Leeds City Council (201909241)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201909241

Leeds City Council

25 March 2021

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. handling of repairs to remedy damp in the resident’s property,
2. response to the resident’s report of his new toilet being unsuitable,
3. complaint handling

Background and summary of events

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the structure of the property which includes the walls, ceilings, and roof. This agreement also confirms that the landlord is to maintain the installations for the provision of sanitation in the property.
The landlord’s adaptation assessment policy and procedural guide confirms that it is to carry out assessments for mandatory adaptations. This states that adaptation work is considered “necessary and appropriate” when recommended by an occupational therapist (‘OT’).
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance handbook provides for three categories of repairs. Emergency repairs are when urgent action is required to prevent a serious risk to health and safety or major damage to the structure of the property; these are to be attended within three hours and completed within 24 hours. Urgent repairs are those consider to seriously affect comfort or cause damage to the property; these are to be completed within three or seven working days. General repairs are those which are neither emergency or urgent and these are to be carried out within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compliments and complaints policy provides for a two-stage formal complaint procedure with responses to be provided within 15 working days at both stages of the procedure. If it is unable to provide a response within this timeframe, it is to provide regular updates to the resident at least every two weeks.
On 26 March 2019, because of the resident raising a stage one complaint with the landlord, it agreed to install a new toilet in his property. It had identified that the existing toilet was defective due to a manufacturing fault. The landlord confirmed that it would install a new toilet and carry out modifications to the pipework.
On 18 April 2019, the landlord recorded a new complaint for the resident concerning his dissatisfaction with damp in his property. The resident informed the landlord that a surveyor he had instructed had found damp in the property, which had contradicted the previous findings of the landlord’s own surveyor.
The landlord initiated a referral on 7 May 2019 on the resident’s behalf for an OT to assess the toilet in the property following his report that the newly replaced toilet was too low for his wife as she suffered from health issues which made its use problematic for her. The OT carried out the assessment on 12 June 2019.
The landlord issued a stage one complaint response to the resident on 7 May 2019 in which it noted that the last report of damp it had received from him dated back to 2017 which resulted in it carrying out a survey of the reported damp. It stated that the survey found no concerns of damp in the property. The landlord acknowledged that this was carried out two years ago and the resident had since received conflicting information on this from his own surveyor. It, therefore, proposed to visit the property on 14 May 2019 to carry out a further survey and organise follow-on works as appropriate.
The landlord’s records showed that it raised a work order on 15 May 2019 to renew flashing to the chimney breast. The records do not confirm whether this was completed or not.
The resident raised a new stage one complaint with the landlord on 21 June 2019 concerning the newly installed toilet. He expressed his dissatisfaction with the new toilet which he said was too low and was difficult for his wife to use. The resident relayed that he had received an offer to raise the toilet on a plinth but he had refused this due to space concerns in the bathroom.
The landlord issued a stage one complaint response to the resident on 3 July 2019. In this, it asserted that the newly installed toilet was an industry-standard size made by the manufacturer of the previous toilet. The landlord stated that it was unable to assess adaptation needs due to it being a repairs service and advised him to self-refer his concerns to Adult Social Care.
Following contact from the resident seeking assistance in progressing his complaints this Service wrote to the landlord on 7 November 2019 informing it that the resident was not satisfied with the outcome of his complaint and asking the landlord to escalate the complaint to the second stage of its complaint process. This Service also asked the landlord to contact the resident and confirm when his complaint would be reviewed and any further information it required to consider his complaint.
The landlord’s records indicate that, on 5 December 2019, it raised work to “hack off and renew damp affected plaster”. This was recorded as a cancelled job due to no access.
Following further contact from the resident on 10 February 2020 to advise that no progress had been made on his complaints this Service again wrote to the landlord to ask it to escalate the complaint regarding the damp remedial works and the toilet to the final stage of its complaints procedure.
The landlord’s internal correspondence on 28 February 2020 indicated that it could not confirm whether its contractor had completed work to renew the chimney flashings as requested on 15 May 2019.
The landlord issued a final stage complaint response to the resident on 28 February 2020. In its response the landlord:
1. acknowledged that, following its visit to the property in December 2019, it had agreed repairs to the chimney flashing and making good plasterwork which had remained outstanding.
2. relayed that it had visited the resident’s property on 11 February 2020 to confirm the work needed and, due to “confusion over the purpose over the visit”, he had not granted access to the property.
3. apologised for the delay since the works were agreed in December 2019 and advised that it would provide a date for the work “as soon as possible”. The landlord noted that the resident had since received a visit from a plasterer who had agreed to return on 12 March 2020 to “replace the small patch of damp affected plaster in the attic bedroom which has turned brown due to a very small leak”.
4. referred to a visit in May 2019 to assess the replacement of the defective toilet and said that it was unaware that the resident required a taller, “comfort height” toilet at the time. It relayed that it referred him to Adult Social Care for assessment of adaptations which had resulted in an offer to fit a plinth under the toilet which he had declined.
5. referred to a conversation with the resident earlier that day in which it discussed the toilet and he had agreed to the fitting of a plinth to raise its height without overly increasing the footprint of the toilet. It confirmed that this work would begin on 12 March 2020. The landlord confirmed that it had also agreed to replace the vinyl floor covering and the resident had expressed his satisfaction with the outcome of the complaint on the basis that the work was completed.
On 21 October 2020, the resident contacted this Service to advise that works were still outstanding. This Service emailed the landlord later that day to request it contact the resident about these outstanding works and provide its written response to the complaint.
The landlord advised this Service on 28 October 2020 that it had attempted to contact the resident on three occasions in the previous two days.
The landlord updated this Service on 30 October 2020 to confirm that it had since spoken to the resident who was insistent that repairs were outstanding. It had, therefore, agreed to visit the property the following week to discuss his concerns. The landlord’s records show that it inspected the resident’s property on 5 November 2020 and raised works to inspect the roof for water ingress and carry out pointing to the brickwork of the property.
The resident’s complaint was duly made with this Service on 30 October 2020. In its response to our request for information relating to the complaint, the landlord advised that “inspections and discussions regarding repairs were done verbally” with the resident.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to remedy damp in the resident’s property

When a landlord receives a report of a defect, its first response should be to inspect the issue. Therefore, it was appropriate, and in accordance with the tenancy agreement above at point 2, for the landlord to respond to the resident’s report on 18 April 2019 of damp in the property by offering an inspection. It is evident that this inspection took place and it subsequently raised a repair to address the chimney flashing.
It is, however, unclear from the landlord’s records what was discussed or assessed at the inspection as, by its account, inspections and discussions about the repairs were conducted verbally. It would be good practice to ensure that records were kept of any inspections and agreed repair work. This would ensure that follow-on works were carried out in a timely manner and enable their completion to be confirmed. The omission of these records is likely to have contributed to the excessively long delay between the resident reporting the issues on 18 April 2019 and the landlord recognising that the work was still outstanding in its final stage complaint response on 28 February 2020.
To date, the landlord’s records do not clearly indicate that the requested work to the chimney was completed although it is noted that it has engaged with the resident after this Service’s intervention to address outstanding repairs. However, its lack of clear and accurate record keeping remains a failing on its part and it is likely that better record keeping and management of contractors would have led to a faster resolution for the resident. It is significant that on 28 February 2020, the landlord experienced difficulties in confirming with its contractor that they had carried out requested work.
Therefore, there has been a failure on the part of the landlord to manage the repairs highlighted by the resident in a timely and efficient manner, which has led to it significantly exceeding the timeframe of 20 working days in its repairs and maintenance handbook for general repairs, above at point 4. Compensation of £250 should be paid to the resident for this failure. This is in line with our remedies guidance where there has been a “failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs”.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of his new toilet being unsuitable

While the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the new toilet, it was reasonable that the landlord installed a standard-sized toilet as there was no evidence that he requested a taller toilet beforehand. It can only be expected to act on the information provided to it and there was no indication that he relayed specific requirements to it ahead of its installation.
The landlord acted in accordance with its adaptation assessment policy and procedural guide, above at point 3, in referring the resident for an assessment by an OT on 7 May 2019 in response to his report that his newly-installed toilet was not a suitable height for his wife.
While the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the resulting offer of installing a plinth under the toilet, this was a reasonable offer which was based on the outcome of the OT assessment. As he did not accept this offer until 28 February 2020, this delay in installation cannot be attributed to the landlord. It is noted that it agreed to replace the floorcovering upon installation of the toilet plinth; this was an appropriate response as the landlord would be expected to carry out any remedial work which arises out of its repairs. Therefore, there is no evidence of any failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s report of his new toilet being unsuitable.

The landlord’s complaint handling

This Service asked the landlord to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process on 7 November 2019. However, the landlord did not provide its stage 2 response to the resident until 28 February 2020, some 79 working days later and 64 working days outside the 15 working day response time set out in its compliments and complaints policy. The stage 2 response was only provided after a further letter from this Service on 10 February 2020.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of repairs to remedy damp in the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s report of his new toilet being unsuitable.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord delayed excessively in addressing the repairs reported by the resident and its poor record keeping likely contributed to this.
The landlord offered a reasonable solution to the resident’s report of his toilet being too low in accordance with its obligations under its adaptation assessment policy and procedural guide.
The landlord’s complaints handling showed significant and unreasonable delay.

Orders

Within the next 28 days, the landlord is to:
1. Pay the resident compensation of £250 for its delay in addressing his damp related repairs.
2. Pay the resident £75 for the time and trouble spent pursuing this complaint due to the landlord’s delays in responding.
3. Contact the resident to ensure that the relevant repairs are completed.
4. Review its record keeping procedures to ensure that a comprehensive audit trail of communication regarding repairs is kept.