Leeds City Council (202106083)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202106083

Leeds City Council

19 May 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for his kitchen to be re-designed.
2. The landlord’s handling of works to the resident’s garden.
3. The conduct of a member of the landlord’s staff.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The tenancy commenced on 23 April 2021. The property is a one-bedroom bungalow with a private garden.
The landlord has advised that its records note that the resident is a vulnerable tenant, that he dyslexic and suffers with depression, for which he takes medication.
On 15 February 2021, a pre-start void inspection was carried out which noted that the property required a new kitchen. A schedule of works for the void property was drawn up on 16 February 2021, describing works to the garden: to remove pebbles; bark, decking and steps to the neighbouring property; to apply top soil and grade down; re-bed flags and replace a broken flag, and for a full kitchen refurbishment.
On 21 April 2021, an Occupational Therapist’s (OT) assessment of the property was carried out and concluded that, with the exception of the removal and relocation of grab rails, which the OT was responsible for, the property was suitable and met the resident’s needs.
On 4 May 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to log a formal complaint about his garden and his kitchen, which he said were not suitable for his needs. The resident said that there was no worktop space or space for a fridge and that the landlord would not install his cooker as he did not have the manual and even if they did, the fridge would block it. The resident said that he had spoken to the surveyor from the voids team who advised him it could be done but the landlord had refused to do the works. The rear garden was not suitable for a disabled person as it was not level, he had been told it would settle over time but no one was able to tell him how long that could take. He had been contacting the voids team, as he had been told, but was getting nowhere, it had been a month and nothing had happened, he never received call backs and he was just being fobbed off.
The landlord provided the resident with a verbal response to his complaint on 19 May 2021. With regards to the kitchen, the landlord:
1. Advised that the kitchen design was the best available given the size of the property and layout of the kitchen.
2. Offered to make space available to allow him to have his tall fridge freezer in the kitchen although this would mean the loss of some work surface and a wall unit. This was declined by the resident.
3. Declined the resident’s suggestion that it take out a wall to the kitchen and the coal bunker to allow him to have the kitchen design he desired.
4. Said that the cooker location, that the resident was unhappy with, was moved when the property was void to meet safety requirements as the original cooker was too close to a window.
5. Said that it did offer a free service of installing resident’s gas cookers but the manufacturers paperwork must be present, this would normally be available on the internet and that the resident must obtain this. The landlord also noted that the resident had positioned his fridge freezer in front of his cooker space.
6. Said that it had sought advice from its Mechanical and Electrical (M&E) team who had advised that, in response to the resident’s concerns that the plug socket was too close to the sink drainer and he could not plug his kettle in, for the drainer to be flipped to the other side. The landlord said that this had also been declined by the resident who had said that he valued the space at the other side of the kitchen.
With regards to the garden, the landlord noted that it had completed significant works, removing the previous tenant’s DIY and that it had graded down the garden. The landlord said that it reviewed the photos of the works and had requested that the contractor be recalled. However, when they attended they reported that the resident wanted walls building and that the work they had been instructed to undertake were not good enough. The landlord said that it had informed the resident that he must allow the contractor to complete to works and until they had been completed no decision would be made as to whether further works would be carried out.
Following the landlord’s call, the resident’s complaint was escalated to stage two on 19 May 2021, as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response with regards to both the design of his kitchen and the condition of his garden.
On 19 May 2021, the landlord emailed:
1. The contractor to advise that they had spoken to the resident and had asked him to allow its operatives to return and grade the garden to a reasonable level so that it could be maintained by the resident.
2. The OT that carried out the assessment of the resident when he viewed the property on 21 April 2021 regarding the resident’s request for his kitchen to be redesigned. The OT replied the same day confirming that no concerns were raised regarding the kitchen when they carried out the assessment and that they would not be able to justify a redesign of the kitchen based on medical needs.
The landlord received a further response from Adult Social Care/OT on 24 May 2021, advising that they had spoken to the resident that day regarding a referral for kitchen adaptations and confirmed that there was no criteria for the resident to have the kitchen adapted for any particular need.
On 2 June 2021 the resident spoke to the landlord’s Customer relations team saying that the works to the garden needed to be done as soon as possible so that he could go out into his garden. The resident also said that he had had no contact from the landlord for three weeks, he would like to know what was going on and that he was upset and it was making him ill.
On 3 June 2021, the contractor emailed the landlord to advise that they had attended the resident’s property that day to carry out the garden works, that the resident had been quite abusive and had refused to allow them to carry out the works. The contractor also noted that the resident was demanding that they put a flag on the edge at the front of the garden back garden, level the whole garden and lay further flags to form a patio. The contractor noted that this was not on the specification.
In an internal emails of 3 and 4 June 2021, the landlord noted that it had called the resident and tried to persuade him to allow it to complete the works to the garden but he had refused to allow the contractors to return to grade it,
On the 4 June 2021 the resident called the landlord to complain about the conduct of the member of its staff who had called him that day. The resident said that they had said they would call him back to arrange the works to do ahead but did not do so. The landlord logged the resident’s concerns as a separate formal complaint.
On 10 June 2021, the landlord issued its final response to the resident’s original complaint, which the resident has confirmed the landlord read to him over the phone as well as sending him a hard copy in the post. With regards to the kitchen works, the landlord:
1. Noted that at stage one it had explained that the new kitchen, installed when the property was empty, met its lettable standards, had been post-inspected and that the design was the best available for the size and layout of the property.
2. Said that the offer to make room for the resident’s fridge freezer still stood but this would mean that he would lose some of the work surface and a wall unit, which the resident had declined.
3. Said that it had reviewed the correspondence from the OT confirming that no concerns were raised in relation to the kitchen and that there was no medical need for a kitchen redesign.
4. Said that Adult Social Care/OT had also confirmed that there was no need for adaptations to the kitchen based on the resident’s needs.
5. Said that it appreciated that the resident felt it could remove a wall and the coal bunker to meet his wishes but there was no requirement to do so, and reminded the resident that under his tenancy terms and conditions he would need to seek written permission from the landlord should he wish to undertake the works himself.
With regards to the garden works, the landlord:
1. Agreed with its stage one assessment that the contractors should return to remove the stones and grade the garden to a reasonable level as this should have been completed in the first instance. The contractor attended to carry out the works on 3 June 2021. However, the resident refused the works to be carried out unless it included a retaining wall and patio.
2. Acknowledged that whilst it had completed significant works to the rear garden whilst the property was empty, the garden had not been graded to a level to meet the Lettable Standard and that is why the contractors had been recalled to complete the works.
3. Said that it had asked the resident to allow the contractor to return on 11 June 2021 following which it would come and inspect the works on 15 June 2021, and that if any further works were needed it would authorise them immediately, noting that laying a patio would not form part of any further works as this was not something it would be required to undertake to meet lettable standards.
4. Said that the resident had refused this on the basis that he did not want any grading of the garden as this would negate the need for a retaining wall.
On 25 June 2021, the landlord spoke to the resident about his second complaint, regarding the conduct of a member of its staff, and then issued its stage one response on 28 June 2021. The landlord said that it had spoken to the member of staff in question and they had said that they:
1. Had advised the resident that they would call him back if the plan had changed from what had been agreed. As there was no change in plan there was no need for them to call the resident back.
2. Had previously advised the resident that they would be on leave during the time when the resident said he had called back and tried to speak to them.
3. Had agreed to return and discuss the garden with the resident as long as the resident allowed the contractor to return and complete the recall works to the garden. The resident had made it clear that he would not allow this and they were then clear with the resident that it would not be beneficial for them to meet with the resident at that time.
4. Apologised if their communication was not clear, however they felt that they had tried to explain the situation to the resident clearly.
With regards to the resident’s allegation that the member of staff in question had lied about him requesting that a patio be installed. Again the landlord said that it had spoken to the member of staff who confirmed that they had advised the resident that the landlord would not install a patio, that the resident did not challenge the member of staff regarding the use of the word patio at that time and the contractor had said that that was what the resident had requested. The landlord said that the resident had asked for the level off of the garden and the laying of some flags to form some sort of patio and that whilst the resident was unhappy with the wording of its letter, it was reasonable for the word patio to have been referenced in its final response of 10 June 2021.
With regards to the final response referencing the resident refusing the garden works to go ahead, the landlord said that whilst the resident clearly did not like the wording used in the letter, he had acknowledged that he had refused to allow the workers to complete the work they had been sent to do.
With regards to the resident’s allegation that the landlord had lied when it said in its final response of 10 June 2021, that it had spoken to Adult Social Care as he had called them as they had denied this. The landlord noted that in the letter it had said that it had reviewed correspondence and did not say that they had been spoken to.
The landlord said that since its previous final response on 10 June 2021, the resident had received a visit from the Team Leader Voids and an agreement had been reached regarding modification to the resident’s kitchen to accommodate the fridge and for the sink top to be rotated so that the basin was further away from the electric sockets. The landlord asked that the resident contact the Team Leader Voids directly to arrange for the works to go ahead.
On 28 June 2021, the landlord raised a follow on works order to renew the sink top on the opposite side to allow the resident’s bowl to be further away from the electrics, to cut back and remove the worktop and wall unit to the fridge space.
In an internal email on 16 July 2021, the voids team noted that the resident had said that the kitchen needed to be fully replaced, that the electrics were not to any regulation and that he would not allow the operative in to carry out the kitchen works.
On 24 August 2021, the resident called the landlord to escalate his complaint as he was not happy with the landlord’s stage one response of 28 June 2021, stating that the landlord was covering things up.
The landlord issued its final response, to the resident’s second formal complaint of 4 June 2021, on 14 September 2021. The landlord explained that it would not be commenting further on the resident’s previous complaint regarding the garden and kitchen works to his home as that complaint had exhausted its formal complaints process and had been referred to this service.
With regards to the resident’s concerns that his dealings with the specific member of staff had not been fully investigated at stage one, the landlord said that it had spoken to the officer in question and checked her diary. The landlord noted that much of the misunderstanding had taken place due to the conversations taking place over the phone, that it did not record phone calls as standard, often the calls were about conversations held with third parties and that these conversations were relayed to the member of staff by the resident and the contractor. When asked specifically about the garden, the member of staff had confirmed that the resident had not suggested the scope of work directly to her but that this was reported back by the contractor. The landlord apologised to the resident for any misunderstanding and said that if he would like another officer to deal with the ongoing works to let it know.

Assessment and findings

Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord must keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling house and keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling house for the supply of water, gas, electricity, sanitation, space heating, and heating water.
Sections 8.25 to 8.27 of the tenancy agreement confirm the resident’s responsibility for the maintenance of the garden at the property. This is confirmed in the landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Handbook.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for his kitchen to be re-designed.

Whilst it is acknowledged that the resident still feels dissatisfied with the layout of his kitchen and has told this service of the difficulties he is experiencing, it is not for this service to make any assessment of the resident’s needs, as this would be for an Occupational Therapist to consider. The role of this service is to review how the landlord responded to the resident’s request and whether that response was fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.
When considering the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about his kitchen, it is important to differentiate between what the landlord is obliged to do under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the terms of the tenancy agreement and what the resident would like the landlord to do.
The landlord was obliged to ensure that the kitchen units, worktops and sink were clean and in good working condition and following the Void inspection arranged for the kitchen to be fully refurbished.
When the resident moved into the property he complained to the landlord about the layout of the kitchen saying that it was unsuitable for his needs. There is no evidence of the resident raising any concerns regarding the layout of the new kitchen prior to moving into the property and the OT that assessed the property, with the resident, on 21 April 2021 had said that the property was suitable and met the resident’s needs. As that was the case, and with no further evidence to support the resident’s position, it was reasonable for the landlord to refuse his request for the kitchen to be re-designed.
Given the resident’s ongoing concerns and his reference to him having a disability, it was appropriate for the landlord to contact the OT that had carried out the initial assessment to confirm whether or not there was a medical need for the kitchen to be re-designed.
The OT that carried out the assessment on 21 April 2021 confirmed on 19 May 2021 that they would not be able to justify a redesign of the kitchen based on medical needs. This was also confirmed by Adult Social Care/OT on 24 May 2021 who stated that there was no criteria for the resident to have the kitchen adapted for any particular need. As a result there was no obligation on the landlord to carry out any further works to the kitchen.
Nevertheless, the landlord put forward reasonable proposals which it hoped would address the resident’s concerns, including offering to make space for his fridge freezer, whilst noting that this would mean the loss of some work surface and a wall unit, and following advice from its M&E team for the sink top to be rotated so that the basin was further away from the electric sockets. These were reasonable offers for the landlord to make, however, they were declined by the resident who said in response that the kitchen needed to be fully replaced.
In its response to the resident’s complaint that the landlord had refused to install his cooker, the landlord said that whilst it could do this free of charge it could not do so as the resident did not have an instruction manual and that he should obtain a copy himself through the internet. Whilst this may have been a reasonable response in most cases, as the landlord was aware that the resident was dyslexic the landlord could have asked the resident whether that was something he was able to do and if not, to potentially offer him assistance in doing so. There is no evidence that it so. However, there is other evidence, such as ensuring that its complaint responses were provided verbally before being sent out in writing and in its contact with the resident over the phone rather than by email, which shows that the landlord otherwise did make reasonable adjustments in response to the resident’s dyslexia,
Having considered the evidence I am satisfied that, given that there was no evidence to support the resident’s position that his kitchen needed to be re-designed, the OT advising that this was not the case, and as the landlord had put forward reasonable alternative proposals, there was no maladministration by the landlord with respect of its response to the resident’s request.

The landlord’s handling of works to the resident’s garden.

The tenancy agreement and the landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Handbook confirm that the ongoing maintenance of the garden is the resident’s responsibility. However, prior to letting the property it would be reasonable to expect the landlord to ensure that the garden was free from rubbish and in a condition that was maintainable by the resident.
On 4 May 2021, seven working days after his tenancy commenced, the resident contacted the landlord to complain that is garden was not suitable for a disabled person as it was not level, he had been told it would settle over time but no one was unable to tell him how long that could take.
The landlord took reasonable steps in response to the resident’s concerns, considering the photos of the garden and recalling the original contractors to grade the garden to a reasonable level so, it said, the garden could be maintained by the resident. As with the kitchen, there is no evidence of the OT raising concerns about the garden when they had assessed the property, with the resident on 21 April 2021. Nevertheless the landlord did agree to return and discuss the garden once the works to get the garden to a lettable standard were completed.
Although the exact date the contractor attended to carry out the works is not known, it was confirmed in the landlord’s stage one response on 19 May 2021, 15 working days after the resident’s complaint, that the contractor that had attended to carry out the works and had advised the landlord that the works had not gone ahead as the resident was not satisfied with the works that had been arranged. This evidences that the works were therefore arranged within a reasonable period of time.
There is evidence of the landlord taking further steps, following the resident’s initially rejection, to seek to arrange for the works to be completed, and of it again advising the resident that no further works could be considered until those works were done. However, when the contractors attended on 3 June 2021 they reported that the resident had again refused to allow them to carry out the works. It was also at this point the issue of a patio was raised by the contractor.
The landlord then made further attempts to arrange for the garden works to be completed but these were again rejected by the resident.
Having considered the evidence, and whilst it is acknowledged that the resident was clearly dissatisfied with the layout of the garden, I am satisfied that there was no maladministration by the landlord. This is because the landlord took appropriate steps to seek to address the works for which it was responsible, given that under the terms of his tenancy the resident is responsible for the maintenance of the garden, and there is no evidence to support the resident’s position that he was unable to use the garden due to a disability. The landlord arranged for the grading of the garden to a lettable standard, however the resident’s refusal to allow the works to go ahead, unless it carried out the works he had requested, resulted in it being unable to do so.

The conduct of a member of the landlord’s staff.

On 4 June 2021, shortly before the landlord issued its final response to the resident’s previous complaint about his kitchen and garden, the resident logged a new complaint stating that the member of the landlord’s staff who had been communicating with him regarding the works had said they would call him back that day but did not.
The landlord acted appropriately following the resident’s complaint. This is did by initially speaking to the resident to gain an understanding of his concerns and then speaking to the member of staff concerned. During these conversations the number of issues raised by the resident about the member of staff significantly increased to include that they had lied about him requesting that a patio be installed and about them contacting the Adult Social Care.
At both stage one and stage two, the landlord investigated the resident’s concerns and provided the resident with a detailed and reasonable response to the concerns he had raised.
Whilst it is not possible to definitively establish what was said between the resident and the member of staff involved, as all the conversations were over the phone and the landlord does not keep phone recordings, it is clear the landlord investigated the resident’s concerns, explained where there may have been a difference of opinion and apologised to the resident for any misunderstanding. The landlord also said that if he would like another member of staff to deal with the ongoing works to let it know. As a result, I am satisfied that there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of this complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for his kitchen to be re-designed.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of works to the resident’s garden.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the conduct of a member of its staff.

Reasons

There is no evidence of the resident raising any concerns about the layout of the new kitchen prior to moving in and the OT that assessed him in the property on 21 April 2021 confirmed that the property was suitable and met the resident’s needs. As that was the case there was no obligation on the landlord to agree to the resident’s request that it redesign the kitchen. Nevertheless, and in order to seek to address the resident’s concerns the landlord offered to make space available to allow him to have his tall fridge freezer in the kitchen and to rotate the sink so that he could plug his kettle in.
Following the resident’s report of concerns with his garden, and having viewed photos of the garden, the landlord promptly recognised its responsibility to carry out works to ensure the garden was to a lettable standard and arranged for those works to be done. Whilst it is clear that the resident was not satisfied with the works proposed and said that he was unable to use the garden due to a disability, there is no evidence of this being supported by the occupational therapist that visited the property with him on 21 April 2021 and as such, whilst the resident would like certain works to be carried out to his garden, there is no obligation on the landlord to do so. The landlord sought throughout the complaints process to encourage the resident to allow the works it had arranged for the garden to go ahead but the resident repeatedly refused for the works to be completed.
The landlord acted appropriately in response to the resident’s concerns about its member of staff. The landlord investigated the resident’s concerns, explained where there may have been a difference of opinion and apologised to the resident for any misunderstanding. The landlord also said that if he would like another member of staff to deal with the ongoing works to let it know.