Leicester City Council (202014036)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014036

Leicester City Council

29 November 2021

Amended on 31 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 condition of the property when it was let.
2. The landlord’s response to concerns about outstanding repairs at 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(d) of the Scheme, complaint a is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In correspondence to this Service, the resident has expressed concern about the condition of the property when she moved in. The resident has explained that the property was in a poor condition and that a formal complaint about the matter was made at the time.
Paragraph 39(d) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaints procedure.
The evidence provided to this Service shows that in 2018, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord as she was concerned that the property was not habitable when she moved in. In particular, that the shower was not working, a tap was leaking and the external brickwork needed repairing.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 2 July 2018. In its response, it listed the jobs which had been raised and completed during June 2018 and those which had been scheduled following receipt of the complaint. The landlord also referred to its letting standard, and confirmed that there was nothing within the void specification which identified a fault with the shower, or the need for it to be replaced. Towards the end of the letter, the landlord informed the resident that she could refer her complaint to the Ombudsman if she remained dissatisfied with its response.
The resident first contacted this Service in February 2021, approximately 31 months after the landlord’s letter of 2 July 2018 was issued. It is acknowledged that the resident did continue to raise repairs and complaints with the landlord between 2018 and 2021. However, the landlord had informed the resident of its conclusions regarding her concerns about the condition of the property at the time it was let in July 2018. The landlord had also informed the resident of her right to refer the complaint to her local MP or this Service if she wished to take the complaint further.
It is acknowledged that the resident remains unhappy about the condition of the property when she moved in. However, as substantive issues become historic it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address them. While the landlord had the opportunity to investigate and respond to the complaint in 2018, given the time that has lapsed since the resident moved to the property and the events that have transpired since, the Ombudsman cannot effectively investigate the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property at the time it was let now.
This investigation has focused of events that transpired from August 2020, when the resident made a subsequent complaint to the landlord. Events prior to August 2020 have been referred to in the investigation report below for context only.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord’s property. The property is a one-bedroom terraced bungalow.
The resident moved to the property by way of transfer in April 2018. She says that soon after moving to the property she began to identify repairs issues and reported them to the landlord. The resident says that despite this, repairs remaining outstanding and the landlord has failed to comply with its obligations under the tenancy agreement.

Summary of events

In August 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord to complain about the condition of the property, and the landlord’s handling of repairs. She said:
1. Since 2018, she had been identifying and discovering repairs issues at the property. Adding that, the landlord had been aware of these but “sat back and watched” as the property deteriorated.
2. There had been a burst pipe within the roof space of the property prior to her tenancy commencing while the property was void. The resident said that there was no working stopcock at the property, and this had exasperated the problem. By August 2018, asbestos from the bedroom boiler cupboard had begun to fall into the bedroom.
3. On 13 January 2020, she received a call unexpectedly and was asked what works she wanted doing within the property. The resident said that in addition to the installation of stopcocks, she wished for three radiators to be installed. The resident says that these jobs were later “sanctioned”.
4. On 2 June, she reported the issue of the tiles and roofing felt again. In addition, she could see movement in the internal ceilings in the lounge – which was being used as a bedroom – and in the kitchen.
5. Later the same day, two operatives attended the property and informed her that because of lockdown they were unable to enter the property. The resident says that the operatives asked her about the movement in the internal ceilings, but did not inspect them. However, they agreed to repoint the ridge tiles, and correct roof tiles which had moved where the pipe had burst in 2018. In addition, they agreed to repair the guttering over the lounge window.
6. On 8 July 2020, she contacted the landlord again as the work to the ridge tiles was not complete. She informed the landlord that she could still detect daylight through the tiles, and those over the bedroom and wet room area had not been done.
7. On 15 July, the same two operatives returned and informed her that the ridge tiles were “ok”. However, they corrected the tiles on the rear elevation which had been disturbed by the water from the burst pipe. The resident said that she did not consider this to be an acceptable repair.
Within her letter, the resident continued to describe repairs that had taken place at the property. She explained why she did not consider that they were appropriate, and what she thought should be done to rectify the situation. Towards the end of the letter, the resident set out what she considered the landlord should do in order to put things right. This included:
1. Completing work in relation to the guttering leak outside the front lounge.
2. Correcting the roof tiles over the rear elevation.
3. Re-pointing all the ridge tiles – as only three quarters of the job had been completed.
4. Replacing all damaged roofing felt.
5. Replacing all the roof insulation as it was not up to standard given that it had previously been wet.
6. Conducting a survey of the joist and ceiling board movement throughout the property; and to write to her with the outcome and proposed actions.
7. Being decanted before the start of winter 2020.
The landlord visited the property during September 2020 to inspect the issues that the resident had raised. A damp survey was also conducted. The resident wrote to the landlord following survey, and listed the issues within the property which she believed were evidence of a damp problem or signs of damp.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 2 October. It confirmed that “necessary jobs had been raised accordingly” following its attendances at the property. It added that the resident would receive an appointment for each job in due course, but that owing to the situation with Covid-19 they may take longer to be carried out. In response to some of the resident’s specific concerns, the landlord said:
1. The resident had raised concerns about the property not retaining heat. It was able to confirm that the radiators had been changed, and that it had been informed that the rooms were heating “as they should”.
2. The repairs team leader visited the property on 3 September and inspected the roof both internally and externally. He concluded that no further roofing work was required; and that there was no sign of penetrating damp or slipped/missing roof tiles. The team leader had informed the resident during his visit that ripped or worn felt is normally found in properties of a similar age given that the felt goes brittle over the years. The landlord added that the felt is only a secondary roof covering, and would not affect heat loss.
3. The team leader also confirmed that when properties are added to the roofing programme, all of the roof covering is replaced. The team leader was awaiting confirmation about when the resident’s property was on the programme, and she would be updated accordingly.
4. There would be no requirement to decant while normal day-to-day repairs were being completed.
5. A repair had been carried out to the front guttering, and silicon had been used to seal the gap between the tiles. All ridge tiles for the full length of the property had been repointed.
6. It hoped the resident’s concerns had been answered; however, she could refer the matter to her local MP or the Ombudsman if she remained unhappy with the response.
The resident continued to complain about outstanding repairs at the property. In February 2021 the resident complained about roof repairs, the front elevation guttering, and her belief that all the internal ceilings needed to be replaced. In March, the resident wrote to the landlord to complain about “the scheduling of two jobs to be completed at the same time”. The resident also mentioned her concerns regarding damp within the property and set out what she considered needed to be done to resolve the problems she had identified.
The resident sent the landlord further correspondence in April 2021 to express her dissatisfaction with repairs at the property – including an attendance in relation to her gas fire. The landlord subsequently attended the property towards on 26 April so that her concerns could be inspected. A further damp inspection also took place on 27 April.
Following the inspection, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 11 May. It said that the walk-around inspection – carried out with the resident – identified 23 areas of concern in total. The landlord confirmed that 11 jobs had been raised, including:
1. an inspection to re-bed/repoint the ridge tiles.
2. to seal the guttering at the front of the property.
3. to repair the window ledge to the front of the property.
4. to remove and replace the trims to all external doors and windows.
5. to patch plaster the kitchen wall.
6. to replace the kitchen extractor fan.
7. to fix a loose kitchen worktop.
8. to repair loose/ripped roofing felt.
9. to install insulation in the loft area above the back external door.
It had considered the other 12 concerns that had been raised by the resident; however, it had concluded that some matters did not require further investigation or repair. This included the resident’s concerns about damp in various areas of the property. The landlord explained that as no mould had been seen on inspection, no action was required.
The landlord also acknowledged the resident’s comments about a visit to the property on 6 May, and the conduct of a named operative. The landlord said that it wished to apologise that the resident had found him to be “rude and unprofessional”, and that the relevant team leader had issued him with a reminder to stay professional while on duty.
In closing, the landlord asked the resident to make a note of the job reference numbers that had been provided within the letter, and to get in touch if the works did not go ahead. The landlord confirmed that the resident could refer her complaint to the Ombudsman, or her local MP, if she remained dissatisfied.
The resident has informed the Ombudsman that she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her repairs and complaints about the repairs. In particular, the resident maintains that there is a damp problem at the property which needs to be resolved, and that ineffective repairs have been carried out to the roof area. The resident has also advised that the guttering problems have existed since 2018, and that repairs will fail again. The resident has added that she is unaware of whether a gutter repair raised in May 2021 has been completed.
In correspondence to the Ombudsman, the landlord has advised as follows:
1. it considers the average life of a roof is 60 years. It has properties dating back to the late 40s and early 50s that require re-roofing. It has a 10 year plan where it estimates to re-roof 2000 properties, and the proposed date for the resident’s property will be dependent on future programming and available financing. However, any specific issues with the roof would have to be reported to the repairs department in the meantime.
2. The insulation within the roof was displaced following the leak in 2018. However, this was re-laid at the time. The landlord added that the insulation was deemed to be in good order and did not require replacement.
3. The works which were identified during the inspection in April 2021 had been carried out, apart from the replacement of the kitchen extractor fan. The job had been raised, with a completion target of June 2022.

Events after May 2021

It is noted that the resident raised further concerns with the landlord in July 2021. These were in relation to contactors attending the property without a scheduled appointment, and external decoration that had been left unfinished. The resident also raised concern that while a job had been raised to repair the wash basin, the operative who attended refused to complete the job on the basis that it would “weaken the wall fixing”. It is not clear from the evidence that has been provided to this Service whether the landlord responded to the resident’s correspondence.

The tenancy agreement and the landlord’s policies and procedures

The tenancy agreement states that the landlord will “maintain the structure and exterior” of the property. This includes – drains, gutters, external pipes and the roof. The landlord will also maintain the internal walls, floors and ceilings – not including painting and decoration.
The landlord is also obliged to carry out repairs to installations that it has fitted at the property for the supply of water, gas, heating and electricity. This includes water pipes and tanks, electric sockets, baths, basins, toilets (excluding the toilet seat), water heaters, radiators and fireplaces.
The landlord’s repair handbook provides residents with information about looking after their home, and hints and tips for carrying out various maintenance tasks. The handbook also sets out the circumstances in which a repair should be reported to the landlord, and what actions a resident should take.
In relation to completing repairs, the landlord has three categories of priority. On notification of a repair, the landlord will decide on the level of priority and complete the repair in line with service standards. The priority levels are:
1. Priority 1 – emergency work. Examples include a total failure of electrical power, serious water leaks or a total loss of water. Such repairs should be remedied within 24 hours.
2. Priority 2 – routine repairs. These should be completed within 10 working days and include minor repairs to windows or doors, repairs to kitchen units and ceiling repairs.
3. Priority 3 – programmed repairs. These are to be surveyed within 10 working days and completed within 8 weeks to 12 months according to the job. Example of such repairs include repairs to paths, guttering and in communal areas.

Assessment and findings

Throughout her complaint correspondence to the landlord, and in correspondence to the Ombudsman, the resident has raised concerns about the quality of the workmanship – and the standard to which repairs have been carried out at the property. The resident has provided the Ombudsman with a copy of a report which has been compiled by an independent tradesman – the date of the inspection and report is unclear. The resident has advised that she did not provide a copy of the report to the landlord, as she did not wish to complicate matters; however, she did paraphrase it within her complaint correspondence of February 2021.
Within the report, the tradesman commented that the repointing work that had been completed was of “extremely poor quality”, and that the mortar was already “crumbling away”. He added that the front guttering had been sealed with mastic and this would only be a “short-term solution”. He added that the ceilings in the bedroom and lounge were showing signs of the plasterboard coming away, and that he was of the opinion that both ceilings needed to be taken down. The tradesman ended the report by explaining that if he were carrying out the remedial work that he believed was necessary for a private customer, it would not be possible for them to remain in the property while the work was underway.
While the comments within the report have been considered, the Ombudsman has not been able to verify the qualifications of the individual who inspected the property. The report does not provide details of the tradesman, and the trading company cannot be found via an online search. In addition, as the report was not provided to the landlord, it has not had the opportunity to consider the comments and respond. If the resident would like the landlord to comment on the tradesman’s findings, then she should provide it with a copy of the report accordingly.
The tenancy agreement, as detailed above, sets out the landlord’s repair obligations in respect of the property. Neither the tenancy agreement, nor the landlord’s repairs handbook, stipulate the standard to which repairs must be completed. Furthermore, there is no set standard – in statute or otherwise – in relation to workmanship. The Ombudsman cannot assess the quality of the repairs that have been completed. Rather, the Ombudsman’s role when investigating the resident’s complaint is to determine whether the landlord has complied with its duties and obligations under the tenancy agreement; and whether it has carried out repairs in line with its service standards.
The evidence provided to the Ombudsman demonstrates that, overall, the landlord has responded to the resident’s reports of disrepair in line with its Repairs policy and service standards. The evidence does suggest that there has been some disagreement between landlord’s staff and the resident about the condition of the property and whether certain repairs are required. While the resident’s observations and comments about the necessity for works are acknowledged, the landlord is entitled to rely on the opinion of its qualified technicians who have visited and inspected the property.
The resident has raised concerns that problems with the gutters have existed since she moved to the property. As set out at the beginning of this report, the Ombudsman’s investigation has focused on matters from August 2020 onwards. The landlord’s repair records contain three entries in relation to the gutters between August 2020 and June 2021. All three repairs were assigned a priority 3 – and the records show that each job was completed in line with the landlord’s service standards, as detailed above.
The records do not suggest that it was the same repair which the landlord was attending to on each occasion. However, it is noted that the landlord had advised in May 2021 that during its inspection in April 2021, it was unable to determine if previous work had been done correctly. The landlord added that a revisit would be required to seal both sides of the guttering joints to the front of the property, as only the underside had been done previously.
The landlord’s records show that a repair was raised in May 2021, and completed on 10 June. The description reads that the job was to “reseal gutter joints on the underside and gutter gullet to front of property”. That the underside required resealing suggests that the previous repair had been ineffective; however, this is not clear from the records. In the circumstances, and given the explanation that was provided in its complaint response, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to confirm to the resident whether it had been identified that there was an issue with a previous repair or not. The evidence does not demonstrate that there is an outstanding repair; however, that the landlord did not provide clarification around the job in June 2021 was a shortcoming in its overall response to the resident’s report of gutter disrepair and associated complaint.
Throughout her complaint, the resident raised specific concerns about the condition of the roof. Evidence provided to the Ombudsman shows that after August 2020, the roof was inspected internally on 9 September 2020. Only one job was raised at following that attendance – and that was in relation to sealing gaps around the pipes within the airing cupboard. The technician commented that the roof timbers were in “good condition”, and while the felt was ripped in places, that would be expected in properties of a similar age.
A further job was raised in respect of the roof in May 2021 following the resident’s comments that mortar was “crumbling”. Following the inspection, “minor pointing” to the roof ridge tiles was carried out. This was classified as a category 3 job, and was completed on 10 June 2021, within the landlord’s service standards. While the resident’s concerns about the roof have been noted, the landlord has explained the programme that it has in place to re-roof its properties. However, it has advised that it will continue to carry out repairs as and when they are reported. The landlord’s response is appropriate in the circumstances. There is no obligation on the landlord under the tenancy agreement to re-roof the property. Rather, its obligation is to repair. The evidence provided to the Ombudsman shows that it has completed repairs when identified, and that it has informed the resident that it will continue to complete any repairs as and when they may arise.
It is noted that as of May 2021, the roof felt remains ripped. The landlord’s records show that the technicians deemed that no work was required as there was “no problem” with the roof itself. It was also noted that there was no water ingress. It therefore appears that the ripping has been regarded as an aesthetic matter. While it is acknowledged that the resident remains concerned about the condition of the felt, it has been inspected on a number of occasions and the conclusion has remained the same – that it does not require repairing or replacing. As such, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has responded appropriately and proportionately to the concerns that were raised by the resident.
The resident has raised numerous concerns about damp within the property. The evidence shows that two damp inspections have been carried out at the property on 14 September 2020 and 27 April 2021.The technician who conducted the inspection in September 2020 concluded that the type of damp observed during the inspection was condensation.
The damp inspection report for 27 April 2021 details that further condensation was identified, but no mould or mould spots. With regards to the action taken, it is detailed that the resident was given advise on condensation management, and the following treatment works were recommended:
1. Replacing the existing extractor fam and cover within the kitchen.
2. Removing and re-sealing the door and window trims.
3. Moving the loft insulation to cover external rear door area in loft. It was noted that the insulation itself was adequate; however, it had moved away from above the rear door.
In correspondence to the Ombudsman, the landlord has advised that the works were specified within the damp inspection report have been completed, with the exception of the replacement of the kitchen fan. The landlord has added that this has been assigned a priority 3, with a target completion date of June 2022. It is noted that this job had been appointed for 16 July 2021; however, it is unclear from the evidence available whether the job went ahead as scheduled.
Nevertheless, from the evidence that has been provided, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has taken proportionate action in response to the resident’s concerns. It was appropriate for the landlord to conduct a further damp inspection as the resident remained concerned after the inspection in September 2020. While it is acknowledged that the resident still has concerns about damp affecting the property, and the conditions within the property, the evidence provided to the Ombudsman shows that the landlord has complied with its repair duties and obligations.
However, it would be expected that if the resident’s concerns persisted, and there was evidence of damp or mould, despite the actions that had been taken following the inspection in April 2021 to address condensation within the property, that the landlord would commission a further survey and take action as necessary.
It is also acknowledged that the resident has raised some concerns about the works that have taken place – or commenced – after the landlord issued its letter in May 2021. Within the landlord’s final response letter, it asked the resident to make note of the reference numbers relating to each repair, and to get in touch if they had not been completed. This was a shortcoming in the landlord’s response. In the circumstances, and given that the repairs had been raised following a formal complaint, it would have been more appropriate for the landlord to ensure that the repairs were carried out and completed in line with its service standards.
As such, the landlord should now take steps to contact the resident, to check its records and to ensure that the repairs have been completed. It would also be reasonable for the landlord to consider arranging a post-works inspection once any necessary repairs have been completed. As the resident has previously raised concerns about the quality of the workmanship where repairs have been undertaken, it would also be worthwhile for the landlord to consider appointing a senior surveyor to undertake an inspection of the property so that the standard of repairs carried out at the property can be assessed or commented on by a suitably qualified member of staff.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord.

Reasons

The evidence provided to the Ombudsman demonstrates that overall, the landlord has complied with its duties and obligations under the tenancy agreement when responding to the resident’s reports of disrepair. However, the evidence which has been provided to this Service does demonstrate that the landlord’s communication surrounding the repairs could be improved.
With regards to the roof, the landlord has arranged for it to be inspected on a number of occasions, and has confirmed its position in relation to re-roofing. There is no evidence which shows that the landlord has failed to carry out any required repairs.
While the resident’s concerns about damp within the property have been noted, the evidence shows that the landlord appropriately commissioned damp surveys so that the matter could be explored further. In addition, the landlord has taken steps following the recommendations that were made as a result of the survey.

Recommendations

Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. Contact the resident and establish what repairs have been completed since May 2021, and if any remain outstanding.
2. Raise any further repairs, as necessary.
3. Complete a post-works inspection once all identified repairs have been completed.
4. Arrange for a senior surveyor to visit the property and confirm whether the repairs have been carried out in line with service standards.
5. Review its processes for communicating with residents in relation to repairs and consider whether any set procedures need to be introduced, specifically in relation to relaying information about appointments and completed works.