Leeds City Council (202228360)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228360

Leeds City Council

17 April 2024

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 resident’s reports of a leaking toilet.
2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority, since 2012. The landlord is aware that the resident has physical and mental health issues.
4. Due to the resident’s health issues, her carer acts as her representative. For the purposes of this report, unless it is otherwise necessary to distinguish between them, all communications from the resident and the representative are referred to as coming from the resident.

Summary of events

5. On 31 October 2022, the resident reported that her toilet was leaking “badly”. The landlord raised an emergency works order and attended in the early hours of the morning on 1 November 2022. It noted that no access was given and a card was left at the property. The landlord raised a second emergency works order regarding the leak on 1 November 2022 and noted that it attended the same day, in the afternoon, but no access was given.
6. The next day the landlord raised a third emergency works order regarding the leak, with a note for the operative to call the resident when they were on their way. It recorded that it attended on 3 November 2022 and the job was completed.
7. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 2 November 2022 that after she reported the leak, the landlord had attended in the early hours of the morning but did not call to say they were on their way. The operative rung the bell once but then left, leaving a card. She called to chase this up the following day and was told another order was raised but received no contact. When she called again to chase this up, the landlord said it had attended on a second occasion the previous afternoon, but she did not give access. She asked for the repair to be done and for the operative to call when they were on their way, an apology and £100 compensation.
8. On 22 November 2022, the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It aimed to attend all emergency repairs within 3 hours but, depending on demand, it could exceed this and attend within 24 hours. When it raised the second works order on 1 November 2022, it did not add a note for the operative to contact the resident prior to arriving and had given feedback to the relevant department. After the final works order was raised, it had attended that afternoon and the job was recorded as completed.
9. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 9 December 2022 as the leaking toilet had not been repaired, and the landlord had not attended on the afternoon of 1 November 2022. When the operative attended on 3 November 2022, they said it was too late to start the repair because of the noise so someone would come back the next day to complete this, but no one did.
10. On 31 January 2023, the landlord said it attended the property and no toilet leak was identified. There were signs of condensation and suggested that the water could be spillage from the bath. It also checked a neighbouring property and no leaks were found. It identified that a pipe on the back outside wall had come away from the gutter and could lead to water ingress.
11. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 2 February 2023. The operative who attended on 3 November 2022 recorded the job as complete and did not feedback that it needed to reattend the following day. It apologised this was not communicated to the resident and confirmed this had been addressed with the operative and would be included in future training. It summarised the outcome of its visit on 31 January 2023 and confirmed it had arranged to attend the following month to reconnect the external pipe to the gutter. As there was no evidence that a leak had been left ongoing, it did not uphold her complaint. It offered £50 compensation as a gesture of goodwill for the breakdown in communication.
12. Thirteen days later, the resident escalated her complaint to this Service. She said the toilet had been leaking for more than 5 months and the landlord had not resolved this, which was affecting her health. It had failed to attend on a number of occasions, most recently at the end of January 2023. It said it had attended, which was not true, and the toilet was still leaking.
13. In a recent update to this Service, the resident reported that the leak from the toilet had not been resolved.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

14. The resident has told this Service that these matters have negatively affected her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, but it is beyond the remit of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s ill-health. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord (reflected at paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme). While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.

Response to the resident’s reports of a leaking toilet

15. The landlord is responsible for repairs to the toilet as per its tenant handbook, which says it is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property, including toilets. It was appropriate that the landlord classified this as an emergency repair, as the resident reported that the toilet was leaking “badly” and its tenant handbook says that uncontrollable leaks are an example of emergency repairs.
16. For the 3 orders raised in October and November 2022, the landlord records indicate that it attended within 24 hours, in line with its commitment to attend within 24 hours for emergency repairs, set out in its tenant handbook. The resident disputes that the landlord attended on the afternoon of 1 November 2022, but the landlord records indicate that it did. Therefore, the Ombudsman is not able to comment further on this issue.
17. It is reasonable that the landlord would not have been able to arrange a set appointment to attend on these 3 occasions as the jobs were raised as emergencies. However, the tenant handbook says it will phone or send a text message when it is on the way, which did not happen for either of the first 2 appointments. This would have been particularly important for the first appointment, which was attended in the early hours of the morning, when the resident was likely sleeping. The landlord’s failure to tell her when it was on its way resulted in 2 missed appointments and a delay of 2 days in it being able to gain access.
18. It was only on the third appointment, on 3 November 2022, and after the landlord made a note for the operative, that it did contact her when it was on the way and the appointment went ahead. As this is a general commitment made by the landlord in its tenant handbook, it should not require an additional note being made for it to adhere to this and should be standard practice for operatives. An order has been made below for staff training for operatives in relation to this.
19. The resident has said that the job was not completed on 3 November 2022 and, while the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident, the records indicate that the job was recorded as completed, indicating that the matter was resolved. When the resident raised this with the landlord, it took appropriate action to speak with the operative and provide feedback.
20. When the resident reported that the toilet leak was ongoing in December 2022, there is no record that the landlord took any action until nearly 2 months later, when it attended to carry out an inspection at the end of January 2023. While an order was raised in early January 2023 and the landlord attended, this was in response to the resident’s report of a leak from the property above and there is no record that the toilet leak was inspected or assessed at that time. This delay amounts to maladministration and made the resident feel that it was not taking the matter seriously.
21. In its stage 2 response, the landlord confirmed that it visited on 31 January 2023 to investigate the leak, but its record of this visit refers to a different number property than the resident’s. While possible that this is an error in the landlord’s record keeping, the resident has said that no one attended on this date and the landlord’s record of a follow up visit regarding the gutters included a note that pictures taken on the previous visit did not match the resident’s property.
22. Considering the evidence available, it suggests that the wrong address was visited on 31 January 2023, which means that the landlord has failed to properly investigate the leak in the resident’s property. It is not clear how or why this error occurred and, while frustrating for the resident, there is no record that she told the landlord this and it was only in contact with this Service that she reported that no one attended on 31 January 2023 and that the leak was ongoing.
23. It is not fair to expect residents to repeatedly report issues or chase follow up from landlords; however, it is reasonable to expect that residents continue to report outstanding issues periodically so that the landlord is aware that issues are ongoing and action is required. As there is no record that the resident has raised this issue with the landlord since December 2022, it is reasonable that the landlord would believe this matter to be resolved and assume that the incorrect addresses noted was a record keeping error only.
24. As the resident has reported that the leak is ongoing, an order has been made below for the landlord to attend to identify any leaks from the toilet and repair as required. A written update should also be provided to the resident confirming the outcome of this visit and what, if any, works were completed and any follow on works required, with a timeframe for these to be completed.
25. The landlord acknowledged there had been communication failures in its handling of this matter, apologised and offered £50 compensation. However, there have also been avoidable delays in its handling of this matter, particularly between December 2022 and January 2023. Therefore, its offer of redress is insufficient when considering the impact on the resident and in consultation with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. An order has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident £250 compensation, inclusive of the £50 already offered.

Complaint handling

26. The landlord provided its stage 1 response in 15 working days, which was in line with the committed timeframe of 15 working days set out in its complaints policy at the time. However, it provided the stage 2 response in 37 working days, which was more than twice the committed timeframe of 15 working days, set out in its complaints policy at the time and amounts to maladministration.
27. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time said that if it could not respond within the committed timeframe, it would provide regular updates to the resident. However, in this case, there is no record that it provided any updates during the period of delay. This amounts to maladministration and made her feel that it was not taking the complaint seriously.
28. The landlord did not acknowledge the delay or its failure to provide any updates, which was upsetting for the resident. As a result, orders have been made below for the landlord to apologise and pay her £150 compensation for its complaint handling.
29. The landlord’s stage 2 response said that it did not uphold the resident’s complaint, but it acknowledged and apologised for a breakdown in communication and offered compensation. This was confusing for the resident as its actions and offer of redress indicated that there had been some element of service failure, but the outcome did not acknowledge this. It is important that the outcome of complaints is consistent with the landlord’s actions and any offers of redress so as not to cause confusion for residents. An order has been made below for the landlord to provide staff training on complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

30. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
    1. response to the resident’s reports of a leaking toilet.
    2. complaint handling.

Reasons

31. There were communication failures and avoidable delays in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leaking toilet.
32. There were delays in the landlord’s complaint handling and its final response caused confusion for the resident.

Orders

33. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Attend the resident’s property to identify any leaks from the toilet and repair as required. A written update to be provided to the resident confirming the outcome of this visit and what, if any, works were completed and any follow on works required, with a timeframe for these to be completed.
    2. Pay the resident £400 compensation (£250 for its response to her reports of a leaking toilet, which is inclusive of the £50 already offered, and £150 for its complaint handling).
    3. Apologise to the resident for its complaint handling.
34. The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service, within 4 weeks.
35. Within 8 weeks, the landlord is ordered to provide staff training:
    1. to its operatives on the requirement to phone or send a text message to residents when they are on their way to an appointment, as committed in its tenant handbook.
    2. on complaint handling.
36. The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service, within 8 weeks.