in the circumstances. It was in line with our remedies guidance and the landlord’s goodwill guidance for failings which impacted the resident. Considering this, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to put right the impact caused by its failings.
17. The resident reported that the landlord installed new scaffolding without notice in April 2024. We have not investigated this because it occurred after the complaints process ended and the matter has not yet been through the landlord’s complaints process. If she wishes to, the resident can make a new complaint and bring this to us to investigate if needed.

18. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time was not in line with our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’). The landlord’s policy stated it would respond within 10 working days at both stages. However, the landlord responded to the complaint within the timescales set out in the Code instead. This was to respond within 10 working days at stage 1, and 20 working days at stage 2.
19. After the initial response, the resident asked the landlord to increase its compensation offer and explained the impact of its failings. Generally, landlords should progress expressions of dissatisfaction to stage 2 to investigate. However, in this case, it was reasonable for the landlord to try to resolve this outside of its complaints process. This was because the resident said she hoped to avoid escalating her complaint if it could resolve her compensation concern.
20. Additionally, the landlord provided a timely response to the resident’s concerns before escalating the complaint to stage 2 when she remained dissatisfied. From both the date of her increased compensation request (2 February 2024) and her later escalation request (8 February 2024), the landlord responded in line with the Code’s overall target timescale of 25 working days. Therefore, its interim response did not cause any significant detriment to the overall handling of the complaint.
21. The resident was unhappy that the staff member who issued the stage 1 response later went on leave. She felt by not notifying her, the landlord impacted her ability to escalate her complaint. While she was frustrated, the landlord cannot reasonably notify residents when staff take leave as this would be resource intensive. It had already told her she could escalate through the complaint team’s mailbox. Additionally, the staff member had set an automatic reply detailing alternative contact routes. This was good practice. We have found no failing in the landlord’s response to her concerns.
22. The resident also raised concerns about the landlord in its role as her employer. It was right for the landlord to not respond to such concerns and instead signpost her to appropriate ways to raise concerns as an employee. This was appropriate.
23. Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling was appropriate. It considered the resident’s concerns and responded in line with its policy and the Code.

Learning

24. The landlord investigated the resident’s discrimination and Equality Act 2010 concerns appropriately. It identified learning and explained it would place an alert on her account to notify her of any works going forward. Overall, the landlord showed it took her concerns seriously and explained its findings clearly. This was good.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

25. The landlord’s record keeping was appropriate. This allowed us to complete a full investigation into the resident’s complaint.

Communication

26. The landlord acknowledged its communication failings as it did not provide updates to the resident about the repairs and installing scaffolding. It discussed this with its contractor to ensure it learned from this going forward.