Leeds City Council (202201900)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201900

Leeds City Council

4 May 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:
1. Concerns about the work completed on the fascia boards.
2. Request for a meter cupboard door to be replaced.
3. Request for an outbuilding door to be replaced.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a three-bedroom house. The landlord does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. However the resident has told this Service that he has depression and anxiety.
The resident’s tenancy agreement sets out that the landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining the structure and exterior of the dwelling house. The tenancy agreement defines the dwelling house as the part of the building used as the residence. It states that this does not include gardens, communal areas or outbuildings, whether attached or detached from the main dwelling house.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy sets out timescales for different categories of repairs. It says:
1. Batch repairs, which are described as non-urgent repairs that may require pre-inspection or time to order or manufacture materials, should be completed in 60 days.
The landlord uses a repairs contractor to manage its general repairs. In this report this contractor is referred to as “the repairs contractor”. The contractor used by the landlord to replace the resident’s meter cupboard door has been referred to as “the door contractor”.

Summary of events

On 11 November 2021 the landlord raised work to sand and paint the fascia and barge boards, and repair a fall pipe, at the resident’s property. On 15 December 2021 the landlord recorded a complaint from the resident about this outstanding work as he said he had been waiting since 11 November 2021 for someone to contact him.
On 22 December 2021 the landlord’s repairs contractor reported to the landlord that workmen had attended the resident’s property and that the resident was unhappy the fascia boards were not to be replaced.
The landlord’s technical officer responded to the repairs contractor on 4 January 2022. He said he had inspected the fascia boards and considered these only needed painting. He said renewal of the fascia boards would require unnecessary roofing work.
On 6 January 2022 the repairs contractor corresponded with the landlord regarding contact with the resident about work completed to paint his fascia boards the previous day. They noted the resident said:
1. The fascia board had not been sanded before being painted.
2. The contractors had dripped paint onto the door of his meter cupboard and the handle of his door, which the resident had needed to clean off.
3. A hole had been left in his meter cupboard door.
The repairs contractor noted the resident’s estate was undergoing green refurbishment which including a re-roofing scheme. It said any repairs to the fascia boards would be temporary/superficial to ensure properties were wind and water tight until work under the roofing scheme was completed.
Later on 6 January 2022, in correspondence with the repairs contractor, the landlord’s technical officer said he had attended the resident’s propertyto inspect the work on the fascia boards. The technical officer said he agreed with the resident’s concerns about the quality of the work as the fascia and barge boards had not been sanded and paint had been left on the meter cupboard door. The technical officer noted a hole in the meter cupboard door, probably caused during the works.
The technical officer also noted:
1. There was a rotten section at the end of the barge board, which was apparent when he had probed, but the rest of the fascia and barge boards were fine.
2. He had told the resident the fascia boards were due to be replaced under a roofing programme on the estate and the resident had confirmed he was content to wait for this.
3. He told the resident he would try to find out when work under the roofing programme would likely begin.
4. He would raise an order for renewing the meter cupboard door and for easing the outhouse door.
5. There was no need to recall the contractor regarding repainting or cleaning the paint spills.
On 7 January 2022 the landlord raised a work order to renew the meter cupboard door and ease the outhouse door. The same day the landlord recorded that it had spoken to the resident to provide a stage one response to the complaint he raised on 15 December 2021. The landlord noted:
1. The resident was dissatisfied with the quality of the work completed to the fascia and barge boards and had said paint had been left everywhere, and the contractor had been asked to reattend to resolve the issue.
2. The resident was content that the fascia boards were to be replaced under the roofing scheme and was aware this may not be done until March or April 2022.
The landlord recorded it had partially upheld the resident’s complaint and that learning to be taken from the complaint was to ensure the work was of a satisfactory standard and to communicate with the resident about repairs.
The resident complained to the landlord on 25 January 2022 about the lack of communication he had received about what was happening about his meter cupboard and outhouse door. The resident also said he was still waiting for someone to contact him about the issues he raised about the standard of work on the fascia boards and the mess that had been left.
On 31 January 2022 the landlord contacted the door contractor to request an update. In response, the same day, the door contractor stated that it was a new order and it was still to complete a survey.
On 2 February 2022 the landlord’s repairs contractor contacted the technical officer. It said it had been in contact with the resident that day and he had questioned whether the fascia boards were due to be replaced. If not, he wanted something to be done about the condition the fascia boards had been left in. It also noted the resident had queried whether the meter cupboard and outhouse door were both to be replaced.
The landlord’s technical officer responded to the repairs contractor the same day stating that the replacement of the fascia boards was due to be dealt with by the roofing team. He said the repairs contractor only needed to progress the issues with the meter cupboard and outhouse doors.
On 14 February 2022, after the landlord requested an update, the door contractor responded that it was still waiting for the landlord to confirm which door at the resident’s property needed to be replaced. In response the landlord stated that the meter cupboard door needed replacing and the outhouse door needed to be eased.
Later that day the landlord recorded the resident had called and said:
1. He had been told someone would attend to look at the outhouse door on 17 March 2022, and he was concerned he had been told this door was not being replaced, just eased.
2. The door contractor had told him when it attended his property that the outhouse door needed replacing, and the resident wanted to know why this could not be done.
Also on14 February 2022 the resident complained to the landlord about the lack of communication he had received about what was happening with the fascia boards. He said that he had been in contact with the contractor about the matter that day but had not been able to speak to anyone about it. He said if someone would just speak to him to let him know what was happening, then he would not need to escalate matters.
On 15 and 16 February 2022 there was correspondence between the repairs contractor and the landlord about the door contractor’s request, on 14 February, for an asbestos report to be provided. However, there is no evidence the landlord made a referral for an asbestos check at this time or established if a suitable asbestos report already existed.
On 25 February 2022 the landlord issued its stage one response to the resident’s complaint about the meter cupboard and outhouse door. It apologised for the lack of communication he had received about these repairs. It said the meter cupboard door was to be replaced, and the outhouse door eased so the resident could open and close it. The landlord said it could not confirm a date this work would take place as its contractor required an asbestos survey to be undertaken. The landlord said this could take 60 working days to complete so the work order should be completed by 1 April 2022.
The landlord also stated that when it became aware of the issues with the quality of the work to the fascia boards it had discussed this matter with the contractor. However, the landlord said no further action was being taken as the fascia boards were now due to be renewed under the roofing scheme.
On 28 February 2022 the resident made contact with the landlord by telephone. He expressed annoyance that, after previously been told by a contractor that the outhouse door would be replaced, the landlord was now saying it would only carry out work to ease the door. The resident said he considered that a new door was needed.
On 8 March 2022 the door contractor made contact with the repairs contractor. It said the door now ready but it was still awaiting the asbestos report previously requested.
The landlord provided its stage two response to the resident’s complaint about the meter cupboard and outhouse doors on 10 March 2022. It said:
1. Its technical officer had placed a work order on 7 January 2022 to renew the door and frame of the meter cupboard, and for the outhouse door to be eased. The order should be completed by 1 April 2022 after the asbestos survey.
2. With regards to the outhouse door, it was acting within the guidance of the resident’s tenancy agreement which set out what was considered to be part of the main dwelling house, and it had agreed to ease the outhouse door as a goodwill gesture.
The landlord recorded telephone contact with the resident on 25 March 2022 about the meter door. It recorded that the resident had spoken to the repairs contractor and the landlord a number of times over the previous week and it had told the resident the asbestos report would be sent to the door contractor as soon as possible. The landlord said that work to replace the meter door was not urgent as it was not a danger or high priority.
On 4 April 2022 the landlord raised an order for the repairs contractor to renew the fascia and barge boards at the resident’s property. The landlord subsequently told this Service that the planned programme to re-roof the resident’s estate had been cancelled due to insufficient funding.
On 13 April 2022 the repairs contractor told the landlord that the door contractor was still waiting for an asbestos report. On 19 April 2022 the repairs contractor again contacted the landlord stating an asbestos report, from 2014, had now been received and passed to the door contractor. It said the door contractor had seen from this report that insulation within the meter cupboard would need to be removed under licence before the new door could be fitted.
On 20 April 2022 the landlord provided a stage two response to the residentregarding his concerns about the work completed to the fascia boards. It apologised to the resident for the delay in providing him with a formal complaint response.
The landlord said its contractor had previously completed work to the fascia boards that had been directed by the landlord. However, it said a routine work order had now been logged to renew the fascia boards, and this was expected to be completed on 29 April 2022.
The landlord also noted that the resident had raised concerns about the lack of communication. It said it had not intentionally kept the resident in the dark in relation to the works and it apologised that the resident had needed to raise complaints and chase work.
On 4 May 2022 a specialist contractor removed asbestos from the resident’s meter cupboard in preparation for the installation of the new door. The landlord’s repair records, and correspondence from the door contractor, indicate the new meter cupboard door was installed the same day.
Subsequently, a senior asbestos officer for the landlord noted he had requested an updated asbestos report, but that it had not been necessary to hold up work to the meter door as the existing asbestos report from 2014 was sufficient.
The resident said in correspondence with this Service that work to the fascia boards was completed in April 2022, however, the completion of this work is not documented in the landlord’s repair records. The landlord provided photos to this Service of an inspection it carried out after this work was completed.
The resident told this Service that he waited months for the meter cupboard door to be replaced. The resident said the repairs contractor had put a piece of wood over the hole in the meter cupboard but he considered it was dangerous to leave the meter cupboard door in the condition it was in for such a length of time.
The resident also told this Service he wanted the landlord to pay him compensation for the delay in carrying out the work to his fascia boards and meter cupboard door, and for lack of care and communication he had received. He said he kept being told by the landlord that an asbestos report needed to be completed but he believed this had done before. The resident also said the landlord had loosened the hinge on his outhouse door but it had not remedied the issue.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s concerns about work completed on the fascia boards

Following the concerns the resident raised about the quality of the work on the fascia boards, the action of the landlord, by arranging to inspect this work, was appropriate. The landlord’s technical officer agreed with the resident’s concerns about the quality of the work but told the resident the fascia boards would now be replaced under the roofing scheme, which the resident appeared content to wait for.
However, it is clear there was some confusion about whether the contractor would be attending to clean up paint spills on the meter cupboard door. While the technical officer noted that the contractor need not return, it is apparent that the resident was still expecting the landlord to arrange for this to be done. He raised this matter in his contact with the landlord on 7 and 25 January 2022.
The landlord may have considered it was not necessary to do this work as it had agreed to replace the meter cupboard door, but at that point the resident had been given no timescale for when this might happen. It was not unreasonable for him to expect the landlord to clean paint spills on the door in the meantime. If the landlord was not going to arrange this, it should have clearly told the resident this. Instead it indicated to the resident on 7 January 2022 that the contractor had been recalled to resolve the issue. This was a failing in the landlord’s handling of this matter that caused inconvenience to the resident, with him spending time and trouble chasing the matter.
The landlord told the resident the fascia boards would be replaced under the roofing scheme, and gave him an approximate date of March or April 2022 for this work. In the event, the roofing scheme was cancelled due to lack of funding. While the landlord could not have foreseen this scheme was to be cancelled, it is apparent that the lack of communication the resident received about this aggravated matters. This was appropriately acknowledged by the landlord in its stage two response to the resident of 20 April 2022, and it apologised to the resident for this. It was undoubtedly frustrating for the resident that he needed to chase and complain to the landlord and its repairs contractor about when the work to the fascia boards would be completed. The landlord did eventually confirm this in its response of 20 April 2022. Overall, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the work completed on the fascia boards.
The resident has confirmed the work to remedy issues with the fascia boards was completed in April 2022, but this Service notes the completion of this work was not documented in repair records. While photos were provided, which the landlord said were taken during a subsequent inspection of this work, the extent of work completed to the fascia and barge boards is not clear. The landlord had noted in January 2022 that it had identified a section of the barge board that was rotten but, because the subsequent work completed has not been properly documented, it is not clear how this issue has been addressed. A recommendation has been made to the landlord in relation to this matter.

Request for a meter cupboard door to be replaced.

The landlord’s technical officer agreed to replace the resident’s meter cupboard door that had been damaged during the work carried out on the fascia boards, and a work order was raised on 7 January 2022.
The replacement of the resident’s meter cupboard door fell into the category of “batch repair” in that it was non-urgent and would require pre-inspection and time for the manufacture of the replacement door. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy sets out a timescale of 60 days for this type of repair. This Service notes that in its complaint response the landlord referred to a timescale of 60 working days. A recommendation has therefore been made for the landlord review its repairs and maintenance policy to ensure its staff are clear about the timescale for completing batch repairs.
In its stage two response to the resident the landlord stated it would need to allow until 1 April 2022 for the work to replace the door due to the need for an asbestos report to be completed. However, records show that despite the door contractor requesting the asbestos report on 14 February 2022, it was still waiting for this to be provided on 13 April 2022. As the landlord used an asbestos report that had been completed in in 2014, it was unreasonable that it took so long for this to be provided to the door contractor.
It was inevitably going to take some time for the work to be completed to replace the resident’s meter cupboard door, given that this door needed to be manufactured, and as work need to be completed to remove insulation from this cupboard under license. However, the landlord’s failure to provide the asbestos report already in its possession unnecessarily delayed the completion of this work. The work was not completed until early May 2022, approximately four months after the works were raised by the landlord and one month after the timescale given in the stage two complaint response. This delay caused the resident distress and inconvenience. His frustration about the delay in this work being completed is apparent from his contact with the landlord and the repairs contractor. Having been given a date of 1 April 2022 for this work to be completed, the resident might reasonably question why the work was still outstanding.

Request for an outhouse door to be replaced.

The landlord’s tenancy agreement with the resident sets out its repair obligations. This defines what is considered to be part of the dwelling house. This does not include outbuildings, even if they are connected to the main residence. While the resident considered this door needed to be replaced, the landlord was under no obligation to carry out this work under its repair obligations as set out in the tenancy agreement.
The landlord’s records show that, following its attendance at the resident’s property on 6 January 2022 it raised an order to renew the meter cupboard door and ease the outhouse door. However, from the resident’s contact with the landlord on 25 January and 2 February 2022, it is clear he remained unsure what work was to be done. The resident became aware on 14 February 2022 that the landlord planned to ease the outhouse door rather than replace it. At this time the resident said he had been told by the door contractor that this door needing replacing.
The communications between the door contractor and the landlord on 14 February 2022 show the door contractor was also unsure about the work the landlord required. The door contractor said at this time that it was still waiting for the landlord to confirm which door at the resident’s property was to be replaced. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have been clear, from the outset, about what work had it agreed to. Its failure to do so caused confusion about whether or not the outhouse door would be replaced, and disappointment for the resident when he found out that was not to be the case.
The landlord also failed to recognise how its poor communication had caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, even after he expressed annoyance on 28 February 2022 about its changed position about the outhouse door. While it is now apparent that that landlord had never intended to replace the outhouse door, this had not been clearly communicated to the resident. As a result, he was unsure for several weeks about what work was to be done to the outhouse door. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have acknowledged this and apologise to the resident for the distress and inconvenience he experienced as a result of this.
The landlord stated in its stage two complaint response of 10 March 2022 that it would complete work to ease the door as a gesture of goodwill. At this time it told the resident for the first time that it was not required to complete repairs to his outhouse door. This should have been communicated to the resident at the earliest opportunity. Had the landlord explained earlier the extent of its responsibility to repair the outhouse door it would have helped to manage the resident’s expectations around this. In addition, the resident was left to wait for several weeks, until 14 February 2022, before he was given any timescale for when work to his outhouse door would be completed. That meant the resident experienced further inconvenience chasing the landlord to find out what was happening with this work.
The landlord was under no obligation to complete work to the outhouse door under the tenancy agreement. Nonetheless, having agreed to complete work to the door, it would have been reasonable for it to provide timely and clear information to the resident about what work it would do and when. Overall, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’srequest for the outhouse door to be replaced.
However, the resident has told this Service that the work completed by the landlord to ease the door has not remedied the problem. A recommendation has therefore been made that the landlord make contact with the resident to establish what other work could be completed to this door to ease its opening and closing.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns about the work completed on the fascia boards.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect its handling of the resident’s request for his meter door to be replaced.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s request for an outbuilding door to be replaced.

Reasons

While this Service acknowledges that the landlord apologised to the resident for the delay and lack of communication to him about the work to his fascia boards, it has yet to acknowledge that it was not clear about what would be done about the paint spills that had been left on his meter cupboard door.
The landlord delayed in sending an asbestos report to the door contractor leading to an unnecessary delay in completing work to replace the meter cupboard door.
The landlord failed to clearly communicate to the resident about the work it would be completing to the outhouse door, leading to the resident experiencing disappointment, distress and inconvenience as a result of his expectations not being managed.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should pay the resident £225 compensation, comprising:
1. £50 in respect of the impact of its failure in its handling of his concerns about the quality of the work to his fascia boards and the paint spills left on his door.
2. £100 in respect of the impact of its maladministration in the handling of the replacement of his meter cupboard door.
3. £75 in respect of the impact of its failing in its handling of his request for his outhouse door to be replaced.

Recommendations

The landlord does not have responsibilities under the tenancy agreement to complete work to the outhouse door. However the resident says that work the landlord completed to ease the door has not remedied the problem. This Service recommends that within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord make contact with the resident to consider whether any further work can be completed to assist in easing the opening of the outbuilding door.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should arrange to inspect fascia and barge boards at the resident’s property to ensure the issue identified with the rotten section of barge board has been addressed appropriately.
Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord review its repairs and maintenance policy and ensure that its staff are clear about the timescale for completing batch repairs.
Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord make contact with the resident to establish what vulnerabilities it needs to record for the resident.