Leeds City Council (202217967)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217967

Leeds City Council

19 February 2024

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 regarding the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s concerns about the maintenance of communal and grassy areas in and around his block.
2. Response to your reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a local authority. He has resided at the property, described as a 1-bed, 1st storey flat in a low-rise block, since 2011.
The landlord has advised this investigation that it was aware the resident has some physical health conditions but that it did not believe he required assistance from its housing service as he has support in place from its social services department.

Scope of investigation

In its submissions to this investigation, the landlord provided information regarding a further ASB case which was opened in June 2023 after the resident made further, similar reports. However, these events took place some 8 months after the landlord issued its final complaint response and the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the resident made any further complaint regarding how these reports were handled. Therefore, while they may be referred to in this report for context, this investigation will not consider these events here.

Summary of events

On 13 September 2022 the landlord logged a complaint from the resident. It noted the complaint was about:
1. An ASB incident that took place the previous December, when the resident asked someone to move on as they were smoking and chatting by his window.
2. He reported drug dealing was taking place in the entrance to his block of flats and youngsters smoking cannabis in communal areas. Two previous ASB officers had been dealing with the case, but he had been unable to contact the currently allocated officer and they were not responding to him.
3. His Housing Officer (HO) was also “ignoring his calls” regarding maintenance of communal areas. He stated maintenance was not being carried out to external paths and grass areas outside the block (which were covered in moss and weeds) and cleaners attending the block were “hardly doing anything”, staying on site for less than a minute the previous week. He also advised the block was covered in cobwebs and that he had raised these issues with housing managers but “nothing is being done”.
The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 23 September 2022. It noted that it had discussed the complaint with the resident the previous day and made the following comments and findings:
1. It noted the resident had advised there had been no further ASB incidents regarding youths entering his block of flats since Police “intercepted some children in the block” in July 2022. Regarding the resident’s concern that the issues may recur, the landlord advised it would “arrange a letter drop” to all residents in the block regarding security and how to report any drug related ASB. It also arranged for an HO to visit the resident the following week to “further discuss (his) concerns” and provide advice.
2. It apologised that he had been unable to contact his HO. It advised he had not been ignored but that “due to unforeseen circumstances”, the officer had left the organisation. It provided a general free phone number for him to use when reporting future tenancy issues.
3. Regarding the reported cleaning issues, it had relayed the resident’s concerns to its Cleaning Team who in turn advised they would be addressed and a deep clean of the block would take place. It also stated the relevant HO had been asked to carry out regular checks of the block “to ensure cleaning standards are being kept” and would be taking photos of the grass and verges outside the block during their visit on 28 September 2022 so these could be passed to the grass cutting team.
4. It advised the resident’s complaint was partially upheld.
On 4 November 2022, the landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response. It noted the resident had raised some further, related issues during a call to escalate his complaint on 18 October 2022:
1. He had acknowledged the HO attended on 28 September 2022 and inspected the block as promised. However, the grass had been cut that morning and the paths were left “covered in grass”. Despite the HO having the opportunity to witness this, “nothing has been done about it”. The grass had also been cut again the previous week but the gardeners “shredded … all the rubbish” on the grass areas, rather than removing it first.
2. He had tried to contact the HO on 13 October 2022 to report the above but had been unable to get through. Although he had been called back by another member of staff the same day and advised “what was going to be done”, he did not feel that anything would be actioned.
3. He reported that on 15 September 2022, 3 “‘blokes’…cut/moved a few weeds and…went again” and had advised the resident it was “not their responsibility to do this work”. The communal intercom was also not working properly, and he had had to report this to the landlord’s Repairs Team. As a result of it not working, he had had to let the postman into the block and some youths had also been able to gain access.
4. He “had not really heard anything” from the landlord about the cleaning of the block, stating the cleaners “just run around with a brush and mop” instead of cleaning “correctly” and there were still spider webs on the light fittings and other areas.
5. The walls of the communal areas were also scuffed and had peeling paint. The resident felt there was a lack of action and communication from the landlord regarding the condition of his block.
The landlord went on to address each point in turn:
1. It had discussed the resident’s concerns with its Grounds Maintenance Team who confirmed contractors were meant to “deal with excessive grass overspill within the same working day”. It noted it had received “reports…about quality issues” in mid-September and carried out a compliance check which determined the contract criteria had been met, save for “minor issues where wet grass had stuck to the path”. It stated this was isolated and was not “indicative of the paths over the whole area”. It also clarified that contractors should deal with litter prior to cutting the grass and that where “higher levels of litter are found”, cutting should not go ahead. If any litter is shredded, the contractor “is expected to clear it away”.
2. Regarding the communal areas, it considered the resident had been “called with updates on certain matters” and his comments relating to block cleaning and grass cutting had been passed to the relevant teams. He had also been given the Parks team’s direct contact line. It was therefore satisfied “actions were taken”.
3. Regarding weed cutting, it stated this “will also have been addressed” during the site visit that took place on 28 September. It had spoken with the Cleaning Team who advised “there were a few concerns i.e. cobwebs round lights and…on walls in corners” and that the floors “need(ed) a good cleaning”. This had been highlighted as it was “the same in all blocks”. The resident had been told the Cleaning Team would carry out weekly monitoring for the next month. The issue regarding the communal entry system had been passed to the landlord’s Electrical Team, who advised no issue had been reported with then entry system since September 2021. It advised a repair order would be raised but noted that “if we have removed the trade code for anti-social reasons, we wouldn’t reinstate it”.
4. Regarding the condition of the communal area walls, it advised its Planned Works Team were awaiting quotes from contractors “prior to planning out and implementing a painting scheme” across all the landlord’s low and high rise blocks. It advised there were “no timescales given” but there was a “clear…intention” to carry out painting work. In the meantime, the resident was asked to report any cleanliness issues to the Cleaning Team.
5. It was satisfied actions had been taken “to help resolve…matters” following the resident’s reports and he had “had communication from various departments and (been) given contact details to directly report issues” so his complaint was not upheld.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of concerns about the maintenance of communal and grassy areas in and around the block

In his original complaint, the resident raised specific concerns regarding the maintenance of the paths and grass areas outside his block, along with the standard of cleaning being carried out by contractors within his block, which he stated was “covered in cobwebs”. In response, the landlord advised it referred his comments to its Cleaning Team and been advised that a deep clean of the block would be carried out. A Housing Officer would also attend on 28 September 2022 to inspect the standard of cleaning and take photos of the grass and verges so feedback could be passed to the grass cutting team.
However, while the resident’s complaint escalation request confirmed that visit had taken place, this investigation has not seen any evidence of photos taken or any contact between the Housing Officer and the grass cutting team as the landlord had outlined. Although its final complaint response referred to a compliance check being carried out in September 2022 which noted wet grass had stuck to pathways, notes of this check do not appear to have been recorded. While the landlord advised the issues it identified were “not indicative” of the general condition of the pathways, there is no information within its records regarding how it came to satisfy itself that this was the case.
In general, the landlord’s records lack detail. It advised in its complaint responses that his complaint was not upheld as “actions were taken” and his concerns had been passed on to relevant teams, but there are no records regarding when this was done. Regarding his complaints about grass cutting and weeds, there is little evidence of enquiries carried out by the landlord until it sought to clarify which teams were or were not responsible before providing evidence to the Ombudsman for this investigation. While it also clarified that rubbish should be cleared before cutting took place, there is no evidence that it sought to investigate the issue and whether the resident’s concerns were justified or not. Its complaint responses clarified what should be done in various situations, but not whether it had established that its policies were being appropriately followed. This is not appropriate and means the is unable to fully evidence the actions it took, such as when it provided the resident with a direct number to report further issues. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord was not able to show it took appropriate steps to investigate the complaint or that it took reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s specific concerns.
Regarding his concerns about the cleanliness of his block’s communal areas, it again said the complaint could not be upheld as actions had been taken. However, this investigation has seen insufficient evidence regarding the steps it said it took following the complaint. While its stage 1 response stated his comments had been passed on and the landlord’s Cleaning Team had advised a deep clean of the block would take place, it should have provided the resident with a timeframe and it remains unclear from its records when, or if, this took place. It also advised it would ask his HO to carry out “regular checks” of the block but again there is no evidence of this in the records provided. This is not appropriate and means the landlord is unable to evidence that it carried out the actions outlined in its initial complaint response.
Further to this, internal landlord correspondence from 3 November 2022 outlined that “a few concerns” had been noted during a site visit regarding “cobwebs round lights and…on walls”. It also noted that the communal floors needed “a good cleaning”, although the date of the visit is not specified. The landlord’s stage 2 response acknowledged these findings but did not uphold the resident’s complaint, despite apparently corroborating the issues he had complained about, such as the continued presence of cobwebs. This did not treat the resident fairly.
The landlord’s final complaint response also said the cleanliness of the block had been noted and it would monitor the area weekly for the next 4 weeks. However, there is no evidence of this weekly monitoring within the records seen by this investigation and those that have been provided – dated 14 September, 28 October and 18 November 2022 – do not raise any concerns, giving a score of at least 8 out of 10 (10 being an excellent standard of cleaning) for each metric measured, which appears at odds with its complaint investigation findings. This is not appropriate and again means the landlord is unable to properly evidence the steps it took following the complaint, such as arranging for the block to be given the “good cleaning” it had identified as being necessary or carrying out the promised weekly monitoring. The inconsistency between its complaint findings and monitoring forms also raises concerns regarding its record keeping.
After the resident raised further concerns about the general decorative condition of the block – referring to peeling paint and scuff marks in his escalation request – the landlord acted reasonably and treated the resident fairly by including this in its final complaint response. It advised it had contacted its Planned Works Team, which was an appropriate step for it to take, although again this investigation has not seen records regarding this. However, its final response on the matter was too vague. Not providing a timescale for repainting works was not a failure given it was still awaiting quotes from contractors, but its reference to the “intention” to carry out the works would likely have left the resident unclear as to whether the blocks would be repainted at any point or not. From the information seen, the landlord does not appear to have inspected the area to assess the level of reported scuffing and peeling or the general condition of the communal areas, nor is there evidence it considered whether patch works or touch up painting could be carried out as an interim measure while waiting for the mooted city-wide repainting programme. This was unreasonable and means the landlord cannot show it properly investigated the resident’s concerns or fully considered the issues he raised.
From the evidence available, the landlord’s own investigations, while poorly documented within its records, appear to back up some of the resident’s concerns, particularly regarding the cleanliness of his block. Despite this, it did not uphold his complaint. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, its justifications for doing so were not reasonable, including advising that he had been contacted “with updates on certain matters”. This is far too vague for a complaint response as it is unclear which issues the landlord considered had been responded to and its records do not shed any further light on the matter.
Overall, the Ombudsman considers there was service failure by the landlord regarding its handling of the concerns the resident raised. Its investigation of the issues raised did not appear comprehensive, the enquiries it did take were often not included within the records seen by this investigation and there is insufficient evidence of it carrying out the actions it committed to within its complaint responses. At the end of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay an amount of compensation to the resident and provide further information regarding how it will monitor and maintain the condition of his block.

The landlord’s response to reports of ASB

Records show the resident reported issues with youths making noise at night, taking drugs, dropping litter and causing “nuisance” around his block of flats to his local Councillor in late December 2021. Landlord records appear to show it received these reports on 18 January 2022. As it is unclear exactly when the Councillor’s office referred the reports on to the landlord, there is no evidence that it delayed in beginning its enquiries into the reported ASB.
Records show the landlord was advised the resident was elderly and “anxious”, and that he made several reports to the local Police. The Councillor’s office provided crime reference numbers, the most recent one being from 7 January 2022. In response, records show the landlord acted appropriately by promptly contacting the Police with a s115 request (which provides the legal framework for different agencies to share information). This disclosed that the Police had received 9 calls from the resident between 5 December 2021 and 12 January 2022. All the reports related to non-resident youths frequenting the resident’s block and smoking, littering and being noisy. Police records show they attended on several occasions, sometimes speaking to the youths and moving them on, but without detecting any offences or taking any further action.
The landlord’s ASB records show it acted appropriately by carrying out a tabletop risk assessment on 18 January 2022, the day it opened the ASB case. It assessed the risk to the resident as “moderate” and contacted him the same day to gain further information about the alleged ASB. This was a reasonable step for the landlord to take and showed it aimed to gain an understanding of how the reported ASB was affecting him, noting that his sleep was being disturbed. It also noted that the resident stated some of the youths lived at one neighbouring address, which was also managed by the landlord.
The landlord’s records indicate it asked the resident if he could keep diary sheets regarding the ASB and noted that it had provided these, which was an appropriate step for it to take and in line with what the Ombudsman would expect to see at then beginning of an ASB investigation.
Records show it then carried out a review of the case and called him again a week later on 26 January 2022 to ask if there were any updates of if there had been any further incidents. Having noted that the resident reported the youths had not been back since he shouted at them to move on one evening the previous week, it ensured he had diary sheets on which to record any further incidents and established that he was happy to monitor the situation for another week before the landlord spoke to the alleged perpetrator(s). It called the resident again on 2 February 2022 when records state he again advised there had been “no further incidents”. The landlord’s contact notes indicate it ensured the resident knew who to contact if any further instances occurred but that, for now, the case would be closed with no further action. A case closure letter was sent to both the resident and the alleged perpetrator the following week.
The resident’s complaint centred on the landlord’s handling of the reported ASB in December 2021 and that he had not been able to get in touch with his current allocated officer. From the information seen by this investigation, the landlord seemed to deal with the reported ASB appropriately. There is no evidence it delayed in opening an ASB case after being contacted by the resident’s Councillor, and the actions it took once the case was opened were proportionate. It contacted the resident promptly to gain further details on the ASB, effectively liaised with the Police to gain information regarding the crime reference numbers that had been cited, provided him with diary sheets and called him weekly while monitoring the case. As the resident had advised there had been no further incidents, it was reasonable that the landlord decided to close the case, having ensured the resident knew how to make further reports if incidents began again. After the resident referred to more recent incidents in July 2022, the landlord acted proactively by advising it would arrange a letter drop to residents in the block and arranging for a Housing Officer to visit him.
Regarding the resident’s reported inability to contact staff regarding the ASB, the landlord reasonably offered an apology and appropriately explained that he had been unable to reach the member of staff as they had left the organisation. While it would have been preferable for the landlord to be clearer regarding when the staff member had left as this would have better addressed the period of time the resident said he had been “ignored”, as the previous ASB case had been closed in February 2022 it would not have been expected to contact the resident with any updates or advise there had been any change of officer as there was no open ASB case. This investigation has not seen evidence that the resident disagreed with the landlord’s decision to close the case at that time so it is unclear what updates he believed should have been provided. While not saying that the resident did not make efforts to contact the landlord, this investigation has not seen evidence regarding when he did so, nor details of any further incidents he had unsuccessfully tried to report between January 2022 and July 2022. From the information available, the next time the landlord received formal reports in June 2023, it promptly opened a new case and began relevant enquiries. There is therefore no evidence of failure by the landlord regarding how it responded to the resident’s ASB reports.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Service failure regarding the landlord’s handling of concerns about the maintenance of communal and grassy areas in and around his block.
2. No maladministration regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).

Reasons

There is insufficient evidence the landlord fully investigated all the issues the resident raised, it unreasonably declined to uphold aspects of his complaint despite appearing to corroborate certain concerns, it provided vague information and there is no evidence it carried out several actions it committed to within its complaint responses.
After receiving ASB reports at the end of 2021, the landlord took proportionate steps to investigate the matter and had regular contact with the resident prior to closing the case. There is no evidence of it failing to act on any further reports before the next ASB case was opened in June 2023.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. Pay the resident £200 compensation to reflect its poor response to the concerns he raised about the maintenance of communal areas.
2. Carry out an inspection of the condition of the resident’s block and write to him to set out its position regarding whether any repainting is necessary as an interim measure and provide an update regarding the referred to city-wide repainting programme of its low-rise blocks.
The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to review its record keeping practices to ensure it has an effective procedure for monitoring the actions it commits to in its complaint responses and recording actions carried out by its Housing and Cleaning Teams.