City of Doncaster Council (202231462)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202231462

City of Doncaster Council

22 July 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s subject access request (SAR).
2. Handling of the resident’s concerns of a neighbour’s Right to Buy (RTB) purchase of a property.
3. Handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour by a neighbour.
4. Handling of the resident’s reports of leaks at the property.
5. Handling of remedial works required at the property.
6. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of a 3-bedroom semi-detached house. She has lived at the property since 2016 and changed to a sole tenancy in September 2021. The landlord advised it had no health vulnerabilities recorded on its system.
The resident’s partner raised the complaint on her behalf. For the purpose of this report he will be referred to as ‘the representative.’
The representative explained the household included the resident, himself, and 4 children. He described 1 child as disabled with diagnosis that included autism, pica (an eating disorder where a child will eat non edible items), and hyper mobility. The representative says the child is unsettled by unplanned appointments or changes to routine. He says the landlord completed disability adaptations to the property in or around 2018.
On 20 February 2023 the representative raised a stage 1 formal complaint with the landlord. He was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of his report that water was coming through the resident’s kitchen light fitting. He said the landlord isolated pipework and left the household with no heating in the bathroom and toilet. He considered the landlord had left outstanding repairs in an unsafe condition. He said there were several outstanding kitchen repairs and the leak had caused the presence of silverfish in the property. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 1 March 2023. It said its gas team leader was booked to attend on 3 March 2023. During which, it would renew a pipe, return heating to the bathroom and toilet, and rehang a bathroom door. It advised additional non-emergency work would be completed on 6 March 2023, as agreed with the resident.
On 10 March 2023 the representative asked to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure (ICP). He said the landlord’s emergency line did not answer his calls on 3 occasions. He had tried to call as the boiler condensate pipe had caused another leak in the kitchen. He said the household had been left with no hot water. He reminded the landlord there was a disabled child in the property.
The landlord provided its stage 2 final response on 19 April 2023. It said it was satisfied that it had followed its procedures and attended to the resident’s repairs within its published timescales. It acknowledged the inconvenience of having 4 appointments due to a number of leaks. It offered £60 compensation for its failure to diagnose and repair the leak sooner.
During April 2023, the representative approached the Ombudsman. He said the landlord had left the household without electricity “for over 2 hours” and there had been no heating or hot water between 10 to 14 March 2023. While repairs had been completed, he said he wanted a review of the compensation offered due to the stress caused to the household members. The resident’s complaint became one we could formally consider on 19 May 2023.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to us, 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 paragraphs 42 (j) and 42 (a) of the Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. Response to the resident’s subject access request (SAR).
2. Handling of the resident’s concerns of a neighbour’s Right to Buy (RTB) purchase of a property.
3. Handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour by a neighbour.
Paragraph 42 (j) of the Scheme says the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint handling body.
The Ombudsman is unable to investigate complaints concerning the landlord’s handling of data and its response to the resident’s SAR. Therefore, this matter will not form part of this investigation. The representative may wish to advise the resident to seek guidance on this matter from the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
Furthermore, the resident’s complaint about a neighbour’s RTB purchase, concern the council’s actions as a local authority in relation to the disposal or sale of its assets. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) are best placed to deal with complaints about local authorities and the RTB scheme. We cannot consider this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
Paragraph 42 (a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion have been made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure.
While we recognise the distress antisocial behaviour can cause, this matter was raised after the Ombudsman accepted the resident’s original complaint for investigation. Therefore, the landlord should be given a fair opportunity to investigate the issues raised and provide a response to the resident in line with its ICP.

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman notes within the representative’s correspondence he said the landlord’s handling of the leaks and remedial repairs at the property had caused stress to all members of the household. We do not doubt his comments.
While we are an alternative dispute resolution service, we are unable to establish legal liability on whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on any member of a household’s health. Nor can we calculate or award damages. We are therefore unable to consider any personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. Such decisions require an assessment of liability and are decided by a court or insurer. The representative may wish to inform the resident to seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue a claim for damages for any adverse effect on her health.
In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint, we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine the complaint by reference to what is, in our findings, fair in all the circumstances of the case. Where we identify a failure by a landlord, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

Handling of the resident’s reports of leaks at the property

Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord must keep in repair and working order the installations for the supply of gas, water, electricity, sanitation, space heating, and heating water. This includes water pipes, boilers, and water tanks. This obligation is acknowledged within the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy has allocated categories for prioritising repairs. The response times are determined by the severity of the problem, likely impact and risk to the resident and property. The categories are:
1. Emergency category priority A, which the landlord will respond to within 2 hours. These are repairs, which if not undertaken, could present a real risk of injury or death or major damage to the property.
2. Emergency category B, which the landlord will respond to within 24 hours. These are repairs which include the total or partial loss of electricity, unsafe electrical fittings, total loss of water, total or partial loss of gas supply (when there is no other form of heating).
3. Urgent repairs category C, which the landlord will respond to within 5 working days. These repairs do not immediately affect the health, safety or security of the resident.
4. Non urgent repairs category D, which the landlord will respond to within 20 working days.
5. Scheduled repairs which are completed on average in 3 months, but no more than 5 months, depending on when they are reported.
On 14 February 2023 the representative reported a leak coming through a light fitting in the kitchen. There is evidence in the landlord’s repair records that shows a gas engineer and an electrician attended the same day. The landlord states the electrician arrived within 2 hours, made safe the repair, and replaced the fitting the following day. There is evidence the radiators in the bathroom and toilet were temporarily isolated to prevent further leaks. This was appropriate and demonstrates the landlord attended to emergency category A and B repairs in line with its repairs and maintenance policy.
The representative states the property was without electric for 2 hours at this time. While this would understandably have been inconvenient, this was a temporary precaution until the landlord was able to assess the repair need. The representative does not dispute the landlord advised him to isolate the boiler and electricity, as a precaution, until its operatives attended. This was reasonable in the circumstances and demonstrated the landlord considering the safety of the resident and the property. There is no evidence the gas engineers’ need to isolate the bathroom and toilet radiators prevented the use of the boiler for heating the rest of the house.
While we acknowledge the inconvenience any electrical outage would cause, the landlord disputes leaving the household without any power. It says circuits were left on once the repair was made safe. It states it would not leave a house without power, even during out of hours calls. It is not disputed by the representative that the landlord attended to the emergency the same day. While any delay would understandably be inconvenient, the evidence demonstrates the landlord attended the property in line with its repairs and maintenance policy.
On 20 February 2023 the representative raised a stage 1 complaint with the landlord. He said the bathroom and toilet radiators remained capped. Furthermore, floor coverings remained raised and floor boards needed securing. He said these rooms were cold and reminded the landlord a disabled child lived at the property. The representative states the child became inquisitive of the incomplete repairs, which increased the risk of them attempting to put things in their mouth.
The representative informed us the landlord completed disabled adaptations to the property in or around 2018. Work was completed following an occupational therapist assessment. This included the installation of a safe room to prevent the resident’s child from injuring themselves. It is therefore unclear why the landlord informed us it had no known vulnerabilities recorded for the household. This demonstrates a record keeping failure.
There is evidence the landlord initially arranged with the representative to complete repairs on 6 March 2023. This was changed at the representative’s request to 10 March 2023 and then 14 March 2023. Work to repair pipework, flooring, and reinstate the bathroom and toilet radiators was completed on 14 March 2023. This was appropriate and within the landlord’s 20 working day, non-urgent repair timescales.
However, the resident described low temperatures and snow at the time of the complaint. He said the property was cold in these rooms and affected their ability to shower and bathe. While there is evidence the landlord moved repair appointments at the representatives request, it remains unclear how the landlord considered the needs of the household or whether the repair could have been completed earlier.
On 10 March 2023 the landlord says the representative reported a second leak due to a “burst pipe.” The landlord states a repair was logged for attendance under emergency category B. On arrival, the landlord’s plumber identified the leak required a gas engineer and raised a second “attend same day” job. This was necessary as the leak required a repair to the boiler’s condensate pipe. While the need for an additional visit would understandably be inconvenient, it was reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to ensure it sent the appropriately qualified operative to complete the repair.
However, we note from the representatives correspondence he states he had attempted, unsuccessfully, to report the second leak 3 times between 7:09am to 7:19am. Within an email to the landlord later that morning (10 March 2023) he said the emergency number was not answered. There is evidence of an internal email on 10 March 2023 where the landlord reported the resident’s concerns. It states that this report would need to go to the “ARC team.”
While we are uncertain which team this abbreviation is specifically referring to, there is no evidence the landlord investigated the resident’s concerns or provided any feedback. The landlord’s complaints policy states a complaint is “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents.” Therefore, it was not appropriate for the landlord not to treat this as an expression of dissatisfaction and has failed to adhere to its complaints policy.
It is unclear from the evidence if the repair diagnosis could have been more accurately identified by the landlord. This may indicate a need for refresher training for the staff taking repair calls. Had the landlord sent the appropriate operative first time, this may have minimised the disruption to the resident’s household. It was therefore reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to recognise this failure in its stage 2 response and offer the resident £60 for the multiple repair visits. This demonstrates the landlord took steps to put things right.
The landlord’s records state the gas engineer completed the condensate repair the same day, 10 March 2023. Therefore, it states there was no loss of heating or hot water. The resident disputes this. There is however contradictory evidence from an internal email on 12 January 2024 where the landlord summarises a property inspection on 6 March 2023. This email states it completed the repair to the condensate pipe on 14 March 2024. While it does not confirm the boiler was inoperable, these dates match the representatives statements.
However, there is further evidence the representative telephoned the landlord twice on 10 March 2023. The landlord recorded the first call informed it nobody would be home for a period of time. The second advised the landlord the resident did not want an out of hours appointment as their disabled child would be in bed.
Whether the heating was working is disputed by both parties. It is however reasonable the landlord rearranged repair appointments at the convenience of the resident. However, there is concern regarding the accuracy of the landlord’s record keeping regarding the completion of this job.
While the landlord’s initial repair response was within its response timescales, there is evidence of a record keeping failure. Without the ability to access accurate household information, the landlord has been unable to demonstrate how it gave due regard to the needs of a vulnerable member of the household. Given the child’s health diagnosis, which included the need for routine, it is unclear if the landlord considered prioritising the required repairs.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states, where appropriate, it will take into account the individual needs of vulnerable customers when prioritising their repairs, as set out in its vulnerable persons policy. The landlord’s lack of accurate record keeping regarding the household vulnerabilities has prevented it from demonstrating it considered and adhered to this policy.
Furthermore, having been reminded of vulnerabilities by the representative, there is no evidence the landlord discussed the nature of the disabilities nor that it updated its records. This did not demonstrate the landlord giving due regard to the household members vulnerabilities and its duties set out in the Equality Act 2010.
There is no conclusive evidence the household was totally without heating. However, it is clear that the flooring, bathroom and toilet radiators remained outstanding and isolated for 20 working days. Although this is within the landlord’s non-emergency repair timescales, the landlord has failed to demonstrate giving due regard for the vulnerabilities in the household. The representative’s requests to change appointment dates provides some mitigation for repair delays. However, the landlord failed to maintain or update its records and failed to respond to reports of a service failure by its emergency repair line.
Based on the above, we find service failure with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks at the property. The landlord is ordered to pay £150 compensation. This is in line with the remedies guidance available to us when there was a failure that adversely affected a resident.

Handling of remedial works required at the property

Within the representatives stage 1 complaint on 20 February 2024, he raised outstanding remedial repairs required at the property. We have addressed several aspects within the substantive complaint above, however he considered the following repairs outstanding:
1. Screws protruding from a kitchen draw.
2. Renewal of kitchen cupboards.
3. Presence of silverfish in the kitchen.
It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to inspect the resident’s property on 6 March 2023. This was within the landlord’s 20 working day response timescale as set out in its repairs and maintenance policy. There is evidence following the landlord’s visit that multiple repairs, outside of this complaint, were raised and completed.
The landlord’s repair records state a job was raised prior to the complaint, on 2 October 2022. This was to complete the kitchen repair works raised by the representative. The landlord recorded that no-one was home for the appointment and a visit card left.
Furthermore, there is evidence on 20 February 2023 of an internal email where the landlord added notes to the representatives complaint. In which, it states its “team have carded this property in the past regarding kitchen repairs and the notes state that they were set to return when they were next in the area. The tenant has also threatened legal action regarding the kitchen so if that has been submitted, works will be put on hold until the disrepair team can investigate.”
While it is generally reasonable for a landlord to expect a resident to respond to a visit card following a missed appointment, it is unclear how this appointment had been arranged. Given the vulnerabilities in the household and the need for planned appointments, the landlord’s comment that the team would return when next in the area fails to demonstrate how it gave due regard to the resident’s needs. The evidence indicates the lack of accurate records regarding the household vulnerabilities contributed to this communication failure.
We also note the landlord’s comment that if legal action had been taken, it would put work on hold, until its disrepair team investigated.
The Ombudsman’s guidance on pre action protocol for housing conditions encourages landlords to take appropriate steps to ensure there is effective communication between its own teams and the resident, throughout the repairs and complaints process. A matter does not become legal until proceedings have been issued. It is important that landlords do not disengage from any open complaint or the repair issue itself. A comment about legal action or commencing the protocol does not constitute legal proceedings. Therefore, the landlord’s comments are a concern and it should ensure it remains engaged with resident’s in such circumstances.
We also note the resident’s complaint included concerns that damp conditions following the leaks had caused the presence of silverfish. While the landlord’s policies were silent regarding the responsibility of pests, its website indicates it is considered the resident’s responsibility. The resident advised us the landlord confirmed this during an inspection.
While it was appropriate for the landlord to inspect the property and outstanding repairs, it is unclear why the landlord did not respond to the resident’s concerns about silverfish within its complaint responses. Furthermore, there is no evidence it provided any guidance on management of the problem.
All reports of pests should be taken seriously. While at times a resident may have a part in the causes that attract pests, the onus should not simply be put on the resident to resolve. The landlord should have taken steps to identify the root cause before deciding on responsibility. If the landlord had concerns that the resident’s actions were contributing to a pest problem, the landlord should have identified, and documented what support or advice it gave the resident to resolve it. As the resident considered the leaks into the kitchen had encouraged the presence of silverfish, the landlord should have provided a response.
Based on our findings, there has been communication failures with the landlord’s handling of remedial works required at the property. This includes how it arranged appointments with a vulnerable household and its failure to provide a response about silverfish. Therefore we find service failure and the landlord is ordered to pay £100 compensation. This is in line with the remedies guidance available to us when there has been a failure in the service provided.

Complaint handling

At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord operated a 2 stage formal complaints procedure. The policy states it would acknowledge complaints within 3 working days. At stage 1, a resident could expect a response within 10 working days and within 20 working days at stage 2. This is appropriate and in line with the expectations of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) published on 1 April 2022.
The representative raised a stage 1 complaint on 20 February 2023. It was reasonable for him to expect an acknowledgement by 23 February 2023, and a response by 4 March 2022. It was therefore appropriate the landlord met both these dates. This was in line with the expectations of its relevant complaint handling policy and the Code.
The representative escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s ICP on 10 March 2023. It was reasonable for him to expect an acknowledgement by 15 March 2023 and a stage 2 final response by 7 April 2023. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 15 March 2023. This was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s relevant complaints policy.
However, while there is evidence the representative sent further complaint correspondence to the landlord on 14 March 2023, the landlord did not provide its stage 2 response until 19 April 2023. There is no evidence that indicates an extended complaint response date was agreed with the resident to account for the delayed response. The landlord’s stage 2 response was sent 7 working days beyond its expected complaint handling timescales. This was not appropriate.
In this case, the landlord has failed to recognise that its final complaint response was sent outside of its published complaint handling timescales. While the detriment of this failure would have been minimal, the landlord should acknowledge the failure and offer redress to put things right. Therefore, we find service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling and it is ordered to pay £50 compensation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42 (j) of the Scheme, the landlord’s response to the resident’s subject access request (SAR) is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 42 (j) of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of a neighbour’s Right to Buy (RTB) purchase of a property is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 42 (a) of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour by a neighbour is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure with the handling of remedial works required at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
1. Pay the resident £300 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks at the property. £60 offered at stage 2 of the landlord’s ICP can be deducted from this sum, if already paid.
  2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of remedial works required at the property.
  3. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
2. Contact the resident to arrange an inspection of the property.
  1. The inspection should include an assessment of any outstanding repairs.
  2. Following the inspection, the landlord should set out in writing timescales of the work required to put right any repairs that remain outstanding.
  3. The landlord should provide the resident with its full and final position regarding complaint matters that it has inspected and require no further action.
  4. The landlord should ensure its records are updated regarding the household’s health and support needs. This should include consideration for any preferred or required reasonable adjustments to aid the household’s interaction with the landlord.
  5. The landlord should update the Ombudsman of its findings and proposed remedies within 4 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord is encouraged to review the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Damp and Mould, published October 2021. With particular focus on the recommendations around the pre-action protocol.
If it has not already done so, it is recommended that the landlord self-assess the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge Information Management (KIM), published May 2023. With particular focus on the recording of residents’ vulnerabilities and/or reasonable adjustments.
The landlord is encouraged to review the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Attitudes, Respect, and Rights (Relationship of Equals), published January 2024. It could use the recommendations in the report to inform its future service delivery, and the importance of considering the individual circumstances of the resident.