Leeds City Council (202511689)

Background

1. The resident lives in an independent living property accessed through a secure communal door. She is immobile, has Alzheimer’s Disease, and receives care worker visits at home. Her son, who is his mother’s representative, told the landlord that when the communal door fails, carers cannot enter the block, disrupting his mother’s care. He asked the landlord to put safeguarding measures in place for future occurrences of the door breaking.

What the complaint is about

2. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Safeguarding concerns relating to failures of the communal door entry system.
   2. The complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. We find service failure in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Safeguarding concerns relating to failures of the communal door entry system.
   2. The complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord did not show it fully considered and responded to the disadvantage the resident faced during the initial period when the door failed and before a contractor attended. There were shortfalls in the landlord’s communication as it did not fully explain its position on these concerns.
5. The landlord did not meet the timescales in its policy for complaint replies. The resident’s son had to chase the landlord.

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.

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.

6. The Equality Act 2010 provides a discrimination law to protect individuals from unfair treatment and promotes a fair and more equal society. The Act requires any person or organisation which carries out public functions to have ‘due regard’ (properly consider) how they can eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations in doing so.
7. We have no legal power to decide whether a landlord has breached the Equality Act, this can only be done by the courts. However, we can decide whether a landlord has properly considered its duties.
8. The landlord had a duty to show due regard to the resident’s disability. In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s son’s safeguarding concerns. It explained its repair commitments during communal door failures and agreed to install a keypad to the side of the building. This showed it had considered the resident’s son’s concerns and possible options to address these.
9. The resident’s son chased the landlord several times in February and March 2025 as the keypad had not been fitted. On 7 March 2025 the landlord said there had been a miscommunication and that approval for the keypad was the side of the building, not the scooter room. It also said it could not install keypads on scooter room doors. As the landlord had referred to refitting a previous installed keypad, and the resident’s son’s email on 20 January 2025 referred to the scooter room door, it was understandable he believed the work related to that area. The landlord missed the chance to confirm the location and set the resident’s son’s expectations at an earlier opportunity.
10. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it could not install a keypad as it was not part of its standard offer. Its response did not show it had considered or acknowledged the resident’s vulnerabilities as part of its decision making. Its concerns about a keypad creating a security risk were reasonable, as it must consider the safety of all residents in the block. However its response conflicted with earlier information that a keypad could be fitted, although not to the scooter room. The landlord should have acknowledged this in order to rebuild trust with the resident’s son.
11. The landlord also said the new door entry system allowed a temporary keycode to be programmed by a contractor. This was a positive emergency measure, but it did not address the resident’s concern about the time between the door failing and a contractor attending. The landlord did not explain whether any measures had been considered for this period. While the landlord may not have been able to do anything further, by failing to address this, it did not show it had fully considered the resident’s son’s concerns.
12. We find service failure in the landlord’s handling of safeguarding concerns relating to failures of the communal door entry system. It did not show it fully considered and responded to the disadvantage the resident faced during the initial period when the door failed and before a contractor attended. Whilst it is possible that the landlord may not have been able to do anything further to address these concerns, there were shortfalls in tits communication. Clearer communication would have ensured the resident’s son understood what actions the landlord could take regarding the request for a keypad at an earlier opportunity.
13. We have ordered the landlord to pay £100 compensation to the resident. This is to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of safeguarding concerns relating to failures of the communal door entry system. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy where there has been a service failure.

14. The landlord’s compliments and complaints policy says it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days of acknowledgment. Stage 2 complaints will be acknowledged within 3 working days, with a response within 20 working days of acknowledgment.
15. The landlord provided its stage 1 acknowledgement, stage 1 response and stage 2 acknowledgement on time, in line with its policy.
16. On 17 April 2025 the landlord told the resident it needed more time to respond to his complaint. At that time, the complaint response was already overdue. The landlord then missed its revised deadline and did not provide updates, which led to the resident’s son chasing for a response. It took 40 working days to provide its stage 2 response. This was significantly outside its policy timescale.
17. We find service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. Although the landlord apologised for the delay, it did not meet its own timescales and the resident’s son had to chase for updates. We have ordered the landlord to pay £50 to recognise the inconvenience caused.

Learning

18. When a resident raises concerns linked to disability, vulnerability, or safeguarding, the landlord should show how it has taken these factors into account in its decision making. This includes setting out how risks were assessed and whether reasonable adjustments or temporary measures were considered.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

19. The landlord provided adequate records for our investigation.

Communication

20. As discussed, the landlord gave conflicting information about whether a keypad could be installed. This affected trust and created uncertainty for the resident’s son. Ensuring consistency across responses will help residents understand what action the landlord can take or is unable to take, and why its position may have changed.