Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

North West Leicestershire District Council (202127422)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

 

COMPLAINT 202127422

 

North West Leicestershire District Council

 

13 April 2023

 

 

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:

 

  1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests to carry out repairs to the property’s exterior brickwork.

 

  1. The conduct of the landlord’s operative when attending the resident’s property.

 

  1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s ceiling and a dislodged brick in an external wall.

 

Jurisdiction

 

2.     What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, this service must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

 

3.     Under paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints that are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.

 

4.     During the landlord’s internal complaints process, the resident reported additional repairs issues, which had not previously been reported to the landlord and did not form part of original complaint. Where a new repair issue comes to the attention of the resident, he is advised to report this as a new service request to the landlord and allow the landlord to action this within the reasonable timescales outlined in its policy. Should the landlord not deal with a new service request as per its policy, the resident may follow the landlord’s internal complaint procedure. The resident’s complaint relating to repairs to his ceiling and a dislodged brick is therefore outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

 

Background

 

5.     The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord (a local authority). The property is a one-bedroom bungalow. The resident is registered blind (and gets help from his assistance dogs) and he has multiple mental health conditions.

 

6.     The resident informed the landlord on 19 January 2022 that repointing works to the exterior brickwork of his property had not been completed. The landlord agreed to attend the resident’s property on 7 February 2022 to carry out any necessary works. However, when the operative inspected the brickwork on this date, he observed that no further works were required. The resident logged a stage one complaint on the same day, because he said the operative had missed an area of brickwork that needed to be repaired. The resident’s complaint was also that the operative had left the property without informing him, and he left the gate open. This concerned the resident as his dogs could have escaped.

 

7.     In the landlord’s first complaint response, it said that it had spoken with the operative about his conduct on the day of the visit. The landlord said it had reminded the operative to ensure he informs residents when he has left their property. The landlord said that the operative apologised for leaving the gate open. The landlord confirmed its position that it was satisfied it did not need to repair the area of exterior brickwork it had inspected on 7 February 2022, as this work was complete.

 

8.     The resident escalated the complaint to the second stage. In its final complaint response, the landlord said it had dealt with the operative’s conduct internally and repeated its apology. Regarding the brickwork, the landlord said that the resident had sent a photograph of a dislodged brick in a different area of his property. The landlord confirmed that it had raised a new repair for works to this other area of brickwork.

 

9.     In escalating the complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. The resident requested an apology from the landlord, at least £2500 compensation, and for the landlord to arrange an independent inspection of his property and an independent contractor to complete any outstanding works.

 

Assessment and findings

 

Scope of Investigation

 

10. The Ombudsman is investigating another complaint from this resident, under complaint reference 202103147. This complaint relates to repairs issues prior to 29 October 2021, when the landlord provided its final response. The issues referred to in that complaint are outside of the scope of this investigation and will be responded to separately, under the above reference.

 

11. When the resident referred his complaint to this service, he also raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of repairs to his shower, roof, a window, and exterior paving, as well as issues with vermin. These issues did not form part of the complaint to which the landlord provided a final response on 24 March 2022, and so are outside the scope of this investigation.

 

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests to carry out repairs to the exterior brickwork.

 

12. The landlord had previously informed the resident that it needed to carry out works to rectify cracks and gaps in the property’s exterior brickwork. On 29 October 2021, the landlord agreed that “on the 3 November our operatives will attend to repoint to a minor stepped crack underneath the kitchen window and to repoint approximately 1 square meter of brickwork to the end wall of the outside store”.

 

13. The landlord noted in its stage 1 complaint response that it had post-inspected the repointing works completed on 3 November 2021 on 5 November 2021 and found them to be satisfactory. However, the resident later reported that all repointing works were not completed during the visit of 3 November 2021 and so the landlord arranged for its operative to attend again on 7 February 2022. This was an appropriate response to the resident’s concerns, as it was reasonable for the landlord to investigate whether any works remained outstanding.

 

14. When the operative attended the property on that date, he called the team leader, and they agreed that no further repointing works were required to the area. The operative therefore left the resident’s property without doing any remedial work to the brickwork. The landlord was entitled to determine, on inspection, that no further works were required. The Ombudsman does not have the technical expertise to assess the quality, standard, or need for repairs. Instead, this service considers whether the landlord took action to investigate and reached a reasonable conclusion. The landlord has explained why it does not feel further works are required and the Ombudsman is satisfied that its position is reasonable.

 

15. The landlord’s communication with the resident about the repointing works could have been better. As its records showed that the works had been signed off following a previous inspection, it could have managed the resident’s expectations by informing him that it would need to inspect the area to determine whether any further works were required. Instead, when the resident was informed of the appointment, he was told that further works would be completed. The resident was therefore understandably upset when the operative did not carry out any work on the day or discuss the decision not to complete the work with him before leaving the property.

 

16. Overall, the Ombudsman is satisfied that there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the repointing works, as it arranged for an operative to attend within a reasonable time and relied on his professional opinion to determine that no further works were required. It then considered the evidence provided by the resident and explained why it would not be completing further works to the original area, raising a new repair to address a dislodged brick in a different area. This was an appropriate response.

 

The conduct of the landlord’s contractor when attending the resident’s property

 

17. The Ombudsman considers that it is reasonable for operatives to attempt to inform residents before leaving site and to explain what work has been completed, if any. As the resident has vulnerabilities and requires the help of assistance dogs, the landlord should have paid particular care and attention to his specific needs when attending his property to carry out works.

 

18. In investigating the complaint about the member of staff’s conduct, the landlord said that it had spoken with the operative concerned. The landlord said that the operative admitted leaving the property without telling the resident, as he thought the resident was out walking his dogs, because he could not see him. The landlord said that it had educated the operative about making sure that he informs residents when he has left their property. The landlord said that it could not share any more detail about this issue externally for confidentially reasons.

 

19. This service acknowledges and appreciates the resident’s concerns about the alleged conduct of the operative during the visit. Nonetheless, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord dealt with this complaint in a reasonable and proportionate way. The landlord confirmed to the resident that it had spoken with, and provided feedback and training to, the operative concerned. Furthermore, the operative had apologised for leaving the gate open. The Ombudsman is therefore of the opinion that the landlord effectively resolved the issue as per paragraph 6.1 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, and that there was no maladministration in respect of its handling of this complaint.

 

Determination

 

20. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to the exterior brickwork of the resident’s property.

21. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint about staff conduct.

22. In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of repairs to his ceiling and dislodged brick is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.