Leeds City Council (202007676)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007676

Leeds City Council

7 July 2021(Amended on Review)

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:
   1. The conduct of a local ward member in respect of a planning application.
   2. The allocation of the property to the resident without adaptations.
   3. The landlord’s handling of adaptations at the property.
   4. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

2. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (‘the 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.
3. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
   1. The conduct of a local ward member in respect of a planning application
   2. The allocation of the property to the resident without adaptations
4. Paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme specifies that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which “fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”. In this case the complaint about the conduct of a local ward member is properly within the remit of the Local Government Association; therefore, a determination will not be made on this aspect of the complaint.
5. Complaints relating to the allocation of properties made specifically by a local authority fall properly within the remit of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (www.lgo.org.uk) and therefore cannot be considered in this investigation.

Background and summary of events

Background

6. The resident has a child with additional needs.
7. The resident is a tenant of the landlord which is a local authority.
8. The landlord’s compliments and complaints policy provides for a two-stage internal complaint procedure. This specifies that complaints at both stages are to be responded to within 15 working days, or an update is to be provided to the resident if this is not possible.

Summary of events

9. The resident’s property was assessed by an Occupational Therapist (OT) on 10 September 2019. This was followed up with an email to the landlord on the day and the later referral of 19 September 2019. The following works were requested to ensure the safety of one of the resident’s children:
   1. radiator covers were required for the living room and dining room
   2. central heating pipes were to be boxed in
   3. taps were to be changed to twist-style taps with a temperature control
   4. changes to the oven and hob fitting
   5. the wall between the kitchen and dining room to be removed.
10. After an update request from the resident on 16 October 2019, the landlord met with her the following day to discuss her concerns. The landlord’s records indicate that works began to the property on the same day. On 12 November 2019, the resident informed her local counsellor, who had been involved in resolving the issues, that the recommendations of 19 September 2019 had been mostly completed. She stated that the operatives ‘have worked around our needs and done everything they could possibly do to cause us as little inconvenience. They have talked me through the schedule, kept to it and done a thorough and fantastic job’. The landlord’s records indicate that the works were completed on 13 November 2019.
11. Another OT assessment was undertaken on 2 January 2020 with respect to the difficulty of the resident’s son accessing the singular bathroom upstairs, thus, the installation of a ground floor wet room was proposed. It was stated in the report that ‘there is limited scope within the current footprint of the property to achieve this request without extending, however the wet floor shower room need to be big enough to fit [him] and a care giver in to meet self-care tasks as [he] is unable to do this independently.’ The landlord’s internal email showed that on 3 February 2020 it commenced arrangements for a wet room to be installed at the property. It also indicates that planning permission for this was received on 5 May 2020.
12. A further OT assessment was undertaken on 12 May 2020 and the referral provided on 26 May 2020 with respect to further issues in relation to the health challenges of the resident’s son. This was completed over the telephone as the first national lockdown due to COVID-19 had begun. The recommendations were as follows:
    1. Hygienic wipeable floor & wall coverings to bedroom
    2. Hygienic/smooth & wipeable coverings to bathroom walls & ceiling
    3. Window restrictors throughout the property
    4. Radiator covers to bedroom and bathroom
    5. Replacement door (or re-hang existing) to ground floor bedroom
    6. X2 lockable kitchen cupboards
    7. Explore possibility of removing hallway wall
    8. Explore any possible options to increase number of bedrooms in the property
13. The resident emailed the landlord on 3 July 2020 to acknowledge that the wet room works would commence shortly and enquired about the timeframe for the other adaptations. She suggested the installation of another bedroom in the property and requested an update.
14. The resident raised a stage one complaint with the landlord on 10 July 2020 in which she referred to a number of historical issues she had experienced with her current and previous properties allocated to her by the landlord, which she had found unsuitable for her family due to the additional needs of one of her children. She described encountering delays in having the necessary adaptations made.
15. On 3 August 2020, the landlord met the resident and confirmed the discussion in an email to her the following day which included amendments to the adaptations identified on 10 September 2019 and 6 August 2020. It also confirmed it would investigate the creation of two new bedrooms and changes to the stairs.
16. On 10 August 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to say that she had still not been made aware of the schedule for the adaptations and expressed her frustration with the process. She advised that the wait to make the property suitable had had an “enormous” impact on her family.
17. The landlord issued a stage one complaint response on 19 August 2020 to the resident. In reference to the adaptations for the current property, it confirmed that it received a recommendation for a ground-floor extension to incorporate a wet room in January 2020, which gained planning permission approval in May 2020. The landlord stated that an “unavoidable delay” had occurred due to the pandemic lockdown but hoped that the completion of this would improve the resident’s situation. It stated that various temporary adaptations had been carried out at the property. 
18. The resident emailed the landlord on 29 August 2020 to escalate her complaint to the final stage. She expressed dissatisfaction with the handling of the complaint, which had been delayed due to the absence of the complaint handler (which she was advised about on 10 August 2020), and the historical handling of repairs and adaptions. The resident confirmed in an email to the landlord that they intended to purchase the property under the Right to Buy application which they had submitted.
19. The landlord issued its final stage response on 24 September 2020 to the resident in which it advised that it was unable to carry out a “substantial investigation” into the “historic service failures” but apologised for these. It acknowledged that these could not be rectified now but offered a meeting with a senior member of staff to discuss these historical issues and noted that she was unwilling to proceed with any further adaptations due to the impact on her family.
20. This Service understands that the landlord continued to liaise with the resident after the conclusion of the complaint to progress installation of further adaptations in the property.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of adaptations at the property

21. The resident has complained about several historical issues spanning several years. This Service would expect the resident to raise dissatisfactions with the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable time as it is problematic and impractical to investigate matters due to the passage of time. Therefore, this investigation has focused on events from six months prior to her raising her formal complaint with it.
22. The documents provided to this Service indicate that the adaptations recommended in September 2019 were substantially completed by November 2019. As these are a broad range of works for which it would be necessary to make considerable advance arrangements, this Service finds that the timescale for completion was reasonable in the circumstances. 
23. The subsequent recommendation for the installation of a wet room was necessarily dependent on the planning permission being received. This was not a matter for the housing department to decide on internally, thus, the delay till May 2020 was not due to any failure by the landlord. As it explained to the resident in its decision on the complaint, the pandemic restrictions impacted on it being able commence works on this adaptation. The nature of the works also means that, it would also require a period of months to execute.
24. The further OT recommendations of 26 May 2020 occurred during the pandemic lockdown, and it is imperative to acknowledge the difficulties that most establishment including landlords encountered in undertaking their usual tasks. It is instructive that the OT was unable to conduct a physical visit on this occasion for the same reason and stated that it was uncertain whether some aspects of the recommendations were achievable. 
25. The Right to Buy application by the resident and/or her husband has the effect of putting all outstanding works on hold. Thus, the landlord is no longer under an obligation to continue with any uncompleted works while this application subsists.
26. The landlord subsequently advised the resident, in its stage one complaint response on 19 August 2020 of the length of time taken to obtain planning permission for the adaptations and the delays caused by pandemic restrictions, but it was unreasonable that the landlord did not keep her updated on these at the time. It was also unreasonable that it did not provide the adaptations timescale that she requested on 3 July and 10 August 2020 or keep adequate records of this. It, however, apologised for any failings in its handling of issues raised by the family in making its final decision on the matter. This Service finds that this adequately resolved its shortcoming with respect to the communications with the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

27. As per the landlord’s compliments and complaints policy, above at point 8, the landlord should have advised the resident within 15 working days of her stage one complaint that there would be a delay in the response. She was advised of this on 10 August 2020, 21 working days after she raised her complaint on 10 July 2020. This was not addressed in the landlord’s final stage response on 24 September 2020. This response was also issued slightly in excess of the 15 working-day timeframe specified, 17 working days after the complaint was escalated on 29 August 2020 and there was no evidence of the resident being notified of this.
28. Therefore, there was a failure by the landlord to adhere to its compliments and complaints policy at point 8 and compensation of £50 should be paid to the resident to recognise the likely inconvenience caused by the delayed resolution of the complaint. This is accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there had been a failure that was of short duration which may not have affected the overall outcome for the resident.

Determination (decision)

29. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of adaptations at the property.
30. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

31. The nature and scope of the works meant that a considerable amount of time was required to complete the recommendations. There were three assessments within the time under consideration and each one resulted in more adaptation works being identified.
32. The landlord did not respond to the complaint within the timeframes specified in its compliments and complaints policy. 

Orders and recommendations

33. The landlord is ordered to pay:
    1. £50 in compensation to the resident for its failure to adhere to the timeframes specified in its compliments and complaints policy.
34. The landlord is to contact this Service within 28 days to confirm it has complied with the above orders.
35. The landlord is recommended to:
    1. Carry out refresher training with its staff to ensure that complaints are responded to promptly and in accordance with policy.