Leeds City Council (202100672)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202100672

Leeds City Council

26 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

This complaint is about:
1. The resident’s request to be rehoused;
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
1. Rehousing request
Paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme says the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, “fall properly within the jurisdiction of another ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.”
The resident wants to be permanently moved to another of the landlord’s properties. She has been on the local housing register since 2018, when she was assigned a Band A priority because she was at risk of becoming homeless. The basis the resident’s rehousing request has changed over time. It is now focussed on the condition of the property and its impact on her health. In its stage two response, dated 25 May 2021, the landlord said the resident’s band A priority was still in place.
Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996) includes transfers requested by local authority residents. It sets out the circumstances where reasonable preference must be given to certain applicants, when making decisions about offers of property. The reasonable preference criteria include applicants: threatened with homelessness, living in unsuitable conditions and who need to move on medical or welfare grounds.
The Housing Ombudsman can only consider complaints about transfer applications that are outside of Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996). The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) can review complaints about applications for rehousing that fall under Part 6. This includes complaints concerning applications for re housing that meet the reasonable preference criteria and the assessment of such applications.
In this case, the landlord is the resident’s local authority. Since her transfer request falls within Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996. It cannot be reviewed by the Housing Ombudsman. As a result, this aspect of the complaint is better suited to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. The Housing Ombudsman can consider the resident’s concerns about the property’s condition.

Background and summary of events

Background

The tenancy agreement shows the resident was an introductory tenant when her tenancy began in late 2015. It suggests she is now a secure tenant having completed an initial 12 month introductory period. The property is a one bedroom house.
The landlord’s updated tenancy agreement, effective 2019, confirms the landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining the structure and exterior of the property. It shows the resident is obliged to allow the landlord, or its contractors, to enter/access the property to carry out maintenance, repairs, safety checks or other works. It also shows breaking the terms and conditions of the agreement may result in enforcement action against the resident, including termination of the tenancy.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints procedure. Its complaints policy, effective 2019, shows it aims to respond to complaints within 15 working days at both stages of the complaints process.
The resident has a number of vulnerabilities relating to her mental health. The landlord provided a number of her partially completed applications for new properties. It said the incomplete applications indicate the resident’s lack of engagement with its bidding process for alternative accommodation. The Ombudsman has seen multiple images that appear to show damp in the property.

Summary of events

The landlord’s repair history screen shots show a works order to point the property’s external brickwork and carry out various chimney repairs was cancelled on 26 August 2020. The order was marked as “no access – job cancelled”. Accompanying notes said the resident was “still refusing work”. They show the resident said she would be moving soon and the works could be completed while the property was void.
On 17 February 2021 the resident reported a wet patch on her bedroom ceiling and water ingress into the property. The repair history screen shots show she thought the problem related to defective pointing by her bedroom window. They also show the landlord raised three corresponding works orders the same day. The orders were: to repair a UPVC window frame, point brickwork and replace a missing roof tile.
The landlord’s information shows the window frame order was cancelled after defective pointing was confirmed to be causing the water ingress. It also shows the landlord’s contractor attended the roof tile and found chimney works were needed, but no roof tiles needed replacing. It also shows the tenant refused the remaining works on 20 February 2020. The corresponding screen shots show the order was again marked “no access – job cancelled”.
The screen shots show the landlord raised a new repair order on 20 February 2021. The accompanying notes confirm this was to address the pointing and “repair leadwork to the (chimney) stack”. Further, the job was ultimately cancelled because the resident refused access.
On 24 March 2021 a local councillor contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf. The wording of the email confirms the contact was prompted by an informal enquiry rather than a formal complaint. However, it also shows the resident told the councillor the property was “riddled with damp.”
After making internal enquiries, the landlord replied on 12 April 2021. It said it raised a works order for roofing repairs in February 2020 in response to reports of water ingress. The email quoted a note from the landlord’s contractor, which said the resident declined the repairs on the basis she wanted to move. The landlord said it was obliged to repair the property, to protect the resident and the landlord’s asset, regardless of the resident’s intention to move. Further, it had raised the repairs again on that basis. The landlord’s repair screen shots confirm it raised a new repair order that day.
The resident also raised a formal complaint the same day. The main points were:
1. The property was in disrepair from the outset of the tenancy. After moving in, damp became apparent in every room, along with other issues. The property’s condition resulted from the landlord’s lack of works over a 40 year period.
2. The landlord previously replaced the whole roof, which inconvenienced the resident. This work should have been undertaken while the property was void. Further, the landlord should have been aware the original roof was in poor condition because there was no bedroom ceiling in place when the resident was first shown the property.
3. The roofing contractor was shocked at the state of the ceiling when they began the repair in 2016. Further, the resident possessed documents from around the same time, including a survey and information from a specialist damp contractor, which confirmed the property was in poor condition.
4. Rendering needed to be removed from the front of the property, which also needed repointing. Overall, the property was uninhabitable and the resident had been living with damp for six years. She said she should be moved as soon as possible due to previous anti–social behaviour and the impact of the damp on her health.
The Ombudsman’s records confirm the resident approached this Service around the same time she raised her complaint with the landlord.
The landlord issued a stage one response on 4 May 2021. This was 15 working days after the resident submitted her complaint. The main points were:
1. Following a survey in 2016, the landlord arranged a specialist contractor to complete a range of repair works in January 2017. The works included a silicone injection damp proof course and plastering. The landlord’s records showed the resident rejected these works because she did not want the involved upheaval. They were therefore cancelled at the resident’s request.
2. In February 2020, works orders were raised to repoint the property above the bedroom window and to renew external leadwork. The landlord’s records showed, when the contractor arrived, the resident rejected the works on the basis she was soon due to move out.
3. The above repair order had been raised again and scaffolding would be needed. The relevant contractor would be in touch in due course with an update. Though it understood the resident wanted to move, the landlord had a duty to repair the property.
4. In relation to the 2016 roofing works, the landlord was unable to “locate any jobs raised for responsive maintenance in 2016 to correct any void works on the roof”. As a result, although it was sorry for any inconvenience, the landlord said it was unable to offer any further comments on the matter.
5. The landlord was currently handling a backlog of works due to the pandemic. It would contact the resident as soon as possible to arrange a new inspection, and raise any necessary repair orders.
The resident replied the same day. She said the landlord should not arrange the works or erect scaffolding. This was on the basis the works should have been completed before she moved in, and she was not prepared to put up with more “pain and inconvenience”. Instead, she wanted moving to a similar property in good condition. She said, given the extent of the repairs needed, she would have to be moved out anyway and her health was suffering. The landlord’s internal correspondence shows her complaint was escalated around this time.
Further internal correspondence, from later the same day, shows the landlord called the resident to arrange a survey. It said the landlord explained it needed to complete a survey, but the resident did “not want anything doing”, including external works. The correspondence said it appeared the resident wanted to move. The Ombudsman has seen the landlord’s corresponding inspection order, which was raised on 4 May 2021. The order seen was marked “awaiting inspection”.
The landlord’s repair history screen shots from 10 May 2021 include its contractor’s comments. The comments show the contractor called the resident to schedule a date for the pointing and chimney works. The notes said the resident “refused any works to take place and states that she wants a move out of the house..”. The notes said the contractor was unable to force the resident to accept the works so the matter would be passed back to the landlord for a resolution.
Later internal correspondence, between 18 and 19 May 2021, shows the landlord had spoken to the resident about her complaint. It said she did not want the disruption of a temporary decant because she had difficulty with anxiety. It noted she was vulnerable and enquired how to approach the situation. The landlord’s senior leader subsequently replied. They said the resident was obliged to allow access for repair works and she was currently in breach of the tenancy agreement. If this situation continued, the landlord would be forced to seek legal advice and consider tenancy action.
On 25 May 2021 the landlord issued a stage two response. This was 15 working days after the resident’s escalation request. The response contained referral rights to both the Housing Ombudsman and the LGSCO, along with a brief explanation of each services’ role. The main points were:
1. There was high demand for the landlord’s accommodation, it therefore worked to “tight timescales” when turning empty properties around. However, it sought to ensure its void properties were repaired to appropriate standards. Sometimes, additional works were required after a property was let. This is what happened in the resident’s case. The landlord was sorry for any unnecessary inconvenience, or if the property fell short of the resident’s expectations when she moved in.
2. The landlord had seen several of the resident’s photos, which indicated there was damp in a number of rooms. Its records showed it had raised multiple repair orders, over the course of the resident’s tenancy, with a view to repairing and maintaining the property. It noted the resident had cancelled works in 2016, 2018 and 2020. A further inspection had been raised in May 2021.
3. The resident had not allowed the landlord the required access to complete its repair orders. During recent phone calls, she had also confirmed she did not want any repair works to be undertaken because of the associated disruption. The landlord therefore proposed a temporary decant as a solution. However, the resident also declined this proposal because of the disruption involved.
4. The landlord was legally obliged to ensure its properties were maintained to a decent standard. By preventing repairs, the resident was in breach of her obligation to provide access under the tenancy agreement. If the situation continued the landlord would be forced to seek legal advice and consider tenancy action.
The landlord’s contact notes detail a call between the landlord and the resident on 8 October 2021. They show the resident agreed she had cancelled previous works orders for repairs. They also show the landlord offered to: arrange a temporary stay in a nearby hotel, move the resident’s belongings into storage and back, and provide transport. They show the resident did not think she could “go through” the decant and she wanted a permanent move.
On 20 October 2021 the resident updated the Ombudsman. She said, during a call the same day, the landlord told her it wanted to inspect the property. Further, this was to establish whether it was possible to complete the works around her, or if a decant was needed. She said the landlord already had all the information it needed so the inspection was not required. She also said she should not have been offered the property when it was in such poor condition. In addition, the specialist damp contractor had advised her she needed to be moved in 2016.
In February 2022, the resident told the Ombudsman that the landlord confirmed it could move her temporarily to fix the property. However, it was unable to move her permanently because no properties were available. She also said it was refusing her call back requests, and had declined to investigate how the property was approved for letting in 2015. She said the landlord told her this was because her case was already with the Ombudsman.
During a phone call on 23 August 2022, the resident told the Ombudsman she did not want to be temporarily decanted only to be moved again (permanently) later. She said conditions in the property were impacting her health and the landlord made her feel the situation was her fault.
In a follow up email, she raised additional concerns about the landlord’s bidding process for new properties, along with its failure to respond to her request for documents linked to a surveyor’s report. In accordance with the jurisdiction section above, the former concern is outside of the Ombudsman’s remit to consider. No evidence was seen to show the latter concern was included in the resident’s formal complaint to the landlord.
The resident’s email contained attached images of a survey report. The report was dated 3 May 2022. It shows the property needed extensive internal and external works including: removing a chimney stack, wrapping joists and plastering. The schedule of works included the living room, kitchen, bedroom and bath room. The information seen suggests these works remain outstanding.

Assessment and findings

It is recognised that the situation is distressing for the resident and has impacted her health and wellbeing. It is also acknowledged that extensive repairs to the property have been outstanding for a considerable period of time. The landlord has not disputed the repairs are necessary, or that it is responsible for completing them. It has also acknowledged the welfare impact of the situation on the resident. The resident has not disputed any aspect of the landlord’s timeline. The evidence shows both parties have maintained consistent positions throughout the timeline.
A significant part of the resident’s complaint relates to the landlord’s actions while the property was void in 2015. However, this complaint was raised more than five years after the events referenced. Given the time that has passed, the historic aspects of the resident’s complaint fall outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider. The Ombudsman’s own records show the resident approached this service in 2016. While it is likely this contact was prompted by similar concerns, the full details are no longer available.
This assessment is focused on the landlord’s response to the resident’s formal complaint, which is broadly reflected in the timeline above. It does not include concerns the resident raised to the Ombudsman in August 2022 (around 15 months after the landlord’s final response letter). If she is unhappy with the landlord’s handling of any new issues, the resident should raise a formal complaint with the landlord in the first instance. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any issues, prior to the Ombudsman’s involvement.
The timeline shows the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property. For example, it promptly raised several works orders to address the resident’s reports of water ingress in February 2021. It also raised the relevant order again in April 2021, after the resident declined the works, and sought to inspect the property the following month. This was an appropriate approach because a new inspection would have given the landlord an up–to–date picture of the property’s condition, along with any necessary repairs.
It also shows the landlord engaged with the resident’s concerns about disruption. For example, the resident was offered a temporary decant within a reasonable timeframe, which was appropriate given the extent of the works required. When she was still concerned, the landlord offered to arrange removal and storage for her belongings. It also offered to arrange transport to minimise the overall impact to her. This represents best practice on the landlord’s part. It also suggests the landlord was actively considering the resident’s situation and her vulnerabilities.
The resident’s concerns about being moved twice (an initial decant followed by a permanent move) are understandable. However, it is reasonable to conclude repairs and rehousing requests are distinct areas of the landlord’s operations, subject to different processes and procedures. Ultimately, the tenancy agreement shows the landlord was entitled to advise the resident that it may be forced to pursue tenancy action if she continued to refuse access for repairs. This is because the updated tenancy agreement is clear that this action is a valid option if the agreement is broken.
This assessment also considered the landlord’s complaint handling. It was noted the landlord complied with its relevant timescales at each stage of its complaints process. It was also noted the landlord’s final response letter included referral rights for this Service and the LGSCO, along with a brief explanation of both services’ activities. This again represents best practice on the part of the landlord. Overall, no complaint handling failures were identified.
In summary, the evidence shows the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property. As a result, there was no maladministration on its part in respect of this complaint point.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property.

Reasons

The landlord promptly raised repair orders and offered the resident a decant as appropriate. It also considered the resident’s circumstances and sought to minimise any disruption to her by offering to arrange temporary accommodation, storage and transport. It was entitled to advise the resident it may be forced to pursue tenancy action if it was unable to gain access for repairs.

Recommendations

The landlord to signpost the resident towards any relevant organisations capable of supporting the resident with her rehousing applications.
The landlord to contact the resident and establish what documents she is seeking and why. This is with a view to avoiding a potential new complaint.