Leeds City Council (202122232)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122232

Leeds City Council

29 September 2023

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 handling of the resident’s kitchen replacement and associated works.
The landlord’s complaints handling has also been investigated.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident and his wife are secure tenants of the landlord with a tenancy start date of 14 June 1999. The property is a two bedroom house.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance handbook explains that it is responsible for the main fixtures and fittings provided inside the property, including kitchen fixtures and fittings and the electricity service installations.
The handbook also explains that the landlord will carry out improvement work to properties through planned programmes of work set out in its annual investment plan. Examples given are kitchen replacement and electrical rewiring.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy. Upon receipt of the complaint, the landlord will look at the issues contained within the complaint and decide whether it needs to start a full investigation or if it can resolve the issue quickly. If the issue cannot be resolved quickly, the landlord will provide a formal stage one response to the complaint within 15 working days of receipt, wherever possible. If it cannot respond within that timeframe, the landlord will provide regular updates at least every 2 weeks which will detail the reason for the delay and when the resident can expect to receive a response. If the resident remains dissatisfied following the initial investigation, it will be reviewed by a senior officer and a stage 2 response will be provided within 15 working days.

Summary of events

By way of background and context, the resident had made a previous complaint to the landlord on 18 April 2019, which was investigated by this Service, regarding its handling of repairs to remedy damp in his property and other matters.
As part of the landlord’s resolution of the resident’s complaint following that investigation, it arranged to inspect the resident’s property on 5 November 2020 and raised certain works to address outstanding repairs.
It is understood from the landlord that, at the time relevant to the resident’s present complaint, there remained an outstanding repair to the property as identified at that inspection, namely, the thermal boarding and skim of the chimney breast. An order for this work was raised by the landlord on 16 April 2021. It is understood from the landlord that the repair was postponed pending the completion of the planned upgrade works which are the subject of this complaint.
The resident’s present complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of a replacement kitchen to his property and associated works. The planned works were due to be carried out to the resident’s property in 2020 as part of a planned upgrade under the landlord’s kitchen replacement programme.
The planned works were delayed by the Covid pandemic and subsequently by the backlog of work which that caused the landlord.
In due course, the resident was notified that his property had been identified for improvement work. The landlord has provided this Service with a copy of an undated notification letter in standard form which was issued to the resident with regard to the forthcoming improvement work. The letter provided an anticipated start date of the scheme of April 2021 and is therefore presumed to have been issued to the resident prior to that date.
The notification letter provided information that:
1. the landlord may also need to rewire the property but would not know this until the electrics had been checked;
2. an asbestos survey might need to take place and that works would not start until this had been completed;
3. the resident would be contacted again by the landlord’s delivery team and contractor prior to the commencement of the work and they would arrange a start date.
On 29 April 2021, the landlord’s specialist surveyors conducted an asbestos refurbishment survey to identify the presence of asbestos containing materials (ACMs) in the property prior to refurbishment. The report noted that works to be included as part of the refurbishment included the thermal boarding of the chimney breast of the property.
The asbestos survey report was issued to the landlord on 7 June 2021. It identified the presence of ACMs in various locations in the property which were of low or very low risk. The report made recommendations regarding the management or removal of the ACMs, if required by the works.
The landlord has provided this Service with a copy of a second undated notification letter in standard form issued to the resident which informed him that contractors had been appointed to undertake a kitchen replacement and rewiring of the property with a start date of 4 October 2021. The letter is therefore presumed to have been sent prior to that date. The letter asked the resident to advise if boxes or storage were needed, upon 14 days’ notice. It advised that for properties due for a rewire, all walls in the property had to be accessible for electrical work to be undertaken.
In the month prior to the start date for the planned works on 4 October 2021, the landlord undertook various preparations in anticipation of the works as follows.
On 3 September 2021, the landlord’s Tenant Liaison Officer (TLO) completed an “induction profile pack” which was signed by the resident. Among other things, this recorded that:
1. the resident had a requirement for 20 storage boxes;
2. the timetable of work was discussed, it being noted that the work would be in 4 weeks;
3. the property was to be rewired, subject to confirmation, and this had been explained to the resident;
4. the resident was required to remove personal items and furniture away from the work areas and did not require assistance to do this;
5. the landlord’s workers would protect carpet with covers during the work but could not guarantee that there would be no damage caused;
6. tenants were advised to remove or protect floor coverings before work started and laminates were to be covered or uplifted.
On 3 September 2021, the new kitchen was designed and ordered via the landlord’s kitchen contractors.
The landlord liaised internally regarding the works required at the resident’s property. On 22 September 2021, the landlord noted in internal exchanges that there was an outstanding work order for thermal boarding to the chimney breast. The landlord noted that it would be advisable to share the start date for the kitchen and rewiring with repairs so that they could complete the repair after the planned works had been done.
Between 22 and 24 September 2021, the landlord made arrangements for the resident’s belongings to be taken into storage on the morning of 4 October 2021 and for its specialist asbestos contractors to attend the property that morning and remove ACMs prior to the planned works being carried out.
On 30 September 2021, the resident enquired of the landlord where his items would be stored.
On 1 October 2021, an electrical survey was carried out at the property by the landlord’s electrical contractors. The (undated) survey sheet produced to this Service notes, among other technical matters, that a rewire of the property was required but does not record any other comments or advice given to the resident regarding the electrical works.
According to the resident, he was informed by the electrical contractor at this visit that he would be able to carry out the rewiring by working around the resident’s belongings in the house and that nothing really needed moving. Accordingly, the resident and his wife prepared over the weekend by packing kitchen equipment into the storage boxes supplied and moved the boxes into other rooms.
On the morning of 4 October 2021, when the works were due to begin, the landlord’s notes record that its asbestos contractors attended the property as arranged to do scrapes to the ceiling to enable the rewire to take place the following day. The resident turned the contractors away stating that the work did not need doing.
The landlord’s team manager (TM) of planned works spoke to the resident on the phone that morning and decided to visit him to go through the works required. The TM met the resident that day at the property, accompanied by the landlord’s TLO.
The landlord’s records note that at the meeting the resident stated that he did not want his belongings going into storage and wanted the rewiring works to be carried out around them. The landlord’s TM explained to the resident that this could not happen and that he would need to pack up more of his belongings than he had done and that these items would need to go into storage. The landlord’s TM noted that the resident had a second bedroom in the attic which was full of belongings and that boxes stacked on the landing and lounge of the property would stop the rewiring taking place. The resident requested that he be decanted while the works took place. The landlord explained that it did not decant residents on the kitchen replacement scheme. The resident stated during the meeting that he had been told that the rewire could be done a room at a time.
The outcome of the meeting was that the works were put on hold until the resident was ready to have them done. The landlord’s note records that operatives who had attended to do plastering work could not have carried out the work due to the amount of belongings in the property.
On 22 October 2021, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. The resident complained that:
1. The electrical supervisor had told him he would be able to do the job working around the belongings in the house and nothing really needed moving. The resident had stored kitchen items in the boxes and moved them into other rooms.
2. People were turning up to do work that the resident did not know anything about.
3. People were coming out to look at asbestos when it had already been done.
4. The planned works department had called at 10:30 on the Monday morning (4 October 2021) and had said that the carpet and flooring needed to come up but the electrical supervisor had not told him that.
5. The landlord’s TM had informed him that the house would need total emptying and they would need moving to another property while the work was done and had cancelled the order on 4 October 2021. The resident was being told that no properties were empty.
6. Someone came to collect his boxes and he had had to tell them that the order was cancelled.
7. He lived in a small house and had no room. He had damp in his house and therefore was having to move boxes around the house so the damp would not affect the items in the boxes.
8. The resident had understood that the landlord had logged a complaint on his behalf but had had no correspondence over it and had had no communication.
On 23 November 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to complain about the lack of a stage 1 response to his complaint and that he had had no contact from repairs relating to the issues. The resident recorded that he had been informed someone would call and they had not. The resident had chased the landlord but no one had contacted him. He stated that he was not willing to wait for a stage 1 response and that all the issues were still outstanding.
On 6 January 2022, the resident contacted this Service having still not received a response to his complaint. The landlord was requested by this Service to respond to the resident’s complaint within 10 working days or in accordance with its complaints policy.
On 21 January 2022, the landlord provided a response to the resident’s complaint which it explained had been escalated to stage 2 of its complaints procedure:
1. It outlined the different aspects of the resident’s complaint.
2. It confirmed that the kitchen replacement and rewire work at the resident’s home, which had been booked to start in October 2021, had been unable to take place for a couple of reasons. The asbestos team had been booked in to attend to carry out some scrapes to make it safe for the electricians to work and the resident had turned them away. The resident’s belongings had not been boxed up to allow a safe working environment for the contractors.
3. With regard to the resident having been given advice by the electrical supervisor that he would not have to clear out his property, the response stated that the landlord had spoken with the electrical supervisor who had advised that this was not the case. Following his visit, the electrical supervisor had referred the property back to the main contractor as he was concerned that they would not be able to work safely in the resident’s home.
4. The landlord’s officers had attended the property that morning to address the issues of concern. It was clear that the resident’s property could not be rewired at that time and therefore the work was postponed until the landlord could agree to carry out the work. It had been agreed that the landlord would revisit it at the beginning of the year.
5. The landlord apologised if the resident felt that this had not been communicated effectively with him and hoped that the visit carried out by the landlord’s TM had clarified the works and the impact of these being carried out.
6. With regard to the new kitchen not having been fitted and the works cancelled, the landlord reiterated that it was agreed during the visit to the resident’s property that the work could not go ahead. In order for this to happen, it would be necessary for the resident to box up a number of his belongings to allow clear access to walls and ceilings throughout the property. The landlord appreciated that there was limited storage space within the resident’s home but offered to put boxes and some furniture into storage whilst the work took place. The landlord’s planned works section would contact the resident in the next 2 weeks to arrange a further visit to discuss the work required and try and get a positive outcome for all parties to allow for the works to be completed.
7. Regarding the outstanding repair works to the property that had not been carried out, the landlord confirmed that these works had been postponed until after the planned works due to the disruptive nature of the rewire and planned kitchen upgrade. The landlord stated it was committed to carrying out these works but it would be better to carry them out after the kitchen and electrical rewire.
8. With regard to the resident’s view that he should be decanted whilst the work was being carried out, the landlord stated that it was explained at the site meeting that where the works could take place whilst tenants were in situ, it would not consider a decant to another property. From the site visit it was determined that the work could be completed safely whilst the resident remained in his home.
9. With regard to the outcome sought by the resident, the landlord stated that it would like to fit the new kitchen and rewire the property. It reiterated that its planned works section would contact the resident in this regard.
10. With regard to the resident’s request for compensation for the time taken to pack away items in the kitchen to prepare for the works which were not carried out, the landlord apologised for the communication and delays in responding to the resident’s complaint. It offered the resident £100 as a goodwill gesture for the inconvenience caused.
On 3 February 2022, the resident confirmed that he wished to refer his complaint to this Service. He remained unhappy with the landlord’s final response because he did not feel that the compensation amount reflected the inconvenience caused. He did not feel the landlord had addressed his complaint properly. He did not understand why the landlord could not complete the kitchen works during the scheduled appointment and do the electrical work another day. The outcome sought by the resident was to have the kitchen fitted as soon as possible and for the landlord to offer a higher amount of compensation.

Post complaint events

It is noted from information provided by the landlord that the work to fit the resident’s kitchen and rewire the property was commenced on 11 April 2022 and finished on 3 May 2022. The outstanding works to the chimney breast were scheduled to take place following completion of the planned works, subject to a site inspection and agreement with the resident.

Assessment and findings

The landlord was responsible for the planned works at the resident’s property. It therefore fell to the landlord to plan, carry out and complete the preparatory work, kitchen replacement, re-wiring, and the outstanding repair works and decide the order in which this should be done.
The landlord’s records show that it liaised internally and planned the works between 3 September 2021 and 1 October 2021, prior to the scheduled start date of 4 October 2021.
The landlord arranged for its asbestos contractors to attend the property on the morning of 4 October 2021 to carry out work to ACMs to make it safe for its electricians to work. This was with a view to the rewiring of the property next taking place, followed by the replacement of the kitchen and finally the outstanding repair to the chimney breast.
It is understood that on the morning of 4 October 2021 the resident turned the asbestos team away, being unaware that asbestos removal works were required.
Upon learning of this, it was reasonable for the landlord to contact the resident and also attend the resident’s property that day to discuss the works required and assess the situation.
The landlord concluded from its site visit that the resident’s belongings had not been boxed up sufficiently to allow a safe working environment for the re-wire to proceed and that the works should be postponed.
The landlord’s record of the site meeting shows that it took reasonable steps to explain to the resident that the works would be postponed and the reason for this. In response to the resident’s request to be decanted, it also took steps to explain that its policy was not to decant residents on the kitchen replacement scheme, having satisfied itself that the works could be completed safely while the resident remained in his home.
It is noted that part of the resident’s complaint to this Service was that he felt the landlord could have completed the kitchen works during the scheduled appointment and do the electrical work another day. However, the landlord had responsibility for the conduct of the works and the safety of the workers carrying it out. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to take such decision as it thought fit, including the postponement of the works, based on its assessment of the situation on its site visit.
Under the circumstances, it was appropriate for the landlord to decide to reschedule the planned works for a time when it was satisfied that the work could safely proceed and when arrangements had been agreed with the resident for this to take place.
It is noted that the works duly took place in April 2022 after further liaison between the resident and the landlord.
The essence of the resident’s complaint, however, is the lack of communication and conflicting information given to him regarding the planned works. In particular:
1. The resident had understood that the rewire could be done working around his belongings in the house. At the site meeting on the day of the planned works, the landlord’s TM informed the resident that he would need to box up more of his belongings than he had done and that they would all need to be moved into storage.
2. The resident was concerned that workers were turning up to do work that he did not know anything about. The resident referred to asbestos contractors attending the property when he had understood that the asbestos had already been addressed.
3. The planned works department had called the resident at 10:30 on the morning of 4 October 2021 and informed him that the carpet and flooring needed to come up. The resident said that the electrical supervisor had not told him that.
With regard to the information provided to the resident by the landlord about the planned works, the resident was informed in the first notification letter from the landlord that an asbestos survey might need to take place and that works would not start until this had been completed. The asbestos survey was duly carried out on 29 April 2021 and the survey report issued to the landlord on 7 June 2021.
The landlord’s records do not contain any further communications with the resident regarding the further works required by its asbestos specialist contractors prior to, or as part of, the planned works. The resident, having understood the asbestos survey to have been completed, was unaware that asbestos removal works were being carried out by the landlord as part of the planned works. Consequently, he turned the workers away on the morning of 4 October 2021.
It would have been helpful, particularly given that the nature of the works was to remove ACMS, for the landlord to have clearly communicated to the resident that its asbestos contractors would be attending on the morning of 4 October 2021 to do essential work to ACMs to enable the rewire to proceed. There is no evidence in the documents produced to this Service that the landlord explained this to the resident in the various communications which took place in preparation for the planned works.
With regard to the resident’s belongings, the information provided to the resident in the landlord’s second notification letter explained that for properties due for a rewire, all walls in the property had to be accessible for electrical work to be undertaken. The induction profile pack which was completed by the landlord and signed by the resident on 3 September 2021 also stated that he was required to remove personal items and furniture away from the works areas. It was not clear from these communications that it was essential for the resident’s belongings to be packed away and placed into storage before the works could proceed.
The resident was provided with boxes for storage by the landlord following an assessment of need for 20 boxes at the time of the induction. The resident’s discussion with the electrical supervisor on 1 October 2021 led him to understand that it was not necessary to remove the boxes to storage. The resident understood that the rewire could be undertaken by working around the resident’s belongings in the house. On the basis of this understanding, the resident and his wife prepared over the weekend by packing kitchen equipment into the boxes supplied and moved the boxes into other rooms.
It is noted that the landlord’s electrical supervisor subsequently informed the landlord as part of its complaint investigations that he did not give this advice and that he had had concerns that they would not be able to work safely in the resident’s home. These communications are not referenced in the records produced by the landlord to this Service. The landlord’s records do not show any contact with the resident following the electrician’s visit to investigate the electrician’s concerns regarding safe working at the property.
This Service is not in a position to determine what was discussed or advised between the electrician and the resident on 1 October 2021 during the electrical survey. The Ombudsman’s remit is to review the contemporaneous documentary evidence from the time of the complaint to ascertain whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
What is clear is that there was a miscommunication between the landlord and resident as to what the resident was required to do with his personal belongings in order to make the work area suitable for the planned works. This was not fully or clearly explained in the information provided to the resident by the landlord beforehand.
It would have been helpful if the landlord had communicated more clearly to the resident what was required, it having the experience and understanding of what was necessary to permit the works to go ahead which the resident did not.
With regard to flooring, the information provided to the resident by the landlord in the induction profile pack advised that tenants should remove or protect floor coverings before work started and laminates were to be covered or uplifted. There was no stated requirement for carpet and flooring to come up, as the resident states he was informed on the morning of the planned works.
Overall, the landlord’s communications with the resident could have been better and clearer with regard to the nature of the works to be done, the workers who would be attending his home, and what was required from him to enable the works to proceed.
The resident was caused distress by the confusion on the day. Ultimately, the lack of proper communication contributed to the landlord’s decision to postpone the works. This meant that the resident’s new kitchen fitting was delayed by 6 months and he was inconvenienced in having boxed up belongings which he needed to accommodate in his home.
In its Stage 2 complaint response, the landlord appropriately acknowledged and apologised for its failure to communicate with the resident regarding the works. The landlord offered compensation to the resident of £100 as a gesture of goodwill for the inconvenience caused (although it is noted that this compensation was intended also to cover the landlord’s delay in responding to the resident’s complaint which is dealt with below).
The landlord’s compensation award did not offer sufficient redress given the impact on the resident. Under the circumstances, it would be reasonable and proportionate for the resident to be awarded compensation of £300 for the detriment caused to the resident by its failure properly to communicate with the resident regarding the planned works.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The resident logged a complaint with the landlord on 22 October 2021. Under the landlord’s complaints policy, it should have provided a stage 1 response within 15 working days, i.e. by 12 November 2021.
For reasons which are not clear, the landlord did not provide a response until 21 January 2022, at which time it provided a stage 2 response without a stage 1 response being provided, due to the delay.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint was therefore delayed by 10 weeks beyond its policy timescales. This delay was excessive and unreasonable. The resident was caused inconvenience in having to chase the landlord for a response during this time and this Service was required to intervene on 6 January 2022 before the landlord responded.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord appropriately acknowledged and apologised for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint. Under the circumstances, it would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £100 in respect of its complaint handling failure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s kitchen replacement and associated works.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord failed clearly to communicate with the resident regarding the works to be done at his property, the workers who would be attending his home, and what was required from him to enable the works to proceed. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s complaint within policy or reasonable timescales, to the detriment of the resident.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report;
2. Pay the resident £400 made up of:
  1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure properly to communicate with the resident regarding the planned works (inclusive of the £100 awarded through its complaints process if this has not already been paid);
  2. £100 for the failings identified in its complaint handling.
The landlord should contact this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this determination to evidence its compliance with the above orders.