Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Leeds City Council (202111771)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111771

Leeds City Council

28 February 2022


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 the landlord’s handling of a wide range of repairs at the resident’s property.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a two bedroomed ground floor flat in a low-rise block of similar properties. The tenancy start date was 16 November 2020.
  2. The landlord’s repair logs show a repair log for the installation of outside lights at the property. The work job was added on 4 December 2020 with an expected completion date of 14 March 2021.
  3. On 15 December 2020 the landlord’s records recorded the following “Customer is stating that the bathroom and kitchen are dirty and old fashioned, worn out and need replacing…advised unable to order items be repaired/renewed because of these reasons but is able to raise as separate repairs if damaged. Customer requesting replacements/re-fit and would like to speak to housing officer regarding this.” There is a further note on 18 December stating that the landlord had left a voicemail asking the resident to call back to discuss her kitchen.
  4. The landlord’s records also show that an emergency repair was raised and actioned on 21 December 2020 to repair metal vents on the door, as the resident’s son required hospital treatment after cutting himself on them. Other than a report of a leak on 22 February 2021, that was resolved on 24 February 2021, there are no further records of any repairs or customer contact until 9 April 2021, when the resident raised a complaint.
  5. On 9 April 2021 the resident rang the landlord to make a complaint. She raised a number of issues including that the bathroom door hinges were rotten, the kitchen was old and that there was no working extractor fan, “just a hole with a grid on” where the extractor fan should be. She said the shower room was unusable, and her son had fallen three times (in the shower room). She complained that she was told five months previously that the “letterbox door” would be replaced after her son cut his finger on it, and that she was still awaiting repairs to the outside lights. She explained that she had been expecting a surveyor to visit to investigate all of these issues.
  6. The landlord issued its stage one response on 26 April 2021. It explained that there was no record of a surveyor visit being requested but that it would send out its technical officer to inspect the property. It explained that he would inspect the kitchen and shower room and arrange for any required repairs to be completed. However, the age of the kitchen alone was not a reason to replace it, as it had been assessed as meeting its lettable standard. It further explained that the property had been advertised as having a wet floor shower. The resident had accepted it on that basis and was residing in the property at that time so was aware of the bathing facilities before she signed the tenancy agreement.
  7. The landlord added that it would also inspect the letterbox and air vent of the door and, if necessary, repair them and possibly replace the metal vent with a plastic alternative. It explained that the work on the outside lights had been delayed as an asbestos test was needed first, and that it had asked its contractor to prioritise this and arrange an appointment to fit the lights.
  8. It is not entirely clear from the records, but the technical officer’s visit appears to have happened at the end of April 2021, because the landlord’s records show that on 28 April 2021 a number of repairs were raised, including repairs for the bathroom door frame, passage door frame and door refit. These repairs had a target completion date of 6 August 2021 and are recorded as being completed on 8 May 2021. Repairs to the bathroom fan and light were also raised on 28 April 2021 with a target completion date of 6 August 2021 and are recorded as completed on 15 May 2021. On 10 May 2021 the records show a work job was raised to replace the bathroom fan. This was recorded as completed on 29 May 2021. 
  9. The resident escalated her complaint via telephone on 25 May 2021. The landlord’s records say that she told them that the only repairs that had been completed since the landlord’s visit were to the bathroom fan and the loose hinges on the doors, which had now come loose again. She also reported that her kitchen light went out when she used the fan in the bathroom. She explained that the bathroom was old, and the floor had no grip, that she needed something safer, and that the taps sometimes seized up. She also noted that the toilet was “filthy” and hanging off the wall, and that ants were coming into the house via a hole in the wall where the TV aerial was.
  10. The repairs records show that on 18 June 2021 repairs were raised for the aerial socket, to install a kitchen fan and to check the light being affected by the bathroom fan. A repair raised that day to remove the shower screen says “do not replace, make good”. The target completion date for all repairs was 29 September 2021. However, no completion date has been recorded. The repairs still show as “open” (as of 9 November 2021, the date the landlord sent them to this Service). A repair was also booked on 21 June 2021 that says “repair fan” however this is showing as cancelled.
  11. The landlord issued its stage two response on 22 June 2021. It explained that the order for the kitchen fan was put on hold due to problems with its contractor fulfilling the order but had now been raised with its in-house supplier. It confirmed that it would be replacing the shower unit, and that “The Technical Officer who attended previously has confirmed that this order should have been raised following the previous visit, and [it apologised] that this order appears to have been missed in error”. The landlord explained that the rest of the bathroom and the kitchen would not be replaced as they were in a lettable condition, and that any such replacements take place as part of a planned programme (of refurbishment). It would, however, be replacing the shower unit as that had been deemed necessary.
  12. The landlord said that the outdoor lights repairs had been put on hold awaiting an asbestos test, and its records showed that the repair had then been completed on 30 April 2021. It apologised if that was not the case. It also advised that it was arranging a priority order to check the bathroom fan (that was affecting the kitchen lighting), and arranging for the technical officer to visit the property to assess the quality of all of the repairs, and to raise further repair orders if necessary. It gave details of how to contact this Service if the resident remained dissatisfied.
  13. The resident contacted this Service on 20 August 2021. On 3 September 2021 she said that there were still outstanding repairs, including the outdoor lights, the shower, the kitchen fan and the toilet. The resident also reported repair issues in her son’s bedroom including a faulty window lock and holes that ants were entering the property through.
  14. On 9 November 2021 the landlord confirmed to this Service that the kitchen fan had been replaced on 26 September 2021, and that during a conversation with the resident on 21 October 2021 she confirmed that the outstanding issues were the shower not working, the toilet coming loose from the wall, the broken letterbox and the outside lights. As a result, the landlord had raised repairs on 21 October 2021 for a new letterbox (the door itself would not be replaced), the toilet, and the outside lights.
  15. The landlord explained that it changed contractors on 1 July 2021, and that the previous contractor had incorrectly marked the outside lights repair as completed on 30 April 2021, so the repair never got transferred to the new contractor. It noted that after its stage two complaint response was issued the pump of the wet floor shower had required repairs, and when the same issue reoccurred on 23 September 2021 it made the decision to replace the full wet floor shower room. The replacement was booked as a four-day appointment from 13 to 16 December 2021.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy lists its response time to general repairs such as hanging doors and fixing cupboards as 20 working days. It also lists batched repairs (those that may need time to order or manufacture materials or require a pre-inspection) as having a response time of 60 days. It also states that priority repairs (that seriously affect tenants’ comfort or cause damage to the property), such as a non-working extractor fan should be completed in seven working days, and that priority repairs such as plumbing/drainage faults or partial loss of power should be completed in three working days. Emergency repairs such as uncontrollable leaks should be responded to within 3 hours and completed within 24 hours.
  2. In her complaint to the Ombudsman the resident reported that additional repairs were needed in her son’s bedroom These repairs included a faulty window lock and holes that ants were entering the property through. There was no record of them having been reported to the landlord during the complaints process. In accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman is unable to consider complaints about matters which have not yet exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. For this reason, the Ombudsman has not considered the resident’s reports of repairs needed in her son’s bedroom in this complaint. The resident would need to raise those issues with the landlord as a separate complaint.
  3. The resident initially reported her concerns about what she considered to be the poor condition of her bathroom and kitchen on 15 December 2020. The landlord’s response to this report was reasonable as it called her and left a message asking her to call back to discuss the issues she had raised. There is no record of the resident calling back at that time.
  4. The resident raised a complaint on 9 April 2021. She explained that the kitchen was old with no working extractor fan, the shower room was unusable, she was told five months earlier that her letterbox door would be replaced, and it hadn’t been. She also explained that she was still waiting for the outside lights to be repaired. She advised that she had been expecting a surveyor to come out to address the issues she ha raised previously.
  5. In response, the landlord explained that it had no record of agreeing to arrange a surveyor, but that it would send out a technical officer to investigate the issues she had raised about the kitchen, shower room and letterbox door and arrange appointment to address any repairs that were identified. This was reasonable as the landlord’s position was supported by its records from December 2020, which do not show that a surveyor was discussed or booked but do show that the landlord left an answerphone message asking the resident to call it to discuss the issues she had raised.
  6. The landlord’s response also explained that the reason the fitting of the outside lights had been delayed was because the contractors had identified that an asbestos survey needed to be carried out first. It said it would chase this up with them. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the expertise of its contractors in relation to possible asbestos, and it was appropriate that it had agreed to contact them to chase up the asbestos survey appointment once it became aware the issues was outstanding.
  7. The landlord explained on several occasions that it would not replace the resident’s kitchen purely because it was of an older style. This was reasonable as it was in line with its repairs policy which states, “Our repairs service will not repair or replace parts…just because they are old: as long as parts are working properly, they will not be repaired or replaced.”
  8. The landlord’s actions following the complaint were appropriate as it sent out a technical officer to visit the property to identify if any repairs were needed. It also acted appropriately when, on 28 April 2021, following the inspection it raised repairs for the bathroom door, passage door and the bathroom fan, as these repairs had been identified during the inspection. It is not apparent why, repairs were not raised at that time for the kitchen fan and the shower unit too, as they had also been identified during the inspection. The landlord’s records show that no repair jobs for the kitchen fan and shower unit were raised at that point.
  9. On 25 May 2021 the resident escalated her complaint due to her concerns about the amount and quality of work that had been done. She also included issues about the bathroom fan affecting the kitchen lighting, a problem with the toilet, and a pest problem. There is no record of those issues having been reported previously.
  10. The landlord responded to both the resident’s quality concerns and new repair reports by raising a repair job to investigate the issue of the bathroom fan affecting the kitchen light, and by sending its technical officer to visit again. This was an appropriate response as the technical officer would also be able to determine whether any additional repairs were needed and the resident had not reported any problems with the toilet or pests previously. A landlord can only respond to repair requests once they have been reported. 
  11. The landlord advised that its records showed the repair for the outside lights was resolved. After the end of the complaints process the landlord discovered that the repair job had been closed by its contractors in error. The landlord’s explanation was based on the information it had at the time, but it is also responsible for the actions of its contractors. In this case, the error caused a significant delay in the repair to the outside lights.
  12. In its complaint response the landlord apologised and explained that due to an error on its part, there had been a delay in raising an order for a replacement shower unit but that it had now raised a new order. The apology was appropriate as the error had resulted in a delay of approximately two months in the replacement being ordered. However, when she contacted this Service on 3 September 2021, the resident said that the shower had still not been replaced. The landlord advised us on 9 November 2021 that following further repair issues it had decided to completely replace the wet floor shower room and that the work was scheduled for 13-16 December 2021. As the order for the replacement shower unit should have been raised after the inspection at the end of April 2021, the total timeframe for the shower to be replaced was over seven months which is far outside any of the timeframes stated in the landlord’s repair policy. There was therefore a significant failing by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the shower unit in the property.
  13. In its stage two response the landlord also explained that the kitchen extractor fan had not yet been repaired due to issues with its contractor. However, the kitchen extractor fan was classed as a priority repair that should have been completed within seven working days, as per the repair policy. Regardless of the reasons for the delay, it was for the landlord to ensure that the repair was resolved as quickly as possible, especially given its priority status. The kitchen extractor fan was eventually replaced on 26 September 2021, which was over five months from the date of the resident’s first report. Nothing in the evidence explains the excessive delay.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the resident’s property.


Reasons

  1. The landlord did not act in line with its repair policy when the resident reported that there was no working extractor fan in the kitchen in her complaint on 9 April 2021. It should have been treated as a priority repair and completed in seven working days. Instead, it took approximately five months for a working extractor fan to be fitted in the kitchen.
  2. The landlord did not act in line with its repair policy after it identified that the shower unit needed to be replaced, and the actions of its contractors caused a significant delay to the repairs of the outside lights

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within six weeks of the date of this decision the landlord is ordered:
    1. To pay the resident £250 in recognition of the significant repair delays and the inconvenience caused to the resident.
    2. To contact the resident to confirm that the outstanding repairs to the shower, toilet, letterbox and outside lights that were referred to in this complaint have now been completed, or provide clear and firm deadlines for when they will be completed.
  2. Evidence of compliance with these orders must be provided to this Service within six weeks of the date of this report.