Leeds City Council (202222442)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222442

Leeds City Council

26 May 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for her garden tarmac to be resurfaced.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a local authority with a tenants management organisation (TMO) who manages the complaints, repairs and adaptations of the property. For clarity, throughout this report, the landlord and the TMO will be referred to as ‘the landlord’. The property is a four-bedroom house, with a private garden.
3. In September 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to inform it that tarmac repairs, which had previously been agreed to, had not been completed. She stated that operatives had attended, but no works had been completed. In addition, she raised concerns that the garden was “curved or dropped” in places, and posed risks to her child who had health vulnerabilities.
4. In March 2022, the landlord completed an inspection of the property. On 25 March 2022, the resident raised a complaint about a fencing issue she was experiencing at the property. She said she had been told the landlord was waiting for an occupational therapist (OT) assessment on the fence, but that was incorrect because the OT assessment related to the tarmac. She said the fence issue was not the only issue which the landlord had “messed me about with” and referred to the tarmac as another example. While the tarmac was mentioned in the complaint, the main focus was on the fence issue, and no specific issues of complaint were made about the tarmac.
5. In July 2022 the resident chased the landlord and asked for the uneven tarmac in the garden to be resurfaced. The landlord informed the resident that a surveyor had attended in March, and did not deem the tarmac to be a trip hazard in need of resurfacing. It asked the resident to contact it if the condition worsened.
6. The landlord issued its complaint response in October 2022, it centred on the fence issues.
7. The resident escalated her complaint about the fencing issue on 6 December 2022. Within her complaint escalation, she added that works to the tarmac in the property had not yet been completed.
8. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 16 December 2022. It focussed on the fencing complaint, but also addressed the resident’s concerns about the tarmac. It said it would not resurface the tarmac as it was the resident’s responsibility. It suggested that the resident could buy interlocking rubber matting to provide a more child-friendly surface.
9. The resident subsequently escalated her complaint to this Service. She stated that the landlord had agreed to complete the tarmac works 18 months previously, but had not completed them, and was dissatisfied that the landlord had stated it was her responsibility. The resident is seeking for the tarmac to be resurfaced.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10. The resident has provided information and updates about further developments that occurred after the landlord issued its final complaint response in December 2022. The Ombudsman can usually only consider complaints up to the point when the landlord issues its final complaint response. Because of that, this investigation looks at issues up until December 2022. Any matters or concerns that have arisen after that date need to be raised by the resident as new formal complaints with the landlord before the Ombudsman can potentially consider them.

The tarmac resurfacing request

11. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that residents are responsible for maintaining their garden. It states that residents should ensure that the garden is kept in a cultivated, neat and tidy condition.
12. As per the tenancy agreement, it is the resident’s responsibility to maintain the garden of her property. However, the landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties.
13. When a tenant informs a landlord of their concerns about any health and safety risks in their home, a landlord would be expected to respond by inspecting the property, and deciding whether any works are needed to address any safety issues it finds.
14. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to instruct a surveyor to inspect the property in March 2022. However, there is no evidence of it informing the resident of the outcome of its inspection, or what conclusions it reached about her request. The landlord failed to inform the resident of its decision until July 2022, after she had had to chase it. Nothing in the evidence indicates why the landlord delayed informing her. Accordingly, its handling of the issue at this point was unreasonable.
15. In its July 2022 update to the resident the landlord made clear that it did not see appropriate grounds on which to resurface the tarmac. It is not apparent from the evidence why the resident then complained in December that the tarmac work had not yet been completed, as nothing indicates the landlord had changed its mind. In its final complaint response the landlord explained that work on the tarmac would be the resident’s responsibility. Given that such work would usually only be expected of the landlord if it believed there were safety risks, its explanation was appropriate, because outside of the landlord’s specific obligation, any work on the garden would be for the resident to undertake – in line with the tenancy agreement.
16.  The resident has explained that the landlord had previously told her it would resurface the tarmac. No evidence has been seen confirming that commitment. In any case, even with such an assurance it would not be unreasonable for the landlord to change its decision if its subsequent inspections showed no need for the work.
17. The resident has explained that her children are particularly at risk of falling and being hurt, which is why she was seeking the tarmac work to make it smoother. Her request to the landlord on the basis of that concern was wholly understandable. Nonetheless, such requests are usually done in conjunction with a formal assessment of those at risk and the environment they live in i.e. the garden in this case. No such supporting evidence was given to the landlord. If the resident was to obtain such an assessment the landlord would be expected to revisit its decision.
18. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the tarmac issue was delayed, but nothing in the evidence seen for this investigation indicates its decision and explanations were unreasonable.

Determination

19. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaint.

Orders

20. In light of the delay by the landlord in informing the resident of its decision it is ordered to pay her £100 compensation. This payment must be made within four weeks of this report, and evidence provided to this Service.