Leeds City Council (202441659)

Decision
Case ID	202441659
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Leeds City Council
Landlord type	Local Authority
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	20 November 2025

Background

The resident lives in a 2-bedroom house with her son.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to reports of:
1. Repairs.
2. Safety concerns.
We have also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that there was:
1. No maladministration regarding the landlord’s response to reports of repairs.
2. Service failure regarding the landlord’s response to reports of safety concerns.
3. No maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Landlord’s response to reports of repairs

The landlord responded to the resident’s reports of a broken socket and leaks within its repair timeframes.
It appropriately directed the resident to make a compensation claim in relation to laminate flooring damaged due to leaks.
When the resident reported further repair issues, the landlord tried to liaise with her to arrange to visit the property to assess the repairs. However, when it visited, it could not gain access due to no one being at home. This prevented the landlord from taking any further action.

Landlord’s response to reports of safety concerns

The landlord advised the resident to contact the police due to safety concerns regarding her ex-partner but failed to consider how it could support her.
It arranged for its housing team to contact the resident to discuss her housing needs.

Handling of the complaint

The landlord acted in line with the timeframes set out in 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 failure identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failure identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 18 December 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £50 for the distress caused by its failing regarding its response to her safety concerns.	No later than 18 December 2025
3	The landlord must confirm its position to the resident and us regarding the actions it has taken or will take following its completion of the domestic abuse risk assessment and the current position of the resident’s application to move.	No later than 18 December 2025

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
31 December 2024	The resident complained about the condition of the kitchen; the key points were as follows: The landlord did not contact her after she reported leaks from a kitchen tap and a pipe under the sink on 10 December 2024, which had resulted in a foul smell, mould and dirt under the sink, and damaged the laminate flooring. This had been ongoing for 3 months and increased her water charges. 2 kitchen cabinets had been missing since she moved into the property and the countertop behind the sink was damaged, which meant water could go behind the unit. She said she reported this a few times, including when she first viewed the property and most recently at the beginning of 2024.
3 January 2025	The landlord acknowledged the complaint.
6 January 2025	The resident sent a further email, ‘to file a complaint against the council for being negligent, and due to the negligence, has caused damage to my property and health issues’. Included in this were numerous repair issues as well as safety concerns regarding her ex-partner.
15 January 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response; the key points were as follows: It had tried to contact the resident on 5 occasions to discuss her complaint. A technical officer and area supervisor would visit on 16 January 2025 to complete a thorough check of the property and report all repairs that it needed to arrange as soon as possible. It asked the resident to raise repairs as soon as she noticed them to avoid them getting worse. The resident needed to make a compensation claim regarding the laminate flooring damaged due to the leak, for which it provided a claim form. It advised the resident to contact the police regarding stalking from her ex-partner.
17 January 2025	The resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2; the key points were as follows: She was not interested in a claim. Mould grew frequently in her home, which impacted her son’s health. She had several problems with property damage due to the landlord’s ‘negligence’. She asked the landlord to consider providing a home move due to safety concerns regarding her ex-partner.
17 January 2025	The landlord acknowledged the escalation request.
11 February 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response; the key points were as follows: It had tried to contact the resident on 7 occasions to discuss her complaint. It provided a claim form as this was its process where personal items had been damaged. It had been unable to access the property to assess repairs on 16 January 2025 so it emailed the resident to confirm it would revisit on 10 February 2025 but was again unable to gain access. It had rescheduled the visit for 20 February 2025 and asked the resident to let it know if this was not convenient. Its housing team would phone the resident to discuss her housing situation and how it could support her.
20 February 2025	The resident referred her complaint to this Service. She requested that the landlord provide compensation in recognition of damage and inconvenience caused by the repair issues raised. She said she was not interested in the landlord completing any repairs as she wanted to feel safe in a new home.

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	Landlord’s response to reports of repairs
Finding	No maladministration

What we have not considered

The resident told us that the condition of the property impacted her son’s health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last.

Landlord’s response to reports of repairs

On 23 April 2024, the resident reported a socket hanging off a bedroom wall. The landlord’s records show that it fixed this on 2 May 2024, which was within its timeframe of 20 working days for routine repairs.
On 10 December 2024, the resident reported leaks in the kitchen. Although the landlord incorrectly recorded these as being in the bathroom, this did not impact the repair. It noted that the leaks were containable and, therefore, not an emergency.
On 31 December 2024, the resident complained that the landlord had not fixed the leaks. She said the leaks had been ongoing for approximately 3 months, had damaged the laminate flooring in the kitchen and increased her water charges. At this point, the landlord was still within its timeframe for routine repairs. However, when the resident reported that the leaks were uncontainable on 2 January 2025, it appropriately raised an urgent repair and fixed the leaks the same day, which was in line with its 24-hour timeframe for urgent repairs.
Also in her complaint, the resident raised concerns about the condition of the kitchen units. On 6 January 2025, she raised numerous other repairs, including damp and mould and that the landlord had left wires hanging from a bedroom socket following a previous repair. There is no evidence that the resident previously reported damp and mould or that she pursued a further repair of a bedroom socket. This meant the landlord was unaware of these issues. However, it said it would inspect the property in relation to all repairs. It was reasonable that the landlord said it would investigate.
In accordance with the tenancy agreement, the landlord asked the resident to report any repairs at the earliest opportunity to avoid issues from getting worse. It also directed her to make a compensation claim for the damaged flooring, which was in line with its financial remedies guidance.
The landlord arranged 2 appointments to inspect the property but noted that no one was at home on each occasion. Its stage 2 response then confirmed a further visit and asked the resident to let it know if this was not suitable. We understand that the landlord was again unable to gain access. It is unclear what issues remain outstanding.
The landlord acted in line with its timeframes for urgent and routine repairs. It tried to liaise with the resident to assess the repair issues raised, as outlined in its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses, and appropriately directed her to make a compensation claim regarding the damaged flooring. On this basis, we have made a finding of no maladministration.

Complaint	Landlord’s response to reports of safety concerns
Finding	Service failure

What we have not considered

In her referral to us, the resident expressed concerns about the landlord’s response to her request to move house. We can only investigate complaints about councils where they are acting as the landlord under a licence, lease or a social housing tenancy. The residents concerns about her request to be rehoused fall outside of the landlords remit. Such complaints are better dealt with by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, but we can look at the landlord’s response to her concerns.

Landlord’s response to reports of safety concerns

On 6 January 2025, the resident expressed safety concerns regarding an ex-partner and requested a home move. There is no evidence that the landlord was previously aware of this issue. Although the landlord appropriately advised the resident to contact the police, it is a failing that it did not consider whether it could offer any support or assess any risk posed to the resident and her son.
Before issuing its stage 2 response, the landlord exchanged emails with the resident, who provided evidence that she had contacted its housing team on 17 January 2025. This prompted the landlord to arrange for its housing team to contact her to discuss her housing needs, which was reasonable in the circumstances.
When responding to our request for evidence, the landlord said it was compiling a vulnerability policy, which was scheduled for completion by the end of 2025. However, in line with its safeguarding policy, we understand that, after issuing its stage 2 response, it completed a domestic abuse risk assessment when it visited the resident to complete an annual tenancy check-in. While it was positive that the landlord did subsequently assess the risk posed to the resident and her family, its failure to do so when the resident originally complained, or consider whether it could offer any support, represents service failure.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord has a published complaints policy that complied with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
The landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s complaint in line with the timeframes specified in its complaints policy. This has led to a finding of no maladministration regarding its complaint handling.

Learning

It would be appropriate for the landlord to review its handling of reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) in consideration of our learning from severe maladministration Spotlight report on ASB.