Leeds City Council (202116723)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202116723

Leeds City Council

3 August 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports regarding replastering works at her property.

Background

  1. At the time of the complaint, the resident was a secured tenant at the property of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a two-bedroom bungalow.
  2. The resident initially reported plaster cracks in her bedroom and lounge on 17 December 2020, however, the landlord’s repair records indicate the job was cancelled without an explanation. 
  3. On 24 April 2021, the resident reported plaster cracks on the kitchen ceiling and on the wall over the boiler. The landlord’s contractors attended the resident’s property on two occasions, respectively on 11 August 2021 and on 9 September 2021. The landlord’s records show the jobs were completed on 22 September 2021.
  4. The resident raised a complaint in or around September 2021 regarding the heating system installed in 2018. The resident reported that her bills had increased since the heating system had been installed and that she did not believe it was functioning properly. She reported that the hot water and radiators were not working the previous week and that she was dissatisfied she had not been given clear communication about who was responsible for the repairs. She also advised she had been passed back and forth between the landlord and different contractors. In its stage one response, the landlord advised that the heating system had now been tested, and its contractors had advised it was functional and sufficient for the property.
  5. On 30 September 2021, the resident requested to escalate her complaint as she was dissatisfied with the length of time the plastering work raised in April 2021 was taking to complete. The resident also reported that other repair jobs were cancelled by the contractors without prior warning. This meant she had to call the contractors, who she felt showed a dismissive attitude in dealing with her queries. Furthermore, the resident reiterated her complaint about the cost of heating and that she was experiencing damp and mould in the property. She further advised she considered this was affecting her health. She also raised concerns about the lack of communication on the progress of the repairs.
  6. The landlord provided its stage two response on 1 November 2021. It apologised for the delay in completing the plastering works and explained that that the delays had been caused by labour and materials shortages experienced across the industry. The landlord confirmed that it had asked the contractors to arrange appointments to carry out works.
  7. The landlord has since informed this service that the works to the plaster in the kitchen and in the wall over the boiler had previously been completed by its contractors on 22 September 2021. There had initially been a duplicate order, which its contractors had subsequently cancelled, but that was still showing as outstanding on the landlord’s own records. The information in its stage two response had therefore been incorrect.
  8. Following further reports from the resident, a work order relating to plastering in the resident’s living room was raised on 4 January 2022 and completed on 30 March 2022.
  9. The resident referred her complaint to this service as she remained dissatisfied with the lack of progress regarding the required plastering works in the living room. The resident has since moved out of the property in May 2022.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident, in her communication with this service, raised concerns regarding delays to plastering works in living room. The Ombudsman notes that similar works were raised in December 2020, but then cancelled without explanation. It is not clear from the evidence whether this related to the same issue reported by the resident in January 2022. In either case, there is no evidence that the plastering to the living room was specifically raised as part of the resident’s complaint considered by the landlord. Paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme provides that complaints that have been made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s internal complaints procedure are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This concern is therefore outsider of the scope of this investigation. In any event, the Ombudsman notes that the repairs were subsequently completed in March 2022.
  2. Furthermore, the Ombudsman notes that the resident complained about the heating system not functioning correctly and that she was affected by several delays due to miscommunication between contractors. The resident has advised this service that this issue is no longer in dispute and so has not been considered as part of this investigation.  
  3. Finally, the Ombudsman has noted the resident’s assertion that the conditions in the property have impacted her health. While this may be the case, it is beyond the expertise of this service to reasonably determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or lack of) and the deterioration of the resident’s wellbeing. The Ombudsman has therefore made no comments in relation to this. Should the resident wish to pursue this matter, legal advice will need to be sought.

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that the landlord is accountable for plastering works within the property.
  2. The landlord’s repairs handbook states that repairs to “areas of loose plaster and damp-proofing work” would be considered ‘batched repairs’. Batched repairs are defined as non-urgent repairs that may require a pre-inspection or may need time to order and/or manufacture materials and should be completed within 60 days.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will inform the resident of the timeframe for any such repairs to be completed. In cases where the work cannot be completed in one visit or any delays are due to occur, the resident will be kept updated. 

Re-plastering works

  1. In this case, it is not disputed that the plastering works in the kitchen and on the wall over the boiler were delayed beyond the timeframe noted in the landlord’s policy. The resident first reported the issue on 24 April 2021 and the landlord’s records confirm that works were not completed until 22 September 2021, which was 151 days after the resident reported the issue.
  2. While the landlord’s repairs policy states that non-urgent repairs should be completed within 60 days, the Ombudsman notes that reasonable delays can extend works beyond this timeframe. In such instances, however, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to provide updates to the resident to explain why works are delayed, and to give a new indicative timeframe for completion. It is not evident in this case that the landlord communicated this delay to the resident until its stage two response, after the works had already been completed. This would have caused frustration for the resident who needed to spend significant time and trouble pursuing updates.
  3. The landlord’s stage two response also created confusion by indicating that the works were still outstanding as of November 2021. The landlord later advised this service that the works were completed in full on 22 September 2021, however, there was a duplicate record on its system which showed the work was still ‘live’ at the time of the resident’s complaint which had been raised in error.
  4. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. In this case, the landlord has advised that the duplicate repair had been cancelled at the time of the resident’s complaint, but this had not updated on its internal repairs system due to system issues at the time. This resulted in incorrect information being provided to the resident in its complaint response. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have provided an update to the resident once the error had been rectified, although it is unclear if it did so.
  5. While the contractor appropriately cancelled the duplicate works, the resident was unclear which works had been cancelled. This caused frustration for the resident given that she had other repair works open, separate to the plastering works. The landlord’s subsequent advice that the plastering works were incomplete caused further confusion and delayed her ability to clarify which works were outstanding.
  6. Additionally, the resident had to call on several occasions the contractors to chase for information and she reported receiving “attitude” from the staff which caused her distress. It is unclear from the evidence provided as to whether the missed and cancelled appointments related specifically to the plastering works or to other works being undertaken in the property during this time, however, the landlord acted appropriately by apologising. Furthermore, it was appropriate for the landlord to contact its contractors reminding about the expectations when dealing with customers.
  7. In summary, the landlord’s failure to keep the resident updated about the delays to its repair works, along with the confusion created by its poor record keeping caused the resident distress and inconvenience and amounted to service failure in the circumstances. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, an amount of £100 compensation is appropriate to recognise this service failure, being £50 for failure to keep the resident updated, and £50 for the incorrect information given in its stage two response. A recommendation has also been added below in relation to the landlord’s record keeping, in order to avoid any future failures.
  8. The Ombudsman has also identified that the landlord’s complaints policy states that stage two response should be issued within 15 working days from the escalation request. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord responded outside of its timescale policy, namely after 23 working days, however, in this instance, the delay was not significant, and it was sufficient that the landlord apologised.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response regarding replastering works at the resident’s property.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £100 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failure to provide reasonable updates regarding delays, and its poor record keeping.
  2. This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. To reduce the likelihood of a similar situation occurring in the future, it is recommended that the landlord review its record-keeping and consider additional training to be provided to its internal staff and contractors so that the landlord’s records match up with its contractors’ records.