Sheffield City Council (202218226)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218226

Sheffield City Council

13 February 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 submitted 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of repairs to the resident’s kitchen.
2. Response to the resident’s reports of a central heating fault.
3. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of a 2-bedroom terraced house. The tenancy began in November 2020. The weekly rent charge was £90.59 per week from 1 April 2022. The landlord is a local authority and freeholder of the property. The landlord has recorded health vulnerabilities for household members. This includes the resident’s disabled daughter who has limited mobility and uses a wheelchair.
On 3 September 2022 the resident asked the landlord for permission to upgrade the property’s kitchen. The landlord granted this. On 12 September 2022 he reported a leak under the kitchen floor. The landlord attended the same day and arranged a specialist contractor. On 13 September 2022 it fixed a leak to the incoming water mains and made safe the kitchen floor. The contractor told the landlord the resident had removed kitchen floorboards himself before it arrived.
The resident made a complaint on 11 November 2022. He said:
1. the landlord had left him without a kitchen floor since 11 September 2022
2. it had needed to return on 27 September 2022 to fix its earlier leak repair
3. he was concerned for his family’s health due to a damp smell, mould, rotten floorboards, and woodworm in the kitchen
4. he cleared wet rubble from under the floor himself and replaced the kitchen and flooring
5. he did the work as the kitchen woodwork was mouldy and damaged and he could not wait for the landlord
6. he wanted it to refund him £3,598.97
7. the central heating had not worked properly since October 2021
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 27 January 2023. It said:
1. it was satisfied it responded to the resident’s leak in line with its policies
2. it had sent him claim forms for it to consider his kitchen replacement claim
3. it had arranged a woodworm inspection which he declined
4. he did not want the landlord to lift the flooring he had laid
5. it considered it was the resident’s decision to have completed kitchen work himself
6. it accepted delays to resolve his central heating issues from July 2022
7. it had arranged a repair and offered £200 compensation
On 20 March 2023 the resident escalated his complaint. He said the landlord’s response was inaccurate. He said he had agreed to lift the kitchen floor and move the kitchen cabinets himself. But only after discussing this with its plumber. He was unhappy that it had left temporary flooring and not communicated with him about follow on work. And that it would not consider refunding him for completing the work himself.
The landlord sent its stage 2 final response on 21 July 2023. It remained satisfied with its stage 1 decision. It said sorry for its late reply at stage 2 and accepted it had confused his complaint escalation with another complaint he had made. It acknowledged its own communication caused the error. It offered an additional £150 compensation for its complaint handling failure.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought his complaint to us. He said it should accept it failed to fix his kitchen floor. He expected compensation and reimbursement for the costs he incurred.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In contact with us in May 2023 the resident said the landlord’s handling of his repair and complaint caused his family stress. He also thought it should pay him for additional utility costs due to the delayed central heating repairs.
Although we are an alternative dispute resolution service, we are unable to prove legal liability, nor award damages. Whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health or finances requires a decision by an insurance claim or through the courts. Our role is to investigate if the landlord acted fairly, reasonably, and in line with its policies and procedures. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice or ask the landlord to provide him its insurance details if he would like to pursue a claim.
Our decision considers whether the landlord kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. If we find failure by a landlord, we can consider any distress and inconvenience caused.

Handling of repairs to the resident’s kitchen

As per the landlord’s tenancy conditions booklet ‘you and your home,’ a resident must not alter or improve their property without the landlord’s permission.
The same booklet explains the ‘right to repair’ process. It says a resident can claim up to £250 for work they have carried out when the landlord has not completed a repair on time.
It also explains the right to compensation for property improvements. It will consider claims at the end of a resident’s tenancy.
The landlord’s repairs policy states its repairs timescales as within 4 hours for an emergency repair. 24 hours for an urgent repair. And up to 25 days for an appointable repair.
The evidence shows the resident received the appropriate consent from the landlord to upgrade his kitchen units. It is unclear if this consent extended to work to the flooring. The resident says, before starting any work he lifted a floorboard in the kitchen due to a damp, musty smell. He identified standing water, slugs, woodworm, and rotten woodwork.
The resident does not dispute the landlord attended the same day he reported the leak on 12 September 2022. Or that it arranged for its contractor to complete the repair the next day. This was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s response times.
Due to the location of the damaged pipe, the resident says he offered to lift the floorboards and move the kitchen cabinets. Therefore, making it ready for the contractor to reach the incoming water mains on 13 September 2022.
While this was a reasonable offer, we have been unable to identify how he discussed or agreed these arrangements. This work was the landlord’s responsibility. It would complete such work to reach the identified leak and inspect, repair or reinstate the resident’s kitchen on completion. It is unclear why the resident chose to take responsibility for this.
The landlord’s repair records show it attended on 15 September 2022 to repair the kitchen floor. Its records state that the job was “bigger than expected”. It said the resident had removed more kitchen units and flooring. It made the floor safe and reported the job requirements. The landlord acted appropriately. It attended within its repair times and made the floor safe while assessing the next steps.
The resident chased the landlord for an update on 22 September 2022. Its repair records show it attended the next day as he reported his daughter was struggling to use her wheelchair. It recorded he refused for it to complete a repair. It said he wanted the whole kitchen floor replacing.
The resident disputes refusing the repair. He says the landlord incorrectly sent the operative to make the floor safe, which it had already done. While it is clear both parties disagree, the landlord’s urgent attendance demonstrated it gave due regard to reports a disabled person was experiencing difficulties. Though the final repair remained outstanding, the evidence shows the landlord had made it safe.
The resident describes removing more floorboards himself on 25 September 2022 to remove damp debris. He said he was concerned for their health. He said he drilled holes through the property’s concrete base as the water was not drying out.
On 26 September 2022 he reported a recurring leak. The landlord attended within 24 hours. It resolved a leak from its initial repair and identified additional work to a waste water gully, which it also fixed. This was appropriate and demonstrated the landlord attending in line with its repair response times.
It is unclear why the resident carried out the work he did. This was the landlord’s responsibility. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the expert opinion of its specialist staff and contractors and it believed the leak resolved. It is reasonable to have expected the resident to have reported his concerns and given it the opportunity to put things right. The evidence shows the landlord attended in line with its repair times when notified of problems. This was appropriate.
On 11 and 14 October 2022 the resident chased the landlord for an update with his kitchen floor repair. Considering the landlord’s 25 day repair time, it should have resolved it by 8 October 2022 after the first leak. But given the second leak and delay due to the increased size of the repair, it was reasonable that the 25 days reset. Giving a target date of 21 October 2022.
That said, as of 11 November 2022 the landlord had failed to respond to the resident’s October 2022 correspondence. The lack of communication and progress at this stage did not show the landlord effectively monitoring the outstanding repair. Nor that it outlined its position to the resident regarding what it believed it was responsible for. This caused the resident time and trouble chasing it to progress matters.
Between the end of November 2022 to early December 2022 the resident replaced the kitchen and flooring. He expected the landlord to refund him £3,958.97.
During the landlord’s stage 1 complaint investigation, it considered he had chosen to do the work himself. Therefore, it did not believe the cost was its responsibility. It sent him a right to repair claim form for it to consider paying him £250 for its delays. This showed the landlord appropriately considered its policies and took steps to inform the resident. The landlord states it has no record he made a claim.
The landlord also arranged a woodworm inspection which it attended on 12 January 2023. Its report of 17 January 2023 said it had been unable to complete its inspection. The resident had laid laminate flooring on the original joists without any treatments. The resident said he did not want the floor lifted or risk damaging it. While it was reasonable for the landlord to respect the resident’s wishes, it had a responsibility to ensure the safety of the property. It is unclear why it did not insist on an inspection, nor complete the treatments to the floor joists as recommended by its specialist contractor.
On 13 June 2024 the landlord wrote to us. Upon review of the resident’s complaint, it remained satisfied with the handling of the resident’s kitchen repairs. The landlord was satisfied that it had explained the right to repair process to the resident at the time and had not received a claim from him. It considered it needed to look at his reports of woodworm again. While this demonstrated the landlord learning from past outcomes, it has not shown that it has rearranged this inspection. Therefore, we have made a recommendation that it does.
Based on our findings we find service failure. The evidence demonstrates the resident asked for permission to do kitchen work and chose to complete repair work himself. The landlord attended to each repair within its repair timescale. However, the landlord did not show effective communication or monitoring of the outstanding floor repair. This caused him time and trouble chasing for updates.
As the resident removed additional floorboards, the job became more than it expected. But it still had a responsibility to communicate its position with him and put this right. The landlord is ordered to pay £100 compensation for the inconvenience, time, and trouble caused to the resident. This is consistent with our remedies guidance where unreasonable delays have caused distress and inconvenience.
We have made a recommendation for the landlord to provide its right to repair claim form. Had it communicated effectively, the resident would have understood the landlord’s position and reassured by a date it would complete the work.

Response to the resident’s reports of a central heating fault

Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord must keep in repair and working order the installations for the supply of gas, water, electricity, sanitation, space heating, and heating water. This includes water pipes, boilers, and water tanks. The landlord acknowledges this obligation in its ‘you and your home’ tenancy conditions guide.
The resident’s initial complaint said he had experienced an issue with the central heating system since October 2021. The landlord’s stage 1 response acknowledged delays from July 2022 to resolve it and offered £200 compensation.
The landlord’s timeline of events differs from the resident’s. We have been unable to identify evidence that the resident reported this in October 2021. However, we can see a report of heating issues starting from 2 April 2022.
The landlord’s repair records show 5 jobs between 2 April 2022 to 21 December 2022. We are satisfied it attended the property each time in line with its repair timescales. It flushed the system and attempted repairs. However, the landlord did not fully remedy the identified pipework issues until 23 January 2023. This left the household with heating upstairs, but intermittently unable to heat downstairs. This was not appropriate. Particularly as the landlord was aware of vulnerabilities in the household.
The landlord’s letter to us reviewed its handling of this matter. The landlord said it had not offered proportionate compensation and considered the resident had suffered a loss of amenity. The landlord proposed a 10% rent reduction for the period he experienced the heating fault. The evidence indicates this to be 2 April 2022 to 23 January 2023. Approximately 42 weeks. This was a reasonable suggestion and demonstrated the landlord’s desire to learn and put right the identified failures.
In the circumstances, we consider the landlord pays the resident £380.48 compensation for loss of amenity. We have calculated this sum based on 10% of the weekly rent charge of £90.59 per week from 1 April 2022.
We also order the landlord to pay the £200 compensation offered during its ICP. This is to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused.
While we encourage landlords to revisit complaints, we have to consider that it proposed its revised compensation offer 11 months after its stage 2 final response. Therefore, outside of its ICP. In such circumstances, our outcome guidance is clear that a finding of reasonable redress cannot be determined.
Therefore, we find maladministration. The landlord’s failure adversely affected the resident and its initial offer of compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Complaint handling

At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord ran a problem solving, investigation, and review stage complaints process. It would attempt to resolve a complaint at the problem solving stage within 3 working days. When unable to achieve this, it would provide a response at the investigation stage within 28 calendar days. Its policy had no listed response time for the review stage.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out requirements for member landlords. The Code, 1 April 2022, required landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively.
The landlord’s policy at the time did not align with the Code. But the Ombudsman accepted corporate complaints processes for local authority landlords at that time.
The landlord has updated its complaints policy and procedures and now complies with the 1 April 2024 statutory Code.
The resident complained on 11 November 2022. The landlord provided its stage 1 investigation response on 27 January 2023. This was not appropriate as this was 49 calendar days beyond its complaints policy response time.
The landlord’s stage 1 response accepted he had faced repair delays to his central heating system. It apologised and offered £200 compensation. But its response contained no explanation of the cause for the delays or how it would learn from its failures.
The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 20 March 2023. In the absence of a response, he approached us for support. On 10 May 2023 we wrote to the landlord and instructed it to provide its stage 2 response no later than 15 June 2023. This should not have been necessary.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 27 July 2023, which was 129 days after the resident escalated the complaint. This was not appropriate, as it was not consistent with the Code.
The landlord accepted it had delayed in sending a stage 2 response. It said sorry and offered £150 for its complaint handling failures. This demonstrated the landlord’s attempts to put this right. But the stage 2 response did not identify learning or actions it would take to prevent similar happening again. Also, its letter contained out of date guidance on how the resident could access our service. This was not appropriate as we would expect a member landlord to maintain its processes in line with ours.
The landlord’s review of the complaint identified record keeping failures affecting its complaint handling. It advised of changes to its staff, reviews to its policies and procedures, and the implementation of additional training for all complaint handling staff. The landlord stated it wanted to apologise to the resident and proposed increasing compensation for this matter to £400.
When there has been an admission of failure, as is the case here, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the complaint satisfactorily. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our remedies guidance.
The landlord’s proposed offer of £400 compensation for complaint handling failures demonstrates its wish to put things right. This sum is in line with our remedies guidance for maladministration.
It was fair for the landlord to review this complaint and revisit the offer of compensation. It demonstrated learning from outcomes with additional complaint handling training. And fully accepted its errors. But as explained earlier in this report, our outcome guidance is clear that a finding of reasonable redress cannot be determined.
Therefore, we find maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling. We order it to pay its revised compensation offer of £400.
Issues identified in this case are similar to cases already determined. The landlord has demonstrated compliance with our previous orders. Including to complete additional record keeping and complaint handling training. So we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case, which would duplicate those already made. The landlord should consider whether there are any issues arising from this case that require further action.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s kitchen.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a central heating fault.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

We order the landlord to take the following action within 4 working weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
1. Pay the resident a total of £1,080.48 compensation. The compensation is made up of:
  1. £380.48 in recognition of the loss of amenity caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a central heating fault.
  2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a central heating fault.
  3. £100 for the time and trouble caused by the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s kitchen.
  4. £400 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

We recommend the landlord contact the resident about its right to repair process. It should resend him its claim form.
We recommend the landlord write to the resident to explain it position regarding compensation for home improvements.
We recommend the landlord arrange to inspect the property for woodworm.