Leeds City Council (202104606)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202104606

Leeds City Council

28 April 2022

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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the re-plastering and associated works at the resident’s property.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The tenancy commenced on 2 May 2017. The property is a two bedroom house.
The resident has reported to this service that she suffered a nervous breakdown in December 2019 and has since been diagnosed with bipolar disorder.
At the time of the resident’s complaint the landlord had an outsourced contractor for repairs and maintenance at its properties.

Summary of events

On 11 October 2019, a job was raised to inspect the plastering at the resident’s property. The inspection took place on 31 October 2019 and reported that the plaster had perished throughout the property. The landlord’s repair records note that it had been agreed that the ground floor walls and ceilings would be replastered. A job was raised the same day for the works to be carried out, noting that the radiators would need to be removed and electrical sockets isolated, and that due to the scale and the nature of the work, and the requirement for different trades, the job needed to be phased.
The landlord’s repair records note that the work started on 4 December 2019, at which point the contractor attended to remove the radiators so that the plastering could commence.
On 6 December 2019, the resident made a formal complaint to landlord about the plastering works at her property, stating that whilst she understood that there was always going to be a certain level of disruption to her home and her work, it was unacceptable that when a job involved different contractors there was no continuity or communication between contractors and the landlord, and that the onus should not be on her to resolve issues when problems arise. The resident went on to explain that:
1. On Wednesday 4 December 2019, the plasterers:
  1. Advised that they would not be able to plaster the whole of the downstairs that day, which the resident said the landlord had agreed to do and which meant she had to forgo an afternoon’s work the following Monday so that the hall could be plastered.
  2. Left two radiators in the garden before leaving on one of their breaks and she had to confront two unknown men who were trying to load the radiators into their van.
  3. Played loud music, which was disrupting her ability to work from home, she asked them to turn it down/off several times only for them to turn it back up/on again.
  4. Left at 2:30pm having only plastered the window walls and ceiling in the lounge, having taken at least 90 minutes of breaks.
2. On Thursday 5 December 2019:
  1. The joiner and plumber, who were meant to attend to remove the kitchen wall units and heater so that the plasters could plaster the kitchen, had not been booked and so she had to intervene.
  2. The plasterers plastered up to and onto the back of her cooker which would make it impossible to tile properly and had failed to plaster underneath the three electric sockets. The resident asked that the plasterer rectify this when they returned the following Monday.
  3. The living room and kitchen floors had been left in a state and the curtain fittings were not refitted before the plasterers left, leaving her with no privacy at all.
  4. She was left with a lack of adequate lighting and one small hall radiator to heat the downstairs and did not know when the electrician and plumber would return to fix the lighting and reattach the radiators. She called the landlord, initially agreed to leave the lighting until the following day, went out for a meal with her daughter as it would not have been safe to prepare a meal without lighting, whilst out received a text message from the contractor to say they were on their way, only to return home to find that the electrician had come and gone. The resident also said that when she called the out of hours service she was told they had no record of anyone attending.
3. On Friday 6 December 2019:
  1. Although she arranged for the electrician and plumber to attend in the afternoon as she had to work that morning, a joiner attended first thing to rehang the upper kitchen unit. The resident said that this meant she had to cancel her work at very short notice which caused problems and cost her pay.
  2. That afternoon the fire alarm repeatedly went off, which made the severe stress and anxiety she suffered from worse, the second electrician who attended said that the smoke alarm should have been covered whilst the plastering was carried out and the smoke alarm had to be replaced because it was full of plaster dust.
  3. That she had to contact the landlord to chase the plumber, who was due to put the radiators back, and they did not then arrive until 6:55pm, said that they had been told to reattach only the hall radiator (which the resident said was the only downstairs radiator that was in place), an emergency heating engineer was then sent at 8pm who said it was too big a job to do as an emergency.
  4. She had been left with no proper heating in her living room or kitchen for five days, which was having a direct impact on her health as she has Raynaud’s Syndrome, which is exacerbated by cold temperatures.
4. The resident also said that:
  1. The landlord kept saying that the contractor was ultimately in charge of the works but trying to get through to them was ‘‘ridiculous’’.
  2. She had had to chase the plasters directly to try and confirm what works they were going to completed when they attended on the following Monday.
  3. After repeated attempts to speak to the surveyor who attended on 31 October, they confirmed that the upstairs was also in need of skimming, however, the landlord appeared to be uncertain about this.
In follow up emails on 7 and 10 December 2019, the resident also reported that:
1. The plumber reinstalled the radiators on 10 December 2019 but failed to check whether there was air in the system which resulted in the boiler not working and her being without heating and hot water until an engineer arrived at 11:30pm.
2. Whilst previously working her washing machine no longer worked.
3. The contractor had not arranged for an electrician to drop the electrical sockets or for a plumber to remove the one remaining radiator and so she had been left with no option but to agree that they return on 12 December 2019, which would mean she would miss the last day of semester at university and a vital one-to-one appointments regarding her final year work
4. She was now at the stage where she was reluctant to let anymore workmen in the house for fear of what they would do next.
The landlord’s repair records note that the tenant did not provide access to enable the work to be completed and remaining works were cancelled following a third no–access attempt on 13 December 2019.
The landlord issued its stage one response on 24 January 2020, apologising that it had failed to respond to her in line with the timescales in its complaints policy. The landlord noted that it had met with the resident and the contractor, at the resident’s property, on 23 January 2020 and had spoken to the contractor about the multiple concerns the resident had raised regarding the plastering works at her property. The landlord said that it was hard to be precise with timings with plasterworks, that the walls in her property were particularly dry causing delays in preparation and how quickly the plaster dries, and therefore it was reasonable to conclude that the breaks the plasterers took were part of waiting for the plaster to dry at different stages of the works, which it had been assured by the contractor was the case. However, the landlord: (PDF 26-28).
1. Acknowledged that:
  1. It was not acceptable for the plasterers to be continually playing loud music whilst at her property, it had spoken to the contractor making it clear that that type of behaviour was unacceptable and apologised on behalf of the plasterers for the lack of empathy displayed on this occasion which resulted in causing the resident further stress and anxiety.
  2. The level of disruption due to the volume of work should have been better communicated by its contractor and their subcontractor partners.
  3. The wrong combination of trade’s people were sent at various times, causing further disruption to the resident and said that it was sorry to hear that she had had to highlight that this has had an impact on her mental health and sincerely apologised for any inconvenience this may have caused.
2. Said that its contractor had been spoken to about:
  1. The lack of communication and organisation and for a review of the way it communicated with its planners, supervisors and its subcontractors, to ensure that appropriate supervision was in place and so lessons could be learned.
  2. That under no circumstances should the radiators have been left outside the property, that the operatives responsible had been spoken to about this and that the contractor apologised for the resident having to intervene to prevent them being taken by members of the public.
  3. How important it was to keep good housekeeping whilst works are ongoing inside properties, to use sheeting appropriately, sweep and clean areas when leaving, and protect smoke detectors when there is a need to mix materials indoors.
  4. Rubble bags being left outside the property, and made it clear that under no circumstances should rubbish be left overnight.
The landlord also confirmed that the following repairs had been raised, which would be overseen by its technical officer to completion and that the contractor would ensure they kept the resident, the landlord and the technical officer update with any changes. These works included:
1. Repairing a kitchen fan & remove all the isolator sockets / switches on the ground floor.
2. Rehanging the radiator to the hallway and cut back the pipes to the redundant radiator in kitchen.
3. Renewing the splash back tiles, and correctly make good the rough plaster and the hole in the kitchen ceiling.
4. For its decorating subcontractor to emulsion all the walls and ceiling to kitchen.
5. The laying of a new tiled floor covering to kitchen, and hallway to the ground floor.
The landlord’s repair records note that:
1. The repair to the kitchen fan and remove all the isolator sockets / switches on the ground floor was booked for 17 February 2020 but cancelled on 20 February 2020 due to no access.
2. The job to rehang the radiator to the hallway and cut back the pipes to the redundant radiator in kitchen was completed on 17 February 2020.
3. The job to renew the splash back tiles, and correctly make good the rough plaster and hole in the kitchen ceiling was attended to on 6 March 2020 and marked as complete. However, the tenant contacted the same day to advise that the work had not been completed to her satisfaction.
4. The jobs to emulsion all the walls and ceiling to kitchen, and to lay a new tiled floor covering to kitchen and hallway to the ground floor, were not completed before Government Covid restrictions came into effect towards the end of March 2020.
On 16 November 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage two, saying that the landlord had failed, during the course of the last year, to follow up on her complaint to ensure that what it had agreed would be done had been done. The resident said that she had been contacted by the contractor with regards to the plastering works but made no mention of the works that the landlord agreed to carry out in its stage one response, which had been agreed in the meeting she had had with the technical officer and the contractor on 23 January 2020. The resident said that the contractor had told her that they had only been given the plastering job that day and that there was nothing they could do about the other works without further instruction from the landlord.
The landlord issued its final response on 4 December 2020 in which it:
1. Acknowledged that it would be reasonable to expect that it would have checked that the original complaint was being progressed, and to communicate and explain the reason for any delays to the resident. To resolve this the landlord said that was currently reviewing its complaints procedures and had identified this as an area where it could improve.
2. Said that the repairs agreed to in its stage one response were raised in January 2020, with a 60 day target for completion, but were not completed by the end of March 2020 when restrictions were put in place as a result of Covid-19 restrictions. This prevented work being undertaken for a number of months and had led to a large backlog of repairs which it was continuing to work through.
3. Acknowledged that, considering the date the job was raised, it is reasonable for the resident to expect that the repairs would have been completed as a priority once full service provision was able to resume in the summer.
4. Said that it had spoken to the contractor who confirmed that they had now contacted the resident to arranged for work for the following work to be undertaken:
  1. To renew flooring to kitchen and hallway would be completed over 8 and 9 December 2020.
  2. The repair to the kitchen fan and removal all the isolator sockets / switches on the ground floor and central heating pipes would be completed on 15 December 2020
  3. The renew of the splash back tiles, and making good the rough plaster and hole in the kitchen ceiling would be completed on 16 December 2020
5. Said that as goodwill gesture it would also undertake the following work in the New Year:
  1. Emulsion walls, ceiling to kitchen and paint woodwork.
  2. Re-plaster the hall, stairs and landing.
  3. Re-plaster upstairs bedrooms
The renewal of the flooring to the kitchen and hallway to the ground floor was completed on 10 December 2020.
The works to the isolator sockets were completed on 14 December 2020.
The renewal of the splash back tiles, and correctly making good the rough plaster and hole in the kitchen ceiling was completed on 21 December 2020.
The emulsion of the kitchen walls and ceiling was completed on 23 December 2020.

Assessment and findings

Relevant legislation, agreements, policies and procedures.

Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is obliged to keep in repair the structure and outside of the property. This obligation is confirmed in the tenancy agreement and in the landlord’s repair handbook which goes on to confirm that the landlord’s obligation includes plastering work and that if the decoration in their home is damaged as a result of a repair, the resident remains responsible for redecoration. The tenancy agreement also states that the resident must allow reasonable access to the landlord to enter the premises to inspect the state of repair or to carry out repairs, maintenance or improvements to the premises, when they have been given reasonable written notice (usually 24 hours).
The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Handbook refers to four types of repair:
1. Emergency, which includes total or partial loss of heating or hot water (between 1 November to 30 April) and which has a response time of attendance within three hours and completion within 24 hours.
2. Priority, which includes total or partial loss of heating or hot water (between 1 May to 31 October) and extractor fans not working in the kitchen, which have completion times of three and seven working days respectively.
3. General, which includes general heating repairs, which have a completion time of 20 working days.
4. Batched repairs, which are described as non-urgent repairs and replacements which may require a pre-inspection and need time to order and/or manufacture materials.
The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Handbook also references its Customer Care standards stating that it will:
1. Keep noise and disruption to a minimum.
2. Protect the resident’s home by using clean dustsheets to cover furniture and floor coverings where appropriate and wear protective shoe coverings.
3. Make sure that all services are reconnected at the end of the day, or when the repair is completed, e.g. water, gas, electricity.
4. Clear away all rubbish created from the work.
5. Not play audio equipment in or around the resident’s home
The landlord’s has a two stage complaints process, under which complaints are to be responded to in full within 15 days at stage one and within 28 days at stage two, unless there are exceptional circumstances.

Assessment

It is not the role of the Ombudsman to determine matters of causation and liability in terms of any impact upon the resident’s health, well-being, studies or earnings. Such issues are matters for legal processes such as a personal injury claim through the courts, or as an insurance claim.

The landlord’s handling of the re-plastering and associated works at the resident’s property.

The Ombudsman expects landlord to handle repairs, for which it is responsible, appropriately by completing them in a reasonable time and providing regular communication and updates to the resident about the works. Where repair work is overdue, residents should receive regular updates clearly explaining the reasons for delay and the expected date of completion.
In reaching a decision we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
1. Be fair.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.
This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.
An inspection was carried out of the resident’s property on 31 October 2019 and reported that the plaster had perished throughout the property.
The landlord recognised its responsibility to repair and acted appropriately by promptly raising a job, the same day, to plaster the downstairs and for any associated works. The landlord’s records note that it was agreed to only plaster the downstairs but do not explain the rationale behind this given that the inspection had reported that the plaster had perished throughout and not just downstairs.
According to the landlord’s repairs policy, as the works would require the co-ordination of multiple trades, it was reasonable for the landlord to give the job a longer timescale that the 20 working days for general repairs. That said the plastering works commenced within 24 working days, on 4 December 2019, just four days longer than the 20 working days.
Whilst the works may have commenced within a reasonable period of time, the landlord failed to act appropriately in response to the resident’s formal complaints between 6 and 10 October 2019. In accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy, the landlord was expected to provide its stage one response within 15 working days, which would have been no later than 31 December 2019, taking into account the Christmas Bank Holiday. However its stage one response was not issued until 24 January 2020. This failure was noted and apologised for by the landlord in its stage one response.
Whilst the landlord’s stage one response was delayed, in general the response itself and actions it had taken in response to the resident’s complaint were fair and reasonable. The landlord:
1. Acknowledged and apologised to the resident for the failures she had identified.
2. Said that it had spoken to the contractor about those failures, what its expectations were and had discussed the contractor reviewing the way it communicated with all parties
3. Had met with the resident and the contractor at the resident’s property the previous day and agreed what works were required, which it said would be oversee by its technical officer.

These were all reasonable steps for the landlord to take in order to put things right and to learn from the outcome. However, given the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident and the delay in it proving its complaint response it would also have been fair for the landlord to offer the resident some form of compensation at this point, which it did not do.

The works the landlord agreed to were to rehang the radiator to the hallway and cut back the pipes to the redundant radiator in kitchen, repair to the kitchen fan and removal of all the isolator sockets / switches on the ground floor, to renew the splash back tiles, and correctly make good the rough plaster and hole in the kitchen ceiling, to emulsion all the walls and ceiling to kitchen, and to lay a new tiled floor covering to kitchen and hallway to the ground floor.
Given that these were general repairs, it would be reasonable for the resident to expect the works to be completed within the 20 working days timescale given in the landlord’s repairs handbook.
The job to rehang the radiator to the hallway and cut back the pipes to the redundant radiator in kitchen was completed on 17 February 2020, within the 20 working day timescale for the completion of general repairs.
The repair to the kitchen fan and removal of all the isolator sockets / switches on the ground floor was booked for 17 February 2020 but cancelled on 20 February 2020 due to no access. Details of the access issues have not been seen by this service. However, it would appear that the resident was available to provide access at some point on the 17 February 2020, as the plumbing works were completed that day, and so had the works been better co-ordinated it may have been possible for the electrical works to have been completed at the same time rather than cancelled and no further action taken regarding the isolator sockets / switches until 14 December 2020, some ten months later. There is no record of the repair to the kitchen fan being completed.
The job to renew the splash back tiles, and correctly make good the rough plaster and hole in the kitchen ceiling was attended to on 6 March 2020, the tenant contacted the same day to advise that the work had not been completed to her satisfaction. There is no record of the landlord taking any steps at that time to address the concerns raised by the resident.
The jobs to emulsion all the walls and ceiling to kitchen, and to lay a new tiled floor covering to kitchen and hallway to the ground floor, were not completed before Government Covid restrictions came into effect towards the end of March 2020.
Between the end of March and 16 November 2020, when the resident contacted the landlord to escalate her complaint, there is no evidence of any further action being taken by either the landlord or its contractor.
Whilst the Covid 19 restrictions would have impacted upon the landlord’s ability to carry out the works, the restrictions were eased in late May 2020 and, as the landlord acknowledged in its final response of 4 December 2020, it would be reasonable to expect that it would have checked that the original complaint was being progressed, and to communicate and explain the reason for any delays to the resident during that time, which it did not do. The resident has advised this service that she refrained from chasing the matter due to the broader pandemic issues at that time.
The landlord also acknowledged that it would have been reasonable for the resident to expect that the repairs would have been completed as a priority once full service provision was able to resume in the summer but they were not.
To put things right, the landlord arranged for the outstanding works to completed, which they were by 21 December 2020, within 11 working days of its final response.
Whilst it is acknowledged that between 28 March 2020 and 18 May 2020 Government guidance recommended that ‘‘access to a property was only proposed for serious and urgent issues’’, even taking this into account, and the disruption this may have caused to the landlord’s repairs service, it was not reasonable for the resident to have to wait until 21 December 2020 for repairs raised in October 2019, over a year earlier, to be completed.
As a goodwill gesture for its acknowledged service failures, the landlord offered to carry out additional works at the resident’s property. However, I am not satisfied that the plastering works offered could be considered a goodwill gesture to the resident as the landlord is responsible for such works and in accordance with its own records was advised, following the inspection on 31 October 2019, that the plaster had perished throughout the property.
The additional plastering works were then note completed until 27 May 2021, more than five months after the landlord’s commitment to carry out the works in its final response of 4 December 2020. This was a long time for the resident to wait for the works to be completed and significantly longer than the 20 working days timescale for general repairs.
With regards to the landlord offer to emulsion the walls and ceiling to the kitchen and to paint the woodwork, I am satisfied that, given the resident’s obligation with regards to decorating, that this can be considered to be a goodwill gesture as it goes beyond what the landlord is obligated to do.
However, I am not satisfied that this alone provides the resident with sufficient redress to the resident for the landlord’s acknowledged service failures and the disruption, distress and inconvenience to the resident of having to wait until 21 December 2020 for repairs raised in October 2019 to be completed.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests awards in the range of £250 to £700 for cases where the Ombudsman has found considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant.
Given the extent of the failures identified and the level of distress and upset caused to the resident as a result of those failures, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £550 compensation made up of £500 for its failures regarding the plastering and associated works plus a further £50 for its failure to provide its stage one response within the required timescales.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the re-plastering and associated works at the resident’s property.

Reasons

The landlord recognised its responsibility to repair and acted appropriately by promptly raising a job to plaster the downstairs and for any associated works in October 2019. However, the works were not completed until December 2020, more than a year later. Whilst it recognised that the Covid restrictions between March and May 2020 would have had an impact on the landlord’s ability to complete the works, the landlord failed to check that the original complaint was being progressed, and to communicate and explain the reason for any delays to the resident. The landlord also failed to progress the repairs in a timely manner once the Covid restrictions had been eased and to respond to the resident’s stage one complaint in line with the timescales in its complaints policy.
In order to resolve the complaint the landlord offered to replaster the hall, stairs and landing, and upstairs bedroom. However, as the landlord had been provided with a report in October 2019 that the plaster throughout the property had perished, it would not be reasonable to consider this as a goodwill gesture as such works would be the landlord’s responsibility. The landlord’s offer to emulsion the walls and ceiling to the kitchen and to paint the woodwork went some way to provide the resident with redress for its acknowledged service failures. However, I am not satisfied that this alone was sufficient given the length of time the resident had to wait for the works to be completed and the distress and inconvenience she experienced as a result.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

That within 28 days of the date of this determination the landlord is to:
1. Pay the resident a total of £550, made up as follows:
  1. £500 for its failures regarding the plastering and associated works.
  2. £50 for the delay in it issuing its stage one response.
2. Check what the position is with regards to the kitchen fan and if it has yet to be repaired to ensure those repairs are carried out within seven working days, in accordance with the timescales set out in its repairs handbook.
3. Confirm that it has complied with the above orders.

Recommendation

That the landlord liaise with the resident to ensure that its records correctly record any vulnerabilities the resident may have.