Leeds City Council (202106547)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202106547

Leeds City Council

1 December 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 report of a water leak into her property.

Background and summary of events

The resident reported a leak from her hallway ceiling on 10 April 2021. The landlord raised work orders for an emergency plumber to the flat above and an emergency electrician to make the resident’s electrics safe; repair records show both operatives arrived within three hours.
On 15 April 2021 the resident called the landlord as the leak was still ongoing. The repairs records state a plumber attended within three hours but was unable to locate the leak. A work order was raised for a heating engineer to examine the neighbour’s boiler system, arriving later that day.
The resident called the landlord to raise a complaint on 15 April 2021.
1. She said the leak had been ongoing since 10 April 2021 and the water was damaging her wood flooring and decorations. She was concerned it would spread to her bedroom.
2. She said contractors were due to remedy the leak on 10 April 2021 and 12 April 2021 (there is no record of this appointment in the landlord’s records) but she was unsure whether they had attended as the leak hadn’t stopped.
3. Despite using a bucket to catch the leak, the hallway floor was wet, and this caused her safety concerns due to her age.
4. The landlord signposted her to complete a compensation claim form for its liability insurance for the damage to her flooring.
The resident called back the same day after raising the complaint as the leak had now spread to her bedroom. According to the landlord’s records this call took place after the heating engineer appointment, there is no record of a further appointment being made.
The repairs records state the landlord was satisfied the leak had stopped on 16 April 2021; a contractor then inspected the damage to the resident’s property. As a result, work orders were raised for a “new hallway ceiling (in liaison with the landlord’s asbestos team) and remove and renew light pendants” and to “prepare and apply two coats of emulsion after leak”.
The landlord gave a verbal stage one complaint response on 29 April 2021.
1. It apologised for the damaged caused by a leak in the flat above and the distress caused.
2. It acknowledged that although the contractor repaired the leak in a timely manner, it failed to check the resident’s flat for damage or follow-on works.
3. Work orders had been raised to replaster the ceilings and repaint afterwards.
4. It noted the resident was satisfied with the response and was happy for the complaint to be closed.
On 4 May 2021 a work order was raised to remove asbestos from the hallway ceiling.
A contractor attended on 25 May 2021 and 26 May 2021 to complete the plastering; the repairs history shows electrical coving (a join between the ceiling and wall to cover the electrical wiring) needed to be fitted in the hallway before it could be completed.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage two of the landlord’s process on 28 May 2021 as the re-decoration was not complete and the contractor had only painted the ceilings, despite previously agreeing the walls and doorframes would also be included. She also stated that the leak had been caused by the contractor as they had put a nail in the pipe. This is not mentioned elsewhere in the landlord’s records.
An internal email from the landlord on 8 June 2021 stated it had authorised the contractor to complete further painting to the walls and woodwork in the property where required and it would contact the resident to book an appointment.
An internal email on 17 June 2021 explained that the resident had called the landlord as she thought her hallway looked “a complete mess”. The contractor had explained further works couldn’t be completed until the electric coving had been fitted.
The landlord issued the stage two complaint response on 21 June 2021.
1. It acknowledged that it had promised to “re-plaster and redecorate to make good damage” and that the resident was unhappy some of the works were still outstanding.
2. It identified that it still needed to “renew hallway ceiling”. It explained that as it required asbestos removal, the time to complete the job had been extended. An appointment had been booked for 22 June 2021 to fit the electrical coving it would arrange to re-plaster the ceiling after this.
3. A work order had already been raised to paint the damaged ceiling, but it had now extended it to include additional works. An appointment was booked for 28 June 2021 to complete the work.
On 24 June 2021 a painter attended the property.
An internal landlord email on 7 July 2021 recalled work to the plastering and painting following a post-inspection as it was not up to standard. A further email on 8 July 2021 stated a follow-on appointment for the plastering had been booked for 3 August 2021.
An internal email on 14 July 2021 stated that the resident had called chasing the repairs.
On 1 July 2021, there was a change in contractor to fit the electrical coving, in order for the repair to be completed in timely manner. According to the landlord’s repair records, the work order was delayed as the resident “wanted like-for-like plastic coving to cover exposed wiring”. The contractor said there was not a suitable product available, and the resident later agreed the wiring “could be boxed in” (the landlord has not provided communication records for this, and it is unclear when the agreement was concluded.)
An internal email on 9 July 2021 detailed a call between the landlord and the resident in which it gave her the phone number to contact its corporate insurance. It advised that stress and inconvenience would not be considered as part of the compensation claim.
An internal email stated the landlord called the resident on 13 July 2021 to discuss the progress of the works.
On 5 August 2021, an internal email explained the landlord had agreed to install electrical coving, rather than it being boxed in. The resident had said she didn’t mind if the job was delayed, while getting the correct materials.
The landlord’s repairs records show the electric wires were boxed in on 8 September 2021.
On 7 October 2021, the painting was revisited and completed to an acceptable standard.
An internal landlord email on 8 October 2021 stated that the majority of delays to the repairs were caused by the resident wanting the electrical coving, rather than boxing in the electrical wires. The contractor had concluded coving was not an economically viable or time efficient method.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s tenancy agreement states:
1. The landlord will complete repairs in a reasonable timeframe.
2. The landlord will make good any internal decorations that are affected during a repair.
3. If the resident is not happy with the repairs service, they can use the landlord’s complaint’s service.
The landlord’s repair guide states:
1. Uncontrollable leaks are classified as an emergency repair and will be attended within three hours and complete within 24 hours.
2. Batched repairs are “non-urgent repairs and items of replacement that may require a pre-inspection; need time to order and/ or manufacture materials” and will be attended to within 60 working days.
3. It is responsible for the structure of the building and plastering work.
4. The resident is “responsible for the decoration within your home. If, as a result of a repair issue such as a leak, your decoration is damaged, the council will not be responsible for it.”
The landlord’s complaint policy states:
1. A stage one complaint must be acknowledged within three working days and a verbal, or written response will be issued within 15 working days.
2. A stage two response will assess how the original complaint was dealt with and respond to further issues raised. A response will be issued within 15 working days.
3. If timeframes can’t be met, the complainant will be given updates at least every two weeks.

The landlord’s handling of reports of a leak

The tenancy agreement and repairs guide both confirm that the landlord is responsible for resolving leaks in a reasonable timeframe. It was therefore necessary for the landlord to investigate the resident’s reports of the leak in her property and to take appropriate action to resolve any issues it identified.
The leak from the flat above was initially reported on 10 April 2021; relevant contractors were assigned to both the affected flats to stop the leak and make safe the electrics, arriving within 3 hours, which adheres to the landlord’s emergency repair timeframe. According to the resident’s stage one complaint there was supposed to be a further contractor attend on 12 April 2021, however there is no record of this in the landlord’s repairs records or other communication provided to this Service, so it is unclear if this was a missed appointment. The resident contacted the landlord again on 15 April 2021 as the leak was still ongoing; a plumber, followed by a heating engineer attended the property and the leak was resolved, both appointments adhered to the landlord’s published repair timeframes. The landlord stated the leak was resolved on 16 April 2021. The landlord therefore responded to both reports of the leak within appropriate timeframe, when it was notified of the issue. However, from the records provided it in unclear whether the landlord was aware the leak was ongoing between the reports or if a follow-up appointment should have been attended on 12 April 2021, as stated by the resident.
The landlord inspected the damage to the resident’s property on 16 April 2021, on the day the leak was repaired, and raised the relevant work orders to repair the damage caused by the leak. Although this was within an appropriate timeframe, in the stage one complaint response the landlord recognised that it could have done this sooner. According to the landlord’s repairs guide, the landlord is not responsible for the decoration in the property in the result of a leak; it was therefore not obliged to complete paintwork, although it did so on this occasion. The plastering and painting would be classified as batched repairs and therefore should be completed within 60 working days, in accordance with the repair guide. All the works were complete by 7 October 2021.
Although the repairs were completed six months after the leak occurring, therefore exceeding the timeframe in the repairs guide, is understandable that the works in the hallway were delayed due to the removal of asbestos and the fitting of the electrical coving. This was explained to the resident in the stage one complaint response. The contractor later realised that the electrical coving could not be fitted due the number of wires in the hallway; the contractor tried to source an alternative, but ultimately concluded that it would not be economically viable or time efficient to use coving. According to the landlord, there were further delays as the resident did not agree to have the boxing fitted around the wires as an alternative to coving and additional works could not be done until the boxing in was completed. The landlord also changed contractors in an attempt to complete the work sooner.
Whilst it is understandable that the leak caused stress and inconvenience to the resident, the landlord took appropriate steps to ensure the issue was resolved within a reasonable timeframe, in line with its repairs policy, despite the delays that were caused. The landlord also appropriately responded to the report that the work was not up to standard by completing a post inspection and reordering the work.
The landlord also correctly signposted he resident to its liability insurer to claim compensation for the damage caused to her flooring by directing her to where she could access the form and gave her the phone number to follow up her claim. It is reasonable for the landlord to have liability insurance to cover claims for negligence, as a way of managing these costs. The landlord would not be expected to consider negligence claims outside the insurance process. The Ombudsman cannot consider the actions of the landlord’s insurer or the outcome of any insurance claim in our investigation as we can only investigate the actions of the landlord.
The landlord is expected to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. Whilst the landlord has provided clear repair records, there is no record of correspondence with the resident, other than in the formal complaint responses. It is evident from internal emails that communication took place, but it appears this may not have been properly recorded as it was not provided to this Service for use in our investigation.
In the landlord’s records, there is a contradiction regarding the electrical coving. An internal email on 5 August 2021 stated that the landlord had agreed with the resident to install the electrical coving, this was then changed as the cables were “boxed in” on 8 September 2021, but there is no record of the landlord discussing this with the resident. The landlord later said that most of the delays to completing the hallway repairs were due to the resident refusing to have the wires boxed in, this has not been explained by the evidence provided. When there is a disagreement in the accounts regarding the condition of the property, the onus would be on the landlord to provide documentary evidence showing how the repair work had been completed to a satisfactory standard. As the landlord did not provide communication records between it and the resident, the Ombudsman cannot determine that the landlord’s handling of this element of repairs was reasonable. However, in this instance the discrepancy does not appear to have had a significant impact upon the resident or caused any further significant delays to the repair works as the discrepancies begin on 1 July 2021 and the wires were boxed in on 7 September 2021. It is recommended that the landlord carries out staff training and a review of its record keeping processes to ensure similar issues are avoided in the future.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s report of a leak into her property.

Reasons

The landlord adhered to its emergency time timeframes when the leak was first reported. Despite this, there were delays in the repair works being completed which were partly caused by difficulties in sourcing coving for the electrics which was beyond the landlord’s control. The landlord made the appropriate appointments to progress with the repairs and kept the resident updated.
While the landlord has clear repair records, there is not a clear log of communication with the resident. There are several discrepancies in the records regarding the electrical coving.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord carries out staff training and a review of its record keeping processes to ensure that accurate, detailed records are kept of any communication between itself and its tenants to ensure information can be provided to this Service when required for review purposes.