Leeds City Council (202500689)

Decision
Case ID	202500689
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Leeds City Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	17 April 2026

Background

The resident reported that the top hinge of the kitchen door had come loose and the door had fallen against one of the kitchen wall cupboards, which caused the cupboard to fall off the wall and damage various items belonging to the resident. The resident reported a leak from the boiler and then shortly afterwards reported a second leak. The landlord has confirmed it has alerts on its system to show that both the resident and her mother have physical disabilities.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
1. Damaged items caused by a kitchen cupboard falling from the wall and the landlord’s handling of the resulting repairs.
2. Leaks from the boiler.
We have also decided to investigate the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damaged items caused by a kitchen cupboard falling from the wall and the landlord’s handling of the resulting repairs.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks from the boiler.
There was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord responded appropriately in line with its policies when the resident reported that the kitchen door had fallen off its hinge and the kitchen cupboard had fallen off the wall.
The landlord responded to the reported leaks from the boiler within the appropriate timescales in line with its policy.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaints within appropriate timescales.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
20 February 2025	The resident made a stage 1 complaint that one of her kitchen cupboards had fallen off the wall and had caused damage to several items of crockery and electrical items. She said the kitchen door had become detached from the top hinge and had fallen against the cupboard, which had caused the cupboard to fall off the wall. She requested compensation for the costs of hiring a cleaner to clean up the broken items and for replacing the damaged/broken items. She also asked for compensation for the stress, upset and harm caused by the incident.
4 March 2025	The landlord sent its stage 1 reply in which it said: The resident had said she would email a list of the damaged items but the landlord said it had not received this. It therefore attached an insurance claim form for the resident to complete and return. It had fitted a replacement cupboard and had arranged for a cleaning contractor to clear away the damaged items. The resident had agreed an appointment for the contractor to fit a new door on 4 March 2025. The heating contractor had attended on 20 and 21 February 2025 to repair the boiler leak. The landlord said it did not uphold the complaint.
4 March 2025	The resident wrote to the landlord to say she was disappointed with the landlord’s stage 1 response because the door had clearly been in a state of disrepair and rot. She said in her view the landlord had failed to maintain safe living conditions and had breached its legal obligations. She confirmed that the contractor had hung the new door but said she was concerned it had not painted or varnished the door to protect it.
3 April 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 response in which it said: The resident had not reported any previous repairs or issues with the kitchen door. Although residents are responsible for minor repairs, it had arranged for the kitchen door to be painted. It had not found any failings with its response as it had attended to all repairs within its target timescales. It apologised that there had been a second leak on the boiler but said the second leak was from a different component to the first leak. The landlord said it had repaired the boiler and had then subsequently renewed the boiler on 12 March 2025. The landlord said it did not uphold the complaint.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident wrote to us to say she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response because the kitchen door had been rotten. This had caused it to become detached from the top hinge and fall against the cupboard. The cupboard had then fallen off the wall and damaged several of her belongings. She said the landlord had not adequately inspected the property prior to letting it and the incident had caused her emotional distress.

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 the resident’s reports of damaged items caused by a kitchen cupboard falling from the wall and the landlord’s handling of the resulting repairs
Finding	No maladministration

At the time of the reported incident involving the kitchen cupboard, the landlord’s repairs policy on its website said that it would categorise repairs as an emergency, urgent or routine repair depending on the urgency of the issue. Emergency repairs would be completed within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 3 working days and routine repairs completed within 20 working days.
The resident contacted the landlord on 20 February 2025 to report that the kitchen door had become detached from its top hinge, fallen against one of the wall cupboards and caused the cupboard to fall off the wall. As a result, several items of crockery and electrical items had been damaged. A joiner attended on the same day to check that the other kitchen units were safe and to remove any defective plaster that could fall. As one of the wall units had fallen, it was reasonable that the landlord had raised an emergency order to check the safety of the other units. The contractor had then attended within the appropriate timescale for emergencies.
The joiner reported that the broken items in the kitchen needed to be cleared. The landlord therefore raised an emergency order for a cleaning contractor to remove all of the damaged items from the kitchen. The cleaning contractor attended the next day (21 February 2025) and removed the broken/damaged items, including the broken cupboard. The landlord had raised the order as an emergency and therefore the contractor attended within an appropriate timescale.
The landlord raised a follow-on order to replace the kitchen cupboard that had fallen. As the installation of the new cupboard was a routine job, the contractor completed the work within an appropriate timescale on 25 February 2025.
The landlord’s records show that the contractor had removed the kitchen door and on 4 March 2025 it fitted a new door. The new door was fitted 8 working days after the resident had reported that it had fallen off its hinge. As the job had been raised as a routine (20-working day) job, the contractor carried out the work within an appropriate timescale.
On 31 March 2025, the resident asked the landlord to paint the replacement door that its contractor had fitted. The landlord agreed to the request and, as a result, the contractor promptly painted the door on 31 March and 1 April 2025.
The landlord’s records state that it contacted the resident on various occasions during the complaints process to check on progress and provide updates. For example, it spoke to the resident on 24, 26 and 28 February and on 31 March 2025. This showed that the landlord maintained good communication with the resident, which was important given her vulnerability.
As part of her complaint, the resident requested compensation for the damaged items, the cost of hiring a cleaner to clear the broken items from the kitchen and for the distress she had experienced. The landlord’s records state that it spoke to the resident on 24 February 2025 and she agreed to provide the approximate replacement costs for the damaged items. It is unclear from the evidence seen whether the resident provided the landlord with the overall cost of replacing the items. However, in its stage 1 response, the landlord attached an insurance claim form for the resident to complete and return.
It was appropriate for the landlord to ask the resident to provide the cost of replacing the damaged items so it could decide whether she should make an insurance claim against its public liability insurance. The landlord’s financial remedies policy says that where the claim value is estimated at above £100, it must be submitted to its insurance team on a claim form. Although it is unclear whether the estimated value of the damaged items was above £100, in our view it was fair and reasonable for the landlord to send a claim form to the resident. This would enable the resident to have her claim assessed by the landlord’s insurers.
The resident said in her stage 2 complaint that the landlord had failed to maintain safe living conditions and had breached its legal obligations. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord had received notice of repairs to the door and had failed to carry them out. For example, the repairs history for the property does not show any reports of defects to the kitchen door and we have not seen any evidence that the resident reported problems with the door prior to it falling off its hinge.
The landlord’s records show that it carried out a ‘voids post-inspection’ in September 2024 and the internal doors and frames passed the inspection. The inspection report says that all doors were securely fixed within their frames, opened and closed freely and were free from damage. Therefore, we have not seen any evidence to show that the landlord should reasonably have known that the kitchen door would come loose from one of the hinges.
If the resident considers the landlord has been negligent in maintaining the property, she may wish to seek independent legal advice as we are unable to issue binding decisions about negligence or liability. The courts have the power to issue binding decisions about such matters.
Overall, we have found that the landlord responded appropriately in line with its policies when the resident reported that the kitchen door had fallen off its hinge and the kitchen cupboard had fallen off the wall. We have also found that the landlord’s overall approach was supportive and its communications were good. We have therefore found there was no maladministration in its response to the resident’s reports of damaged items caused by a kitchen cupboard falling from the wall and the landlord’s handling of the resulting repairs.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks from the boiler
Finding	No maladministration

The resident reported a leak from the boiler on 20 February 2025. A gas engineer attended on the same day, which was appropriate as the landlord had raised the job as an emergency. The engineer isolated the cold water feed to the boiler to stop the leak as he needed to obtain parts to repair the boiler. This meant that the resident had no hot water. However, the engineer noted that there was an electric shower in the property and therefore the resident still had a source of hot water.
The engineer returned the next day and replaced the failed component on the boiler, which reinstated the hot water supply. Given that the engineer had to obtain parts to repair the boiler, it was reasonable that he had taken action to stop the leak and had checked that the resident still had a source of hot water while she was waiting for the boiler to be repaired. The engineer obtained the parts and repaired the boiler within a reasonable timescale.
The resident reported a problem with the water pressure on 24 February 2025 through the landlord’s online portal. An engineer attended on the same day and adjusted the water pressure. As the landlord had raised the order as an emergency, the engineer had attended within an appropriate timescale.
On 5 March 2025, the resident phoned the landlord’s emergency out of hours team to report a further leak on the boiler. An engineer attended on the same day and replaced the defective component. The contractor attended within an appropriate timescale as the landlord had raised the job as an emergency. The landlord’s records state that the second leak was caused by a different boiler component than the first leak. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord should reasonably have known that the boiler would develop a second leak. For example, the boiler had been checked during the period the property was void in August 2024 and had passed the check.
Although the boiler was working, the landlord decided to fit a new boiler on 12 March 2025. This was a positive gesture by the landlord as it provided the resident with ‘peace of mind’ regarding the boiler.
Overall, we have found that the landlord responded to the reported leaks from the boiler within the appropriate timescales in line with its policy. We have therefore found there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks from the boiler.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. At both stages it will acknowledge the complaint within 3 working days. It will then reply to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. If the landlord cannot respond within these timescales, it will provide the resident with regular updates.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 20 February 2025. The landlord appropriately acknowledged the complaint on 21 February 2025. It responded to the complaint on 4 March 2025, which was 7 working days after it had acknowledged the complaint. The landlord therefore responded to the complaint within an appropriate timescale in line with its policy.
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 4 March 2025 and the landlord appropriately acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 6 March 2025. It then sent its stage 2 response on 3 April 2025, which was 20 working days after acknowledging the complaint. The landlord therefore responded to the stage 2 complaint within an appropriate timescale in line with its policy.
In summary, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaints within appropriate timescales and therefore we have found there was no maladministration in its complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

We did not identify any record keeping issues during our investigation.

Communication

The landlord kept in contact with the resident to check on progress with the repairs and to provide updates. We found that its overall communications with the resident were good.