Leeds City Council (201913825)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201913825

Leeds City Council

31 May 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 response to the resident’s reports of repair issues in the property.

Background and summary of events

The resident has had a secure tenancy with the landlord since 3 May 2010. The property is a 2 bedroom house. The resident has noted having had issues with repairs in the property for a number of years. The scope of the investigation will include the events from late 2019 onwards, as this is a reasonable period which provides context for the complaint that was raised by the resident and answered by the landlord. This is also based on the available documentary evidence on which the Ombudsman has relied to make findings.
On 4 October 2019 a repair order was raised noting that there was standing water in the cellar which was possibly causing flies, woodlice and damp.
On or around 7 October 2019 the landlord’s contractors attended the property to repair the seal that the resident had reported to be coming away from particular areas of the bath.
On 17 October 2019 the landlord’s internal emails noted that the resident wished to raise a complaint about:
1. The kitchen floorboards being uneven.
2. Having installed her own kitchen base units without splash back tiles, she had been informed the latter was the responsibility of the landlord to install.
3. There was damp in her children’s room, which had led to discolouration of the ceiling and the condemnation of an electrical socket.
4. Problems with a previous roof repair leading to a leak, as well as a plant growing out of the chimney pot and gulley sink pipe.
The landlord has provided the Ombudsman with a copy of the stage one complaint response that it provided to the resident following this although the document is undated, in which it apologised that the resident had cause to complain. It noted that there was a technical officers inspection booked in for the afternoon of 6 November 2019. It set out that it had spoken to the staff member who was to carry out the inspection, setting out each of the points the resident had raised in the complaint. It noted however that until the inspection went ahead it would be unable to give a full response to the complaint regarding the repair issues, though stated it would do this once it had all the information.
On 6 November 2019 the landlord’s surveyor attended the property and spoke with the resident. It set out the following in its findings report following the inspection:
1. The kitchen floorboards were in a good condition and had been replaced in the recent past.
2. The presence of splash back tiles confirmed its position that it wouldn’t carry out further works as the resident had installed her own kitchen.
3. There was some small level of water ingress in the attic bedroom next to the chimney breast which it noted it would need to investigate further. It was noted that the light fitting in the attic room needed reinstating.
4. A job was raised to remove the plant from the chimney stack and clear gutters, hoppers on front and gulley from stack.
5. The cellar was wet but had no standing water during the visit. The woodwork in the cellar was wet and was to be investigated further.
On 12 November 2019 the landlord replaced the damaged/missing roof tile to address a leak that the resident had reported was occurring when it rained.
On 6 December 2019 contractors attended the property to repoint the stack, dormer flashing and clear the guttering/pipe but were not granted access and the job was cancelled. On 9 December 2019 the resident rang the landlord to again report leaks in the roof. The landlord’s contractors records indicate that a repair was carried out following this report, though the details of this work were not set out in the records.
On 13 July 2020 the resident called the landlord and stated that she had reported previously that the roof was leaking. The resident stated that she was having issues with a leak in the same places previously reported. She stated that she believed the ongoing leaks were the cause of suspected mould and damp in the bedrooms, kitchen and bathroom, and also stated that contractors had left a mess when they were previously at the property.
As of 15 July 2020 the landlord’s internal emails noted that the repair orders for the roof works were live on the system awaiting completion. An emergency order was raised on this day with the order being for contractors to attend as soon as possible, with a note that roofers would report back on any further works required.
As at 24 July 2020 the landlord’s records of an inspection noted that pointing and flaunching to the chimney was required. The landlord’s internal emails on the same day set out the status of the repairs that had been raised in the complaint:
1. An initial emergency roof repair was raised following the resident’s reporting of water ingress into the attic bedroom. It noted that this repair had been completed according to the contractors, though there were no jobs recorded for the particular job entry on the system. It noted having chased the contractors twice for more detailed information but had not had a response.
2. Orders had been raised for repointing to be done as a result of damp in the kitchen. It noted that the contractor had not completed this work from the orders earlier in the year. It stated that work on the guttering, fall pipe and hopper shouldn’t have stopped this progressing from its last visit, but noted that if this was not the case the issue would need to be revisited.
3. The kitchen had recently had new floorboards put down but had no floor coverings. The landlord’s opinion was that the floor was not uneven and was perfectly serviceable.
4. It was unaware of a leak from the bathroom into the kitchen, unless this was the moisture coming through from outside where gutters were leaking. It noted it could look at this again if it was a new issue or if there was anything not resolved from the previous works.
5. It had photos of the protometer with RH levels around 85% which it believed was contributing to the suspected mould and having an impact on areas drying out fully in the attic room.
An appointment was arranged for 4 August 2020 when the landlord’s staff attended the property to investigate each of the outstanding repair issues. It noted its findings:
1. There were no issues in the attic bedroom, first floor bedroom or bathroom, where the moisture levels were normal. There were no leaks found.
2. The walls were showing very low levels of moisture as a result of the leak from the bathroom into the kitchen. The kitchen leak appeared to have been historic.
3. There was no moisture, mould or water marking from the roof leak.
4. The wall in the kitchen had low levels of moisture, with better readings than the previous visit and pointing had already been arranged for this wall.
5. It was of the opinion that there were no issues with the floorboards.
On the same day, 4 August 2020, the landlord provided its stage two complaint response in which it set out its findings following the inspection:
1. The leak from the bathroom into the kitchen was a historic leak that had been repaired. A repair order was raised to decorate the affected area.
2. Noting the emergency repair job that was raised on 15 July 2020, the inspection demonstrated that the roof leak had been repaired as the attic bedroom walls and first floor bedroom walls were all dry with no mould or water markings.
3. Regarding the damp in the kitchen, it was established that the wall under the kitchen window had low levels of moisture. A repair order for pointing had already been arranged for this wall. There was no other moisture present and the skirting boards were all dry.
4. Regarding the reportedly uneven flooring in the kitchen, this had been previously assessed at the 6 November 2019 inspection where the floorboards were found to be in a good condition having been replaced recently. At the 4 August 2020 inspection they were again assessed as being in good condition. The issue was discussed with the resident, who stated that she had been informed by “someone” that they were bowing but the staff member could not see this. The resident had asked if the landlord would put some flooring down for her but the landlord stated this was not something it does as a matter of standard practice.
5. Its repairs service had responded to all reports of issues and had made a second visit to confirm that the repairs were effective. The only outstanding repair was the pointing to the kitchen wall, and the timeframe for completing this work might be affected by the impact of restrictions in place as a result of the Covid-19 lockdown, though these were easing. This was due to staffing issues, local lockdowns and the availability of materials.
On 3 November 2020 the leak from the bathroom to the kitchen was resolved.
The landlord has noted in later communication with the Ombudsman that it does not believe the bathroom was renovated by the council as the bath, shower and tiles are not to its specifications, based on the evidence available at its inspections. It has noted its concern that the leaks from the resident’s bathroom to the kitchen were caused by her own DIY bathroom improvements. It stated that it has reviewed its records as at 9 April 2021 back to 2003 and noted that there was no record of a new bath being installed by its teams. The housing team also reviewed its records and noted there was no record of the resident requesting permission to replace her bathroom, which is a requirement of the tenancy agreement. The landlord’s usual practice is that when a resident replaces their bathroom at their own expense they are then responsible for any future repairs, and if the resident had requested permission she would have been made aware of this. It noted that despite this, operatives attending to bathroom repair requests have not noted that the bathroom was not installed by the Council and have repaired the leak several times.

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s repairs and maintenance handbook sets out that the landlord is responsible for repairs to:
1. The structure and outside of buildings, including the roof, external walls and chimney stack.
2. Water, gas, electricity, sanitation and the equipment that has been installed for delivering these services.
3. Heating and hot water installations.
4. Decoration of external walls and internal communal areas of buildings.
5. Plastering work.
6. Basins, sinks, baths, toilets, kitchen fixtures and fittings that were installed by the landlord.
The resident’s tenancy agreement sets out that:
1. The landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining the structure and exterior of the dwelling house, including drains, gutters, external pipes and external decorations, and the installations in the property for the supply of water, gas and electricity and for sanitation, at point 10.13.
2. The landlord will carry out repairs in a reasonable time, at point 10.14.
3. Residents must not make improvements, additions or structural alterations to the property without getting the landlord’s written permission first, including work on kitchens and bathrooms, installing flooring, at point 10.20.
4. Residents will be responsible for the repair and maintenance of any improvements, additions, alterations, appliances or materials at the property following work they have undertaken, at point 10.24.

Assessment and findings

The resident has raised a number of reports of repair issues with the property over a period of a number of years, with evidence provided to the Ombudsman of the landlord’s actions in the period immediately prior to the raising of a formal complaint on 17 October 2019 and its subsequent steps as the issues were investigated while the complaint progressed. The landlord has responded to these as necessary and largely in line with its policies and procedures.
There is a lack of clarity with some of the reports in the evidence provided about how many leaks have occurred in the property, whether they have been distinct ones that recurred or if they refer to an ongoing leak. However it can be established from the evidence that the landlord was made aware of a leak on 4 October 2019 given the resident reported the presence of water in her cellar on this date. It responded promptly to attend to a leak from the bath three days later which appeared to have been what caused the issue in the cellar. When the resident sought to raise a complaint ten days later, the landlord arranged for an inspection to be undertaken of the property on 6 November 2019 which gave the resident the chance to raise all of her concerns about repair issues for the landlord to respond to. This appointment was arranged within a reasonable period of 3 weeks, given there was no evidence of any urgent repair issues at the time. These were appropriate steps for the landlord to take and demonstrated a willingness to proactively attempt to resolve the repair issues.
As set out in its complaint responses, the inspection established that most of the repair issues raised by the resident did not require it to take action to resolve. The major leak complained of was established to be a historical one, and the landlord established that the walls were showing very low levels of moisture which did not require further work. It nevertheless arranged for decorating works to be undertaken to resolve the outstanding issues of the appearance of the affected area. Beyond this, the landlord was satisfied on the basis of its final inspection of the property for the purposes of this complaint on 4 August 2020 that there were no outstanding works required beyond pointing for the wall beneath the kitchen window which had been understandably delayed by the government-mandated Covid-19 lockdown. This was a reasonable position for it to take, as it considered each of the issues raised by the resident and instructed its surveyor and contractors to assess whether it was obligated to undertake any further work.
The only instance where there was some doubt as to whether the landlord responded appropriately to a report by the resident was the report on 9 December 2019. The landlord reviewed its records and noted that there was a record that the job had been completed with this period but that there had been no follow-up communication with its contractors. The resident has not provided any evidence to challenge the position that a repair was undertaken at the time, and the lack of follow-up from the resident over a period of six months would support the conclusion that a repair was in fact done.
However while the evidence indicates the repair was completed, the lack of clarity on the specific work undertaken and the failure of the landlord’s contractors to confirm this led to issues with establishing whether the landlord had complied with its repair obligations. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the work was completed on the basis of the available evidence that the work was carried out. The landlord should however ensure it keeps accurate records of repairs that are carried out, which can and should be facilitated by maintaining clear communication with its contractors following scheduled appointments to confirm that repair work has been carried out as planned.
The landlord has maintained the position that because the resident has carried out unauthorised alterations to her property without first consulting with it, it cannot be held accountable for repair issues that arise following this. It has based this conclusion on the assessment of its surveyor and contractors at inspections and evidence of work that was undertaken compared with the usual practice of its contractors. Nevertheless it has acted appropriately by carrying out repair works as the need for these has arisen. It is unnecessary and outside the role of the Ombudsman to make a determination on whether this work occurred, given the landlord has largely responded appropriately to the reports as and when they’ve occurred.
The landlord carried out an inspection of the floorboards in response to the resident’s concerns that these were uneven. This was an appropriate response given the potential safety concerns this could cause for the resident, as well as potential issues with drainage and problems with appearance from a decorative perspective. The surveyor inspected the issue on 6 November 2019 when it attended the property, and came to the conclusion that the floorboards were in good condition having been replaced in the recent past. Two later inspections resulted in similar findings that the flooring was even and its condition was “perfectly serviceable”, and at the latter inspection it was established that the resident’s concerns had stemmed from her being told by an unknown person that the flooring was bowing. The evidence available indicates that the landlord responded adequately to the resident’s concerns, inspecting the potential issue and relying on the technical expertise of its surveyor to establish that there were no outstanding repair issues with the flooring.
The resident has raised concerns that the property has required various repairs over a period of many years. She has however also stated that she is unable to provide further evidence of the repair issues due to personal circumstances. The Ombudsman appreciates that this has been a difficult process for the resident to participate in with the raising and pursuing of a complaint. The analysis and findings in this report have been made on the basis of the available evidence, which is limited to the issues that were considered by the landlord and responded to in its final complaint response of 4 August 2020. Should the resident wish to pursue a complaint about further repair issues, it is open for her to raise the complaint with the landlord before bringing it to the Ombudsman for investigation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been no maladministration by the landlord regarding its response to the resident’s reports of repair issues.

Reasons

The landlord has carried out inspections of the resident’s property on multiple occasions, which were arranged promptly on most occasions after the resident raised concerns about repairs. It has relied on the technical expertise of its contractors to establish where works were outstanding and where there were no issues for it to resolve, and promptly arranged the appropriate repairs following this. It was delayed in carrying out some minor pointing due to the Covid-19 lockdown which was ultimately carried out.