Leeds City Council (202109622)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109622

Leeds City Council

29 November 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

1. The complaint refers to:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the repairs needed to the resident’s front and back doors, windows and cupboard door in her bedroom.
   2. The resident’s concerns about repairs needed to her kitchen and plastering.
   3. 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. 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 the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

The resident’s concerns about repairs needed to her kitchen and plastering.

4. Paragraph 39 (a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.
5. In her communication with this Service, the resident has raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of repairs needed to her kitchen and plastering in the property. These issues did not form part of the resident’s initial complaint to the landlord and as such, have not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. There issues are, therefore, outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider. The resident may wish to raise a separate complaint with the landlord regarding these issues, detailing why she is dissatisfied. She may then contact the Ombudsman once the complaint has exhausted the landlord’s internal procedure. 

Background and summary of events

6. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a three-bedroom house.
7. The landlord’s records show that on 28 July 2020 a repair order was raised as the resident had reported that her walk in cupboard had no door. The landlord’s records suggest that this work was completed in early September 2020, however, it does not specify what was done. The records suggest that the resident had also raised concerns about a draught through her external doors and windows around this time and repairs had been raised. It is unclear from the evidence provided as to what work was completed and when. The records suggest that further repair appointments were raised in November 2020 regarding the windows and the cupboard door but it is unclear from the evidence provided as to whether the works were carried out.
8. The resident raised a complaint on 11 December 2020 as follows:
   1. The landlord’s repairs team were taking too long to complete the repairs or had not logged them correctly. The front bedroom window needed renewing as it let in the cold, the back-bedroom window and living room window were stiff when opening and closing. There were further repairs required to her front and back door, which had no threshold. Her heating had been wasted by the cold air entering her property. Another repair was required to her bedroom as the cupboard in the room had no door and she had reported this on 2 November 2020.
   2. A surveyor had attended in August 2020 and said that her drains needed some work, but she had heard nothing since. Contractors had attended on 4 December 2020 to oil one of the external doors but there was still no threshold. Slugs were entering the property which was affecting her physical and mental health and she wanted the repairs completed as soon as possible.
9. In its stage one response of 29 December 2020, the landlord acknowledged that a surveyor had attended the property previously. It said that it would like to send another surveyor to the property on 6 January 2021 to ensure that the correct orders for repairs were raised. It asked the resident to point out all the repair issues on the visit. The landlord confirmed that the resident could request to escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied with its response.
10. A repair job was raised on 4 February 2021 to renew the resident’s front door as this had been broken in by the police.
11. The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 12 April 2021 over the phone and explained the following:
    1. No repairs had been carried out since her stage one complaint. Some repairs were raised and completed, in July/August 2020, but the issues with the windows and doors had not been addressed. There was also an issue with the built-in cupboard door in the bedroom.
    2. No work had been completed to the back door and her front door which had been broken by the police in February 2021. She had not been informed as to when the repair would be completed. She was initially told four weeks, then 6 -12. The contractor responsible could now not provide a date as the doors had not been made. She had asked for a new repair to be raised for the back door as nothing had been done and the door handle was now becoming loose.
    3.  With regard to the windows, no work had been done to the small front window. A large air vent had been installed to the kitchen window which was too big and scratching the paint work on either side of the window.
12. An operative attended on 6 May 2021 to inspect the windows and doors in the property. They reported that the only issue they found was the front bedroom window which they had raised a repair for.
13. The evidence shows that the landlord issued its stage two complaint response to the resident on 11 May 2021 as follows:
    1. It apologised for the delay in completing repairs, stated that the front door was installed on 19 April 2021 and the resident had said she was pleased with it.
    2. A further visit from a surveyor was due to take place on 14 May 2021 to view the windows in the property and refer works to its planned maintenance team. It would raise repairs in the meantime to reduce the draught by renewing the seals around the window frames.
14. The landlord has advised that a work order to renew the door to the cupboard was raised on 14 May 2021 and was completed on 2 June 2021. However, a repair order was raised on 18 August 2021 in regard to the missing door to the resident’s walk-in cupboard. There is no evidence to confirm whether this work had been completed.
15. The repair to the threshold of the rear door was raised on 29 June 2021 and completed on 22 July 2021. The repair order for the front bedroom window hinges was initially raised in January 2021 and appears to have been completed in early August 2021.
16. The resident contacted the landlord on 13 September 2021 and said that the door to the built-in cupboard in her bedroom had been removed years prior due to damp and mould and asked for the doors to be put back on as they were there when she began her tenancy. There is no further evidence to confirm whether this work has since been completed.
17. The landlord wrote to the resident on 20 October 2021 and explained that the information provided in its stage two complaint response was incorrect. It said that on inspection, it was verbally confirmed to the resident that apart from the front bedroom window, all the others were fully functional and no further works were required. It said that it had not referred the resident’s windows to its home improvement scheme as the windows were less than ten years old and no major issues or defects were evidence at the time of the visit. It apologised for any inconvenience this had caused.
18. The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she remained dissatisfied that the landlord had not attended to repair her windows as promised and they were difficult to open and close. The cupboard door in her bedroom had not been repaired. She also raised concerns with the landlord’s handling of repairs to her kitchen, internal doors and plastering.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

19. The resident has said she considers that the issues affecting her property have impacted her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments.  However, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the repair issues and the resident’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord.

Repairs to the  front and back doors, windows and cupboard door

20. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it would be responsible for repairs to external doors and windows, including window sills, frames, and glazing. In line with the landlord’s repairs policy timescales, general repairs should be completed within 20 working days. It would not be responsible for replacing parts just because they are old, as long as they are in working order.
21. In this case, the resident had raised concerns about the threshold of her back door, a draught through the windows in the property and her front door, and an internal built-in cupboard door which had previously been removed by the landlord. The records suggest that the landlord had been made aware of the repair issues in mid to late 2020 and some repair appointments had been reported as completed. However, it is unclear from the evidence as to what actions were taken and it is clear that the resident continued to report these issues.
22. In its correspondence with this Service, the landlord has advised that each repair was handled in line with its timescales once raised. However, the repair records provided do not clearly show when the repairs were first brought to the landlord’s attention, when they were completed or what action was taken on each repair appointment. The works to the windows, doors and threshold did not appear to have been completed until July/August 2021. The evidence provided, therefore, does not confirm that the repairs were completed within reasonable timescales by the landlord. Furthermore, despite the resident raising concerns about her internal cupboard door as part of her complaint in December 2020, the evidence shows that she continued to pursue this matter in September 2021, indicating that the issue had not been resolved. There is no evidence to confirm whether the missing internal cupboard door has now been rectified.
23. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have explained any delays to the resident and to have attempted to carry out the works within its policy timescales following her reports in December 2020. There is no evidence to suggest that the resident was made aware of the reasons for any repair delays and she was not offered an apology for the delays until the landlord’s stage two complaint response in May 2021.
24. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case which indicates poor record keeping by the landlord. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. The onus would be on the landlord to provide documentary evidence showing how it satisfied itself that the repair work had been completed to a satisfactory standard. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
25. In summary, there has been service failure by the landlord in that it has not demonstrated that it had acted in line with its policies and procedures for handling repairs. This is likely to have caused the resident significant inconvenience as there is a lack of evidence to demonstrate that the landlord had communicated effectively with her during this time and there were delays in carrying out her repair requests. The landlord also sent surveyors to the property on multiple occasions but it appears that the repairs were only carried out following an inspection in May 2021. 
26. In view of the above, the landlord should offer compensation to the resident for the inconvenience caused by needing to follow-up with the landlord on multiple occasions and the delays in completing the works. The landlord should also provide an update to the resident regarding her request for an internal door for the built-in wardrobe in her bedroom. The landlord should ensure this work is carried out within the timescales set out in its repairs policy. It is recommended that the landlord conducts a review of its record keeping processes, ensuring that there is a clear audit trail for repairs and communication, which provides details of specifically when contact was made, what was said and what the agreed next steps and expectations were. As well as when repair issues were first reported, what actions were completed on the repair appointment and when the work was reported as completed.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

27. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it has a two-stage complaints procedure. At stage one, a response should be issued within 15 working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage two. At stage two, a response should be issued within 15 working days. The policy states that the stage two (review response) should look at how the original complaint was dealt with and respond to any further related issues.
28. In line with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code, the landlord would be expected to address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate. Where something has gone wrong a landlord should acknowledge this, provide an explanation and set out the actions it has already taken, or intends to take, to put things right. For example, where there was an unreasonable delay or where the landlord’s policy or procedure was not followed correctly without good reason. If warranted, the landlord would be expected to offer redress to the resident, which may include compensation or other actions.
29. In this case, the landlord issued its complaint responses within reasonable timescales. However, it has not demonstrated that it took adequate steps to investigate the resident’s concerns or explain its position to her. At stage one, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have set out what happened, for example when the resident first raised the repair issues, the actions it had previously taken and repairs it had completed. It should have also identified what went wrong and explained why the issues had not been previously resolved or offered a suitable remedy in view of the inconvenience caused. Whilst it may have been reasonable for the landlord to arrange for another surveyor to visit, the landlord failed to investigate why the previous reports of repairs had not been addressed.
30. At stage two, the landlord would have had the opportunity to identify any issues by looking at how the original complaint was dealt with in line with its policy.  it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have set out what had happened since its stage one complaint response in December 2020, including the steps it had taken to resolve the resident’s initial concerns and an explanation of the delays which had occurred since the resident’s initial reports or repairs. It acknowledged that the resident had experienced delays and apologised for this but did not provide explanations or offer redress to the resident.
31. The Ombudsman would have expected to have seen evidence that the landlord had considered each aspect of the complaint with clear reference to any relevant evidence to support its position. The landlord would have been expected to explain what had happened and identify any service failures in the handling of the resident’s repair requests. It would also have been expected to identify points of learning to ensure that similar service failures did not occur in future.
32. There has been service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint in that it failed to fully address the resident’s complaint in its responses. In this case, the landlord has not demonstrated that it took adequate steps to investigate the resident’s concerns or explain its position to her. As such, it has failed to provide a satisfactory response to the complaint.
33. In view of this, the landlord should offer the resident compensation for the inconvenience caused by its failure to fully address her complaint. The landlord should also conduct a review of the resident’s complaint to identify points of learning and reviews its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of its complaints policy to prevent similar service failures occurring in the future.

Determination (decision)

34. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the repairs needed to the resident’s front and back doors, windows and cupboard door in her bedroom.
35. In accordance with paragraph 39 (a) of the Scheme, the resident’s concerns about repairs needed to her kitchen and plastering is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider due to the reasons provided in paragraphs 4 and 5 (above) of this report.
36. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

37. The landlord has not demonstrated that it had acted in line with its policies and procedures for handling repairs. This is likely to have cause the resident significant inconvenience as there is a lack of evidence to demonstrate that the landlord had communicated effectively with her during this time or provided updates on the status of her repairs. There were also delays in carrying out her repair requests and no evidence to confirm whether the replacement of the internal cupboard door had been completed.
38. Whilst the landlord responded in line with its policy timescales, it did not satisfactorily respond to the resident’s complaint or demonstrate effective dispute resolution.  The landlord failed to address what happened or explain why there had been a delay in completing repairs which had previously been reported.

Orders

39. The Ombudsman orders that the following actions are taken within four weeks:
    1. The landlord is to pay the resident £250 compensation, comprised of:
       1. £150 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its handling of her repair requests and its record keeping.
       2. £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling.
    2. The landlord is to conduct a review of the resident’s complaint to identify points of learning. A copy of this review should be sent to both the resident and the Ombudsman.
    3. The landlord should also provide an update to the resident regarding her request for an internal door for the built-in wardrobe in her bedroom. Any identified work should be carried out within the timescales set out in its repairs policy.

Recommendations

40. It is recommended that the landlord review its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of its complaints policy to seek to prevent a recurrence of its above service failures. This should include consideration of this Service’s guidance on remedies at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/corporate-information/policies/dispute-resolution/policy-on-remedies/ and the completion of our free online dispute resolution training for landlords, if this has not been done recently, at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords/e-learning/;
41. It is recommended that the landlord conducts a review of its record keeping processes, ensuring that there is a clear audit trail for repairs and communication, which provides details of when contact was made, what was said, agreed next steps and expectations. It should also specify when repair issues were first reported, what actions were completed on the repair appointment and when the work was reported as completed.
42. It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident regarding her concerns related to its handling of her kitchen and plastering repairs and raises a formal complaint on her behalf accordingly as she remains dissatisfied.