The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Leeds City Council (201912704)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201912704

Leeds City Council

13 January 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 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 reports of repairs needed to the rear door, kitchen, window sealant and fences of her property
    2. the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about the conduct of a staff member

Background

  1. The resident moved to her property, in June 2019, as part of a property exchange from her previous address. She has an assured tenancy.
  2. The property exchange was completed with a Deed of Assignment, dated 24 June 2019.
  3. As part of the property exchange, the resident signed a Declaration for Incoming Tenants, on 20 June 2019, which stated that “I confirm that I have previously viewed the property and garden (if applicable) of [address supplied] of which I am becoming a tenant and I am happy to continue with the exchange with the property in its current condition. I can confirm the photographs of the property that I have seen today are a true likeness for its current condition. I confirm I am aware of DIY modifications made by the previous tenant and happy with the current condition.”
  4. The previous tenant signed a Declaration for Outgoing Tenants, dated 20 June 2019, which stated that “I understand that I may be responsible for the cost of rectifying any damage to the property that has been identified as existing prior to me moving out. I agree that the photographs taken during the property inspection are a true likeness of the condition of my property. Any defects that may have been concealed due to furnishings are still my responsibility to rectify prior to moving out.”

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. From information submitted to this Service, the Ombudsman has seen that the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord, about the repairs she felt were needed, on 3 December 2019. The repairs were itemised in a hand-written letter as being required to the back door, the kitchen cupboard, a request for a new kitchen, the bathroom floor, some of the windows and the garden fence. The landlord treated the letter as a stage one complaint. It responded to the complaint by speaking with the resident, on 6 December 2019, and telling her that it would send a surveyor to inspect all of the requested repairs. The surveyor (one of its technical officers) was due to visit the property on 16 December 2019.
  3. The technical officer attended on 16 December 2019. The resident raised a stage two complaint, also on 16 December 2019 (but treated as being dated 17 December by the landlord), about the conduct of the technical officer during the inspection.
  4. Also in her stage two complaint, the resident outlined the reasons she wanted the repairs carried out.
  5. After the stage two decision, between January and September 2020, the landlord’s teams were discussing the repairs to the rear door, kitchen, windows and  fences. Job cards were completed for some kitchen repairs and to the external door, in December 2019 and January 2020. Window repairs were ordered in January 2020. After debating suitable types of fencing the fence work was ordered in September 2020 (allowing for Covid 19 priority repair delays).
  6. In the meantime, on 8 January 2020, the resident contacted this Service about her complaint. The resident sent a copy of the stage two decision on 16 June 2020. The landlord submitted its responses to the complaint, and its supporting documents, on 16 November 2020. It is from the landlord’s supporting documents that this Service became aware that the resident was taking her complaint further using the pre-action protocol for housing disrepair claims.   
  7. On 10 December 2020 the local authority’s legal department sent the landlord a copy of the resident’s letter of claim, a schedule of the alleged disrepair to the property and copies of regulations and guidances relevant to the claim. The legal department asked the landlord to prepare a schedule of remedial works and a Scott schedule and to submit its draft report, in response to the resident’s claim.
  8. The Scott schedule contained information about the reported disrepair under the claim – briefly about parts of the bedrooms, the staircase, the carpets, the kitchen and the back door. The Scott schedule did not mention repairs needed to the window sealant and the fences, which are part of the repairs complaint referred to this Service.
  9. The Ombudsman has carefully considered all the evidence concerning the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the above repairs. The Ombudsman has also noted that the pre-action protocol for housing disrepair cases has been started – the referral to the landlord’s legal department, the letter of claim and the preparation of the Scott schedule.
  10. The pre-action protocol for housing disrepair is designed to provide a framework within which both parties can attempt to achieve an appropriate resolution of the issues before beginning any formal legal action. Should a claim proceed to formal legal action, the Court would expect the parties to have complied with the pre-action protocol as far as possible. 
  11. Paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.
  12. As the resident is progressing matters under the pre-action protocol for disrepair, it is decided that this part of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and will not be investigated by this Service. This is because, as the resident has started using the pre-action protocol, the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to seek a remedy for all her repair issues through an alternative procedure (the pre-action housing disrepair protocol) and ultimately through the courts if appropriate
  13. The Ombudsman has, however, investigated how the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint about the conduct of the landlord’s member of staff (the technical officer).  

Summary of events

  1. Following the resident’s stage two complaint about the conduct of the landlord’s technical officer, the landlord asked the technical officer for his responses to the resident’s claims. According to the landlord, the resident had called him rude, obnoxious and intimidating, said he had not been interested in the repair issues, that he had told the resident that the repairs would not be done and that “this is what you get with social housing.”
  2. On 17 December 2019, the technical officer prepared a statement about the 16 December 2019 visit, which the Ombudsman has seen. The technical officer explained that he had never met the resident before, prior to the visit, the statement has summaries about repairs to the kitchen (including damp work), the rear door, the windows and the fencing and next steps to be taken to facilitate these repairs. Also, that the resident’s neighbour had been present throughout the visit and had showed him around the property rather than the resident. The statement ended with a sentence from the technical officer, which said “under no circumstances was I rude, obnoxious or intimidating as stated.”
  3. The landlord issued its stage two decision letter, on 23 December 2019. The letter explained the actions that would be taken for the repairs. The letter also addressed the resident’s complaint about the technical officer’s conduct:
    1. According to the landlord’s internal repairs system, the technical officer had raised the required and requested repairs, immediately after the 16 December 2019 visit.
    1. In response to the resident’s allegations that the technical officer was rude, obnoxious and intimidating, the landlord said that it was difficult to understand why someone, who had seemingly behaved as stated by the resident, would then raise multiple repair orders and contact other relevant departments to help with the resident’s repair situation. The landlord said it had discussed how the technical officer’s behaviour might have been perceived, but the technical officer disagreed with the statements made about him and denied the allegations. The technical officer had added that the resident’s neighbour, who was present at the time of the visit, was smiling throughout the inspection whilst communicating with him.
    2. The landlord said it was sorry to hear what the resident felt about the technical officer’s behaviour and assured her that it had never previously received reports about this kind of behaviour.
    3. The landlord also said it hoped all parties could move on from events, in the  knowledge that the technical officer had listened to the resident and raised a number of repairs for her. He was also waiting for the landlord’s housing officer to revert to him with further information before he placed additional repair orders.

Assessment and findings

  1. The Ombudsman has seen that the complaint about the technical officer’s conduct and behaviour, on 16 December 2019, was actioned without delay by the landlord. The landlord immediately obtained a statement from the technical officer and issued its stage two decision letter within five working days of the complaint being raised.  This was appropriate as the landlord then had a contemporaneous account of what had happened.
  1. As far as it concerns the conduct of the technical officer, the landlord provided evidence that the technical officer had taken the repairs issues seriously and had taken action to raise the repair orders without delay.
  2. As far as it concerns the behaviour of the technical officer, the Ombudsman can see from the technical officer’s statement and from the landlord’s stage two decision, that the parties involved gave differing accounts of what happened at the 16 December 2019 visit. Based on the evidence available, the Ombudsman cannot conclusively determine what happened or favour one account over the other. However, the landlord acted reasonably by taking prompt action to investigate the resident’s complaint and asking its technical officer for his account, plus it tried to provide assurances to the resident that the repairs orders had been raised.
  3. Based on the available evidence the Ombudsman cannot say, with any certainty, whether the technical officer’s conduct was acceptable or not. However, the landlord apologised for the resident’s feeling that the technical officer had not behaved properly, it made appropriate enquiries of the technical officer, it checked on the repairs that had been discussed and provided the resident with an update.  These were appropriate actions in response to the concerns that had been raised by the resident.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s complaint about the conduct of its staff member.

Reasons

  1. The landlord took appropriate steps to investigate the resident’s concerns and to explain its position. It immediately investigated the concerns over the conduct of its staff member following the visit of 16 December 2019, by obtaining a written statement from the staff member and checking its computer system to see what actions had been taken about the repairs in question.

 

  1. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord took appropriate steps to investigate the resident’s concerns. It apologised for the resident’s feeling that the technical officer had not behaved properly, it made appropriate enquiries of the technical officer, it checked on the repairs that had been discussed and it provided the resident with an update.  These were appropriate actions in response to the concerns that had been raised by the resident.
  2. In the absence of any corroborated evidence from the resident to the contrary, the landlord then issued its stage two decision, within seven working days, on 23 December 2019, while the staff member continued with internal discussions about the repairs, without delay.