Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Leeds City Council (202105184)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202105184

Leeds City Council

26 July 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 residents reports of leaks from the roof of the property. 

Background 

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of a three-bedroom house which is owned and managed by the landlord. The landlord’s records show that the resident has no known vulnerabilities. The resident has stated to the Ombudsman that she is clinically vulnerable although no specific details have been provided.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord in September 2018 regarding damp causing damage to her walls. She stated that about three years previously she had been informed by the landlord that scaffolding was needed to carry out repairs to the roof area, but this had not been happened. The landlord subsequently arranged repairs orders following this contact in 2018. The resident reported a further leak in September 2020, identifying wetness on inside walls and around her front door. Works to her guttering were ordered following this. 
  3. On 15 January 2021 the resident complained to the landlord that she had experienced ongoing damp issues for three to four years despite having reporting these issues to the landlord as soon as they arose.  She stated that repairs were carried out two years ago and that she had been informed that works to the chimney breast were also needed at that time, but these had not been done. She also complained that guttering repair was still outstanding, that water was running down her bathroom wall into the kitchen causing damage to decorations and that water was coming in through her back door. When the resident further pursued the complaint in April 2021, she added that scaffolding had been up for two weeks, but no works had commenced, and she had needed to call out the emergency repairs team to deal with the leaking roof whilst works remained outstanding. 
  4. The landlord responded to the complaint on 19 January 2021 confirming a surveyor would visit to assess the repair requirements and would place orders as necessary. It apologised for any previous delays, identifying the effect of Covid on its repairs service as a reason for this. Following the resident further pursuing the complaint in April 2021, the landlord responded that there had been delays to the repair orders placed following the surveyor visit. It apologised for the delays and the lack of contact but confirmed that the works already carried out had been completed within the target time and that the remaining works were also on target to be completed on time. It recognised that a worsening of one leak had occurred but found that the emergency repairs service had responded appropriately. Overall, it concluded that the repairs service had responded to all the resident’s concerns, raised appropriate orders, and attended to these works orders within target timescales.
  5. The resident contacted the Ombudsman in July 2021 stating that she was unhappy with her landlord’s response. She identified that her housing issues were still ongoing; that wallpaper was hanging off and there was no paint on her kitchen and bathroom wall; that her garden was completely ruined by the scaffolding and that the stress and anxiety had affected her health badly. She stated that she needed to be compensated and appropriate redecorations/works carried out. She contacted the Ombudsman again in September 2021 and confirmed that her chimney was still leaking.        

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy confirms that it does not normally investigate complaints about historic issues, unless there are exceptional circumstances. The resident’s complaint referred to damp problems that occurred over a three-to-four-year period. However, the landlord’s complaint response did not specifically address the resident’s reports of long standing issues, focussing instead on the reactive process it followed when made aware of the resident’s more recent reports.
  2. Whilst the landlord’s response to the specific complaint under investigation is the main focus of this investigation, the Ombudsman has the discretion to consider cases in more depth if the circumstances of the case suggest that a more holistic approach is required. In this case, it is evident that the resident has been reporting issues with the roof over the course of a number of years, including further reports following the completion of the complaints process. Given the extent of the detriment reported by the resident, it is considered both reasonable and proportionate to comment on the resident’s overall experience within this investigation.

The resident’s reports about leaks from the roof area

  1. The landlord’s repair responsibility for the roof and guttering leaks is not disputed in this case. The Ombudsman can also confirm that the elements of the property requiring repair would be the landlord’s responsibility in line with the relevant legislation (including the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985) and the resident’s tenancy agreement.
  2. The resident’s report of leak issues on 18 September 2018 was the first record on the matter in the evidence supplied by the landlord. However, this identified that the resident referred to previous contact three years before when she was told by the landlord that scaffolding would be needed to carry out repairs, but this had not happened. The Ombudsman has no evidence relating to the earlier contact so is unable to make a judgement on those events; such as whether scaffolding was erected and repairs completed within a reasonable timeframe. It is of concern however that the landlord did not refer to these earlier events in its complaint investigation as this would have provided clarity and transparency as to the landlord’s decision making here, with the resident reassured that the history of the case was being taken into account in its response to her new reports about similar issues.  
  3. Following the report of damp in September 2018 the landlord arranged for a surveyor to visit and repairs orders were placed on 15 October 2018. This included works to a rear external window; the fitting of an extractor fan in the bathroom; replastering of damage near the WC and thermal boarding to a gable wall. In addition, the landlord’s repair notes state that the rear chimney stack leaking in the attic would require thermal boarding to the landing gable once the roof issue was resolved. It also confirmed that as the roof was renewed approximately four years ago it may be possible to recall the team who did this work. It added, that if not, the rear chimney stack would need to be repointed, re-flashed and weather sealed. It went on to state that ‘failing this’ a better long-term solution would be to remove the rear stack. It stated there would be further discussions internally about the roof works. 
  4. While this indicates the landlord was taking action in response to the resident’s report at that time, the evidence provided to the Ombudsman does not identify which, if any, of these works were completed nor any timescales. What took place during this period would provide context to the further leaks that occurred in 2020 and would have been important to the resident in understanding how effectively the landlord had responded to her concerns. It was therefore a failure of the landlord’s complaints process that it did not refer to historic issues with the roof area at the property and how these might continue to be impacting upon the property.
  5. When the resident reported wetness on an inside wall and around the front door on the 2 September 2020 an order was raised by the landlord to clean out the guttering. This had a target date of 12 November 2022. The resident contacted the landlord again on the 19 November 2022 as the works had not been completed. She identified that the leak from the guttering had damaged the bathroom and was damaging the kitchen ceiling. The landlord’s records show that it emailed its contractor to request an update. There is no evidence of a response from the contractor or feedback to resident at this stage though the order is identified as completed on 15 December 2020. However, when the resident made her complaint on 15 January 2021, she stated that she still had a leaking gutter which was reported in September 2020. She did not mention works taking place in December 2020.  
  6. Again, these events were also not appropriately covered in the landlord’s complaint response. Its stage 1 complaint response identified that its repairs service had been affected by the Covid pandemic and an apology was made for any delays, but it did not specifically explain what had happened with previous repair orders. Therefore, the landlord’s response did not sufficiently explain how it had responded to the resident’s previous repair requests.
  7. The commitments made in the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, sent on 19 January 2021, while not sufficient in addressing the resident’s concerns about the previous handling of the leak issues, were an appropriate response to dealing with the ongoing problems with leaks at that time. The landlord confirmed that a surveyor with knowledge of the repairs history for the property would visit to look at the repair issues. It confirmed a repair order had already been placed to look at the back door. In line with the complaint response the surveyor then placed a range of orders aimed at resolving the leak issues. This included renewing the rear guttering; removing a redundant chimney stack; weather sealing from the bathroom window down to the back door; fixing the leak to the attic dormer and carrying out thermal boarding.
  8. At stage 2 of the complaints process the landlord also responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns about the delays in the repairs ordered following the surveyor visit. It acknowledged that there had been delays in progressing the work (including dealing with party wall issues with the neighbouring property) and apologised for this and its lack of contact. It explained the sequencing of the works and how none of the works had exceeded the target times. The orders were placed under the landlord’s non-urgent batch repair category, with a target timescale of 60 days. The decision on the categorisation of the repairs orders and the sequencing was taken by the visiting surveyor and it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on its surveyor to make this assessment.
  9. Repairs to a roof and associated issues, such as guttering and chimney stack works, are usually complex. Scaffolding will usually be required and multiple appointments from suitably qualified operatives will also often be required. As such, a reasonably lengthy resolution timescale would be expected in such cases. In this case, 60 days presents as a reasonable timeframe given all the circumstances of the case.
  10. The landlord’s final response (26 April 2021) addressed the resident’s point that the emergency repair team had needed to be called out to address the roof leak. The resident’s concern was that this was needed because of the previous delays. The landlord acknowledged that the leak to the dormer attic had worsened while roof works were pending but that an emergency order was placed on the 9 April 2021 and attended the same day. This is a reasonable explanation as the landlord was relying on the surveyor’s technical assessment as to how urgent the works were at the time of the visit in January 2021 and therefore an emergency response to an unexpected deterioration was the appropriate action.       
  11. The final response concluded that the repairs service had responded to all the resident’s concerns, raised appropriate orders and attended to these within target dates, with the works completed ahead of the target timescale on 21 April 2021. However, the final response only looked at the repairs ordered following the surveyors visit after the stage 1 response. The Ombudsman’s view is that, while these were raised as part of the resident’s escalation, the request was to escalate her existing complaint and this related to events over three-to-four-year period. Therefore, as mentioned above, the earlier events should have been addressed in the landlord’s complaint response.
  12. There was also no reference to the plastering/redecoration issues the resident had raised within the landlord’s complaint responses. Her original complaint reported that plastering, which she had paid for, had been damaged by the water ingress from the roof. She also referenced damaged paintwork and, following the completion of the complaints process, she continued to report her dissatisfaction with how the issues from the roof had impacted upon the decoration within the property.
  13. The resident had a reasonable expectation that her specific enquiries would be addressed and it is of concern that the landlord has not provided the thorough response required here. Given the landlord’s acknowledged failures in resolving roof repair issues, including the fact that further issues occurred whilst the resident was awaiting remedial works, it is considered reasonable here for the landlord to pay compensation to reflect the re-decoration and plastering issues reported by the resident.
  14. Whilst an insurance claim may still be a possibility for the resident (either through the landlord’s insurer or through her own provider) with respect to financial losses, such a claim would be outside of the Ombudsman’s remit. A recommendation has been included however, for the landlord to clarify its position in this respect, both in regards a possible insurance claim, and also in relation to any further re-decoration needs at the property.
  15. It is of significant concern that the resident has raised further issues regarding the roof area following the completion of the complaints process. This means that there have been four separate reports from her about these issues over a protracted period. The evidence states that the roof was renewed in approximately 2014 (confirmed by landlord repair notes dated 15 October 2018). The resident has said that she first reported issues shortly after this, then again in 2018, 2020 and more recently following the completion of the complaints process.
  16. Whilst a reactive approach to repairs is generally considered appropriate for member landlords, there is also a requirement on landlord’s to consider serious issues such as repeated roof issues in a more holistic way. The volume of reports the landlord has received on this case suggests that there may be a more serious underlying problem with the roof, with a more extensive solution possibly required. The Ombudsman is not in a position to make such a judgement. In the circumstances however, given the failures identified here, it is considered appropriate to order the landlord to complete an extensive survey of the roof area and to report back to the resident (ensuring that a copy is sent to the Ombudsman) with its findings.
  17. Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint. While the complaint response did appropriately address the resident’s concerns about how the ongoing repairs issues would be dealt with, it did not properly investigate her concerns about length of time she had been suffering with leaks and damp problems and did not address her concerns about re-decoration of affected areas. There are also concerns about the landlord’s record keeping which hindered the assessment of its previous actions. 
  18. The overall amount of compensation ordered below has taken into account the multiple failures identified on this case and the overall detriment experienced by the resident. The sum awarded brings the case in line with cases involving serious or protracted detriment to a household, in accordance with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about leaks to her roof and guttering.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £750 in recognition of the failings identified in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident concerns about leaks to her roof.
  2. The landlord to evidence compliance with this order to this Service within 28 days of this report. 
  3. The landlord to arrange a thorough survey of the roof area at the property and to report back to the resident (and this Service) as to the overall condition of the roof and surrounding area, including the chimney and guttering. This report to include any expected timescales for any outstanding/recommended works.
  4. The landlord to evidence compliance with this order to this Service within two months of this report.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should review its record keeping arrangements for repairs, to ensure it maintains full records of resident contact, repairs ordering and the outcomes, so that any future enquiries, including complaints, can be fully and effectively dealt with.  
  2. The landlord to clarify to the resident its position regarding any insurance claim that might be possible through its insurer, or to clarify whether it considers that she should approach her own insurance provider.
  3. The landlord to confirm whether it will complete any re-decoration works at the property following completion of any outstanding works.