The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Leicester City Council (202001448)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001448

Leicester City Council

31 August 2021


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

  1. The complaint is regarding:
    1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s roof and ceiling.
    2. The landlord’s response to concerns the resident raised regarding asbestos.
    3. The landlord’s response to reports of flies coming into the resident’s property via vents.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a Local Authority. He has resided in the property, a two-bedroom flat, since 2014.
  2. The resident’s tenancy agreement notes that the landlord would not be liable to repair any damage to decoration caused by improvement or other work as a result of undertaking its repair responsibilities, unless it had agreed this with the resident in advance of it carrying out the work.
  3. The landlord operates a two-stage complaint policy and advised that it will respond to Stage One complaints within 10 working days and to Stage Two complaints within 20 working days.
  4. The landlord’s Priority of Repairs guide states it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours. These include serious water leaks. 
  5. The landlord’s Asbestos Policy stated that it should ‘maintain records’ and ‘provide information and advice on the location, type and condition of the material to anyone who could be in a position to disturb it’. It also notes it should communicate with tenants…’in plain language’ and make clear who the appropriate officer is to contact in the case of enquiries.

Summary of Events

  1. Landlord repair records show that, on 31 December 2018, the resident contacted it to report his roof was leaking. Although records show that the resident requested the original order to be cancelled, a further order was raised on 2 January 2019. The repair log states that the resident reported ‘water starts when it rains, coming through the roof tiles and damage to the ceiling’. Records show the landlord passed the order to its contractor on 15 February 2019.
  2. On 12 August 2019, the resident lodged a complaint with the landlord. In his complaint, the resident stated that:
    1. The job order raised following his report of a roof leak had been closed by the landlord and marked as completed but the issue was still unresolved.
    2. He had been advised that he would be informed and updated once contractors carrying out the roof repair had attended but this had not happened.
    3. He requested a visit from his Housing Office and a senior member of staff from the landlord’s repair team.
  3. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint the following day by email. It noted it had visited the property after receiving his report and carried out a visual inspection of the roof that did not identify any defects. It also inspected the roof space and did not identify any signs of a leak. It did however advise that it would return to inspect again when it was raining and ‘if any defects are noted (we) will raise works to resolve’. The landlord acknowledged that ‘previous issues with your roof were passed through to our contractor’ in February 2019 but it advised the resident it was unable to determine what actions were taken by the contractor as it did not hold that information on its system. It apologised if the work carried out had not resolved the leaking roof and if he had not been contacted when work had taken place.
  4. Landlord records show that it attended the resident’s property again on 14 August 2019 to carry out a further inspection of the roof while it was raining. In an email sent to the resident on 19 August 2019, it confirmed it had now identified a leak and raised a job accordingly, for which scaffolding would be required. It advised that the job was scheduled to take place on 27 August 2019.
  5. On 21 August 2019, the resident contacted the landlord following a visit to his property by his energy supplier. He advised that they had attended to install a smart meter but stated ‘they will not touch it because it is asbestos’. Landlord records show it arranged for its Asbestos Team to attend the resident’s property two days later but there was no access. It attended again on 27 August 2019 and records show it was of the opinion that the suspected asbestos was ‘within the main electrical fuse’ which was the property of the energy supplier.
  6. On 25 September 2019, the resident contacted the landlord to query whether the roof repair had been completed. He stated that he had not received any further update ‘since the scaffolding visit’ and ‘could no longer tolerate this stress’. The resident also sought clarification regarding the landlord’s previous complaint response in which it advised that it did not have any available records regarding the roof repair job passed to its contractor in February 2019 and questioned why there was no audit trail regarding the work.
  7. The landlord’s Repairs Team replied to the resident on 30 September 2019 and confirmed the roof repair had taken place on 11 September 2019. It apologised for the delay in the work being carried out and that the resident had not been informed it had been completed. It advised that a follow-on order would be raised to repair his dining room ceiling and that he would be contacted with an appointment. It also advised that someone from its Asbestos Team would be in contact with him regarding the concerns he had raised regarding asbestos in his home.
  8. The landlord’s Complaints Team sent the resident a further email on 1 October 2019, referring to the contact from its Repairs Team and again apologising that he had not been contacted once the roof repair had been completed. The landlord stated that it hoped its response had now answered his questions.
  9. On 4 October 2019, the resident emailed the landlord and advised he had requested further information regarding the possible existence of asbestos in his property but had not received a response. The resident advised he sought a full inspection of his property ‘enabling me to move on to the next stage’, although he did not advise which specific issue he was seeking to progress.
  10. Landlord repair records show that, on 7 October 2019, it raised an order to inspect suspected asbestos in the resident’s living room ceiling.
  11. On 10 October 2019, the landlord wrote to the resident in response to his query regarding asbestos. It confirmed that his home was surveyed in 2014, prior to the start of his tenancy, and that it had noted ‘asbestos containing floor tiles to various areas’, while a sample taken from the textured ceiling coating in the hallway lobby did not detect any asbestos. It also noted ‘some external cement products that form part of the exterior’ but did not provide further details. Regarding the concerns raised regarding possible asbestos located near where the resident’s electricity supplier wanted to install a new smart meter, the landlord advised that the ‘suspected asbestos…was in fact possible flash guards within the main electric fuse’. It advised that this was the property of the electric supplier ‘and therefore their responsibility to deal with’.
  12. On 11 December 2019, the resident raised a further complaint in which he raised the following additional issues:
    1. A sample of his ceiling had been taken for an asbestos check on 7 October 2019, but he had not had any further contact regarding the outcome.
    2. He had been advised that, following the sample being taken, the landlord would repair his ceiling, but it had so far not done so.
    3. After his energy supplier had advised of the possible presence of asbestos in his electric meter cupboard, neither the landlord nor the energy company would take responsibility for the issue.
    4. The vents in his bedroom and ‘ceiling which exists onto loft by the kitchen’ were allowing bees and flies to enter his property. He advised that this was a health and safety and hygiene issue. 
  13. The landlord issued its complaint response on 10 January 2020. It apologised if the resident was unhappy with the service it had provided and noted the following:
    1. Asbestos had not been detected in the sample taken in October 2019.
    2. However, once the check had been completed, it had not subsequently raised an order to ‘reinstate’ his ceiling. It apologised for this and advised it had reported the issue back to its Repairs Manager. It also confirmed that a senior member of staff had contacted him to apologise for the delay and confirm an appointment date. It noted that the repair had now been completed. 
    3. Its Technical Manager had written to the resident on 10 October 2019 and confirmed that a survey of his property had been completed while it was void (empty and untenanted). It clarified that it had ‘noted any asbestos containing material’ but that, in line with legislation, it had not removed or changed any ‘undamaged asbestos containing materials’. The landlord also noted that, on 27 August 2019, its Surveyor had advised that the suspected asbestos reported by the electric suppliers ‘was in fact possible flash guards within the main electrical fuse’ and was therefore the responsibility of the electricity supplier. It stated that it ‘appreciated you believe that (the landlord) have an obligation to deal with asbestos however the meter itself is not the property of (the landlord)’.
    4. It had reviewed pictures of the vents submitted by the resident and could not identify any problems with how they function. It also noted that he had not previously reported any problems with the vents prior to including his concerns within his complaint. It advised that if he felt the vents were not working properly, he should report the matter to its Repairs Team to investigate.
  14. In conclusion, the landlord offered the resident ‘sincere apologies’ for the delay in the ceiling repair being carried out, which it confirmed was due to the job not being raised following the asbestos survey. It also advised that if he remained concerned regarding asbestos in his property, he could request that its Asbestos Team contact him.  
  15. On 13 January 2020, the resident responded and noted that the ceiling repair had been completed but that it had been 12 months since he initially reported the roof leak in December 2018. He provided a photo of his ceiling and queried whether the landlord expected him to redecorate at his own expense. The landlord replied on 17 January 2020 and, while apologising again for the delay in carrying out the ceiling repair, confirmed that it considered decorating to be ‘tenant responsibility’ in line with the conditions of his tenancy and provided him with a Public Liability Form if he wished to pursue a claim against it.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s roof and ceiling.

  1. From the information provided to this investigation, it is not in dispute that the resident first reported a roof leak at this property on 31 December 2018. Following his report, landlord repair logs indicate that it was in the process of ordering follow-on works but these were then cancelled at the resident’s request as he wished to make a complaint, although no further details regarding the nature of the complaint are noted. However, the job was then re-raised a couple of days later in early January 2019. The landlord’s initial response to the reported leak was therefore appropriate as it responded to the report promptly and raised a repair order inside its 24-hour emergency response timeframe.
  2. However, landlord repair logs then show that the repair job was not passed to its contractor on 15 February 2019. The landlord has not provided any explanation as to why there was a delay of over a month before the repair was progressed and passed to its contractor. In his August 2019 complaint, the resident maintains that he had not been kept updated on the repair and believed that it had not been fixed and was still ongoing.
  3. In its initial complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that he had not been kept updated with regards to the progress of the repair, for which it apologised. This was a reasonable and proportionate response. However, within its response the landlord also advised the resident it did not have any details regarding the work order passed to its contractor on its system. This was not appropriate, and this Service would expect to see clearer logs regarding any inspections that were carried out, any work that was subsequently deemed necessary to resolve the issue and when this work was carried out. The landlord also did not provide any details of the roof repair work to this Service as part of this investigation, aside from two separate internal emails from August 2019 and May 2021 which respectively noted that the contractor went out ‘in February/March time’ (in 2019) and that they ‘carried out work around the chimney flashing, this also goes with what work was requested’. That these are the only details available regarding the work the contractor carried out raises concerns over the landlord’s record keeping as there is no clear audit trail regarding the work that was carried out on the landlord’s behalf, for which it remains ultimately responsible under its repair liabilities.
  4. The landlord has not been able to confirm the exact work carried out by its contractor or when the work was carried out. However, it is also noted that, while the resident advised in his complaint that the roof leaked when it rained, there is no evidence that he reported any further leaks in the period between February and August 2019.
  5. After the resident reported his roof was leaking again within the complaint submitted in August 2019, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord again initially responded appropriately. Records show it attended within 24 hours as an emergency and attended again the following day to carry out a further inspection when it was raining. Its records show that it identified a leak during the second inspection and raised a repair order accordingly for two weeks later.
  6. However, it is noted that the resident again had cause to chase the landlord for confirmation on whether the roof repair had taken place as he had not been updated. The landlord later apologised for this, but it is a concern that it repeated the failure to keep him updated having already had cause to apologise for the lack of updates provided by its contractor following the earlier roof repair. The landlord confirmed to the resident that the work was carried out on 11 September 2019 but did not provide any explanation as to why there was a delay in completing the work. It is noted that, in internal communication, the landlord’s contractor emailed to advise that the resident did not want scaffolding to be up over the August Bank Holiday weekend, however there is no evidence of any reply from the landlord and no further reference to this within the repair logs provided to this investigation. It is acknowledged that this request from the resident may have contributed to a delay in completing the work but, in the absence of any comprehensive repair logs provided by the landlord, there is insufficient evidence for this Service to determine whether that was the case.
  7. Once the roof repair had been completed, follow-on work to repair the plaster on the resident’s ceiling was required but following concerns raised by the resident regarding the potential presence of asbestos, these were postponed while a sample of the ceiling was taken and tested. However, after the asbestos check had been completed, the landlord did not raise an order to repair the ceiling and, in his December 2019 complaint, the resident advised that the repair had not yet been done. The landlord apologised to the resident in its subsequent complaint response and advised that its Repair Team had made an error by not raising the order. It advised that it had fed back to the relevant service. However, there was a period of around 10 weeks between the completion of the asbestos check and the ceiling repair ultimately being carried out. While this Service acknowledges that the landlord explained this was down to human error and it was appropriate that it issued an apology, in the Ombudsman’s opinion this was an avoidable delay and would have caused the resident further inconvenience. 
  8. Once the repair had been completed, the resident contacted the landlord to clarify whether it would also redecorate the ceiling, noting that it had been twelve months since his first report of a roof leak, which had ultimately led to the need for the ceiling repair. However, while the landlord again apologised for the delay in completing the repair, it advised that, as per his tenancy agreement, it considered that decorating was his responsibility.
  9. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord will not be responsible for damage to decoration caused by carrying out works unless it had agreed this with the resident prior to carrying out the remedial works. There is however no evidence that this was the case, or that the damage to the ceiling following the roof leak was the fault of the landlord. In the circumstances, while this Service understands the resident’s wish for the ceiling to be left in the same condition it was in prior to the repair being carried out, the landlord would not have an obligation to redecorate and therefore it was reasonable for it not to have done so. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, considering the circumstances of the case, the landlord could have considered whether it would have been a reasonable exercise of its discretion to provide the resident with decorating vouchers, given the delay to the repair and his complaint.

The landlord’s response to concerns the resident raised regarding asbestos.

  1. After the resident reported that his energy supplier had attended his property and advised of there being possible asbestos in the area it intended to install a smart meter, the landlord attended the following day to inspect. This was an appropriate response and showed that the landlord took the resident’s report seriously. While the landlord was not able to gain access on the first appointment, it attended again six days later and this time carried out the inspection. This was a reasonable and prompt response. Landlord records indicate that, following its inspection, it believed any possible asbestos was contained within the main electrical fuse, which was the property and responsibility of the energy supplier. It confirmed its position to the resident in a letter sent on 10 October 2019.
  2. However, the resident later complained to the landlord that neither it, nor the energy supplier, would take responsibility for the issue. This Service has not seen any correspondence from the energy supplier that indicates that they were unwilling to take ownership of the issue, or what requests the resident had made of them. However, from the Ombudsman’s experience of similar cases, the landlord’s position that it was the energy supplier’s responsibility to investigate further was not unreasonable. While the area around the meter is in the landlord’s property, the actual meters themselves remain the property of the energy suppliers and they should have their own qualified staff or contractors who are able to deal with asbestos related issues. However, following his complaint, it is noted that the landlord stated it was ‘possible/possibly’ the flash guard in the fuse that was affected, indicating that it was not absolutely certain. The landlord could therefore have considered being more proactive in working alongside the energy supplier to investigate the issue, or else to liaising with the energy supplier on the resident’s behalf regarding any inspections it believed the energy supplier should carry out to avoid him being caught in the middle of any disagreement over who was responsible for the issue. This would have shown that it was treating the resident fairly, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
  3. Regarding the concerns raised by the resident regarding asbestos in his living room ceiling and in the rest of his property, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord responded appropriately. With regards to the living room ceiling, it postponed a repair order so that it could obtain and test a sample of the ceiling, after which no trace of asbestos was found. Regarding the resident’s query over the existence of asbestos elsewhere in his home, the landlord responded to his enquiry in the letter referred to in Paragraph 31, providing details of the survey it carried out prior to the start of his tenancy and providing him with sample paperwork.
  4. From the information seen by this investigation, the landlord has generally responded to the resident’s concerns regarding the presence of asbestos in his property reasonably, by attending his home promptly, carrying out tests where requested, signposting him to the correct Team in case of further queries and advising him of the outcome and providing further information. It has also acted in accordance with its own policies and existing legislation. However, it could have considered including within its letter some further information about its responsibilities regarding asbestos and information on how the presence of asbestos in the home is not unsafe if it remains undisturbed, which may have put the resident’s mind at rest. This would also have shown it was acting in accordance with its own policy which notes that it should communicate with residents in ‘plain language’.

The landlord’s response to reports of flies coming into the resident’s property via vents.

  1. From the information available to this investigation, there is no evidence that the resident raised any concerns regarding the functioning of the vents prior to referring to the issue in his December 2019 complaint. In its complaint response, the landlord advised that it had reviewed the photos he had submitted but was unable to identify any issues with how the vents functioned and if he had any further concerns, he should report this to its Repairs Team. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was a reasonable position for the landlord to take, as there is no evidence that the resident had previously raised the matter and given it the opportunity to investigate or respond to it. While the landlord could perhaps have proactively asked its Repairs Team to contact the resident, or arrange an inspection, rather than place the onus on him to contact them again, the way in which it responded was not unreasonable.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
    1. Service failure regarding the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s roof and ceiling.
    2. No maladministration regarding the landlord’s response to concerns the resident raised regarding asbestos.
    3. No maladministration regarding the landlord’s response to reports of flies coming into his property via vents. 

Reasons

  1. The landlord has not been able to appropriately evidence the work carried by its contractor following the resident’s initial report of a roof leak in December 2018/January 2019. It had advised the resident it did not have details of the work carried out and has not provided any repair logs regarding the work to this investigation. There was also a delay in carrying out repair work following the resident’s further report in August 2019 and, once completed, there was a further delay in repairing his ceiling after the completion of an asbestos test.
  2. The landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s concerns about asbestos, carrying out tests where requested and providing relevant information. It was not unreasonable in advising that it considered the possible asbestos in the electrical fuse to be the responsibility of the energy company, although it could have been more proactive in helping the resident resolve this issue.
  3. There is no evidence that the resident raised any issues regarding the vents prior to including the matter in his complaint. Therefore, the landlord had not been given the opportunity to investigate the matter. Once it was informed of the issue, the landlord reviewed the photos it had been sent and advised that, while it could not see any issues from the evidence it had been given, it reasonable advised him to raise a request with its Repair Team if the problem continued.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks of the date of this letter, pay the resident £150 in compensation, consisting of:
    1. £75 for the delay in completing his roof repair.
    2. £75 for the delay in completing his ceiling repair.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider whether it is willing to exercise its discretion regarding the possible award of decorating vouchers to allow the resident to redecorate his living room ceiling.
  2. If the issue regarding suspected asbestos in the electric meter fuse remains unresolved, the landlord should consider contacting the energy supplier on behalf of the resident to make clear its position and to establish which party shall take responsibility for any further inspections or necessary actions going forward.