The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Leeds City Council (202201981)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201981

Leeds City Council

4 October 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

  1. The complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of a leak into the resident’s property, and its response to the resident’s request for compensation following the leak.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a flat in a communal building.
  2. On 9 September 2020, the resident informed the landlord about a leak through her bathroom ceiling between September 2020 and May 2021. The landlord raised several emergency work orders to undertake temporary repairs, arranged for inspections to locate the source of the leak and, once the leak had been determined to be from the bath from the flat above, it raised follow-on work to repair the damage caused.
  3. On 4 May 2021, the resident called the landlord and requested to raise a complaint. The landlord’s notes of the call described the resident’s complaint as she was dissatisfied with the length of time it was taking the to resolve the issue and complete repairs to her property, and for the poor level of communication she had received when chasing the issue up with the landlord.
  4. The landlord called the resident on 19 May 2021 to provide a verbal stage one response. The landlord’s notes of the call stated that it informed the resident that it had partially upheld her complaint on the grounds that it should have provided more information and support to her during period it was attempting to locate the source of the leak. The landlord also informed the resident that it would complete the outstanding repairs to her property once the work in the property above had been completed and the affected areas had dried out. The landlord’s notes stated that the resident’s accepted this as a resolution to the complaint.
  5. On 29 July 2021 the resident made a claim of £2,730 for the damage the leak caused to her furniture and personal items, and for the costs to redecorate. The landlord wrote to her in April 2022 to inform her that her claim had been declined on the grounds that it was not liable for the damage as the leak could not have been foreseen and that it had responded to the issue within its published timescales.
  6. The resident contacted this Service on 24 April 2022 and stated her dissatisfaction with how the landlord had handled the issue, its decision to decline compensation and also said that the damp and mould in her property not been resolved. This Service passed on the resident’s concerns to the landlord, who escalated the complaint and sent a stage two complaint response to the resident on 12 August 2022. The landlord stated that it was satisfied with its response to the leak and its reasons for declining compensation, set out its April 2022 letter, and by the apology given in the stage one response for the poor level of communication and support it provided to the resident while it was investigating the source of the leak.
  7. In her complaint to the Ombudsman the resident disputed the landlord’s compensation decision due to its delay completing repairs. She sought £3,000 compensation for the damage caused to her furniture and personal items, and for the stress and inconvenience the issue had caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. The resident has said that the damp and mould had returned. She explained that she informed the landlord of this on 29 November 2022, but it had said it would not inspect the property until February 2023. The Ombudsman may only investigate complaint issues which have first  been raised with the landlord as formal complaints. This is true even if the new issues appear to be connected to earlier ones. This investigation centres on events up to the landlord’s final complaint response to the resident in August 2022. As the resident’s new concerns arose several months after that period, she first needs to make a new complaint to the landlord about them before the Ombudsman can potentially consider investigating. Because of that, this report centres on the landlord’s actions up to August 2022.

Relevant policies and procedures

  1. Section 7.31 of the tenancy agreement relates to personal property and insurance. This states that tenants “are responsible for your personal property and the decoration of the interior of your home and it is your responsibility to take out insurance to protect them. The [landlord] is not responsible for the loss or damage of any personal property unless the damage or loss is caused by the [landlord’s] negligence”.
  2. The landlord categorises its repair types as “Emergency” (complete within 24 hours), “Priority” (complete within three or seven working days), “General” (complete within 20 working days) and “Batched” (complete within 60 days). The landlord defines an emergency repair as when “urgent action is required to prevent a serious risk to health and safety, major damage to the structure of the property or results in the property being insecure”. Uncontrollable leaks are given as an example by the landlord of what it considers an emergency repair. Batched repairs are defined by the landlord as “non-urgent repairs and items of replacement that may require a pre-inspection; need time to order and/or manufacture materials”.
  3. The landlord’s compensation guidance suggests making a discretionary payment of up to £100 in circumstances “where the customer has been moderately inconvenienced/upset on more than one occasion. We haven’t put things right at the first opportunity and the customer has had to come back to us on more than one occasion causing unnecessary frustration and inconvenience. This can include complaints not being logged/responded to in the first instance or having to chase actions on several occasions”.

Handling of the leak and response to compensation request

  1. Once it received the report from the resident of the leak into her bathroom ceiling from the property above, the landlord had a duty to respond to the matter in line with its obligations set out in the tenancy agreement and its published policies and procedures. The landlord’s repair logs and internal correspondence states that:
    1. The landlord received a report from the resident on 18 September 2020 of a leak from the bathroom ceiling. An inspection was arranged for 19 October 2020 to assess the damage.
    2. A further report of a more serious leak was reported by the resident on 30 October 2020. An emergency repair was raised an attended to on the same day. A work order to trace the source of the leak was also raised.
    3. A second emergency repair was raised on 8 January 2021 following a report from the resident. Work to secure the bathroom ceiling was undertaken. The landlord also raised work to retile the roof of the building, which was initially thought to be the source of the leak.
    4. Another emergency repair was raised on 29 January 2021. The plumber who attended undertook a temporary repair and informed the landlord that they had been unable to determine the source of the leak. They recommended a surveyor inspect the resident’s property.
    5. A surveyor inspection was arranged for 4 March 2021 and an inspection report sent to the landlord on 9 March 2021. This set out what work would be required in the resident’s property to repair the damage caused by the leak. The report noted that the work would need to be put on hold until the leak was resolved.
    6. Following a further inspection on 14 May 2021, work orders were raised to undertake a CCTV survey of the drains and replace the downpipe as this was now thought to be the cause of the leak.
    7. The cause of the leak was identified on 23 July 2021 as being from the compression fitting and flexi-hose underneath the bath in the property above. This was repaired the same day and was confirmed as resolving the leak on 23 August 2021.
    8. Work orders were raised to complete the recommended follow-on work to repair the damage in the resident’s property on 26 October 2022. The work was undertaken on 13 December 2021, 18 January 2022 and 8 February 2022.
    9. A further work order was raised on 12 April 2022 to conduct a mould wash and treatment to the skirting boards of the property. This was marked as completed on 27 May 2022.
  2. Some of the work slightly exceeded the landlord’s repair timeframes. Nonetheless, overall, the landlord acted reasonably to the resident’s reports. It followed its repairs policy by raising emergency repairs when uncontrolled leaks were reported, priority repairs to investigate the source of the leak, and general and batch repairs to complete follow-on work to repair the damage caused by the leak.
  3. It is undeniable that it took a significant length of time for the landlord to locate the source of the leak and complete repairs to the resident’s property. The time taken to fully resolve the matter does not automatically constitute service failure. The landlord’s repair logs and the scale of the work undertaken (such as tiling part of the roof), show that that this was not a straight-forward repair issue which might be resolved speedily. During this time the landlord was responding to the resident’s reports appropriately, and raised work orders and inspections in order to determine the source of the leak. While the frustration caused by the leak is wholly understandable, it was reasonable for the landlord to wait until it had repaired the leak and the affected areas had dried out before starting work. It was only after the landlord re-tiled a section of the roof and replaced a section of guttering that it was able to eliminate these as the potential source of the leak, and subsequently identify the bath in the property above as the cause of the problem.
  4. The resident disputed the landlord’s decision that it would not compensate her for damage to her furniture and personal items. She pointed to the length of time it took the landlord to resolve the matter, and that the damp and mould had returned to the property, as reasons why it should be liable for the damage, and should pay £3,000 to cover her costs.
  5. Nothing in the evidence seen for this investigation indicates the landlord caused the leak, that it should have taken pre-emptive action to prevent the leak happening, or that it reasonably could have resolved the leak and associated repairs faster. Only if the evidence showed these things might the landlord have been expected to consider providing compensation. In the absence of such evidence, and in line with the tenancy agreement, damage to personal items and the resident’s fixtures and fittings would be something to claim on the resident’s home insurance. The landlord’s decision regarding the resident’s compensation request was therefore reasonable.
  6. Part of the resident’s complaint to the landlord involved her frustration with its communication about the repairs, and that she had had to chase it for updates. The landlord acknowledged that it had not handled this aspect of the repairs as well as it should have. However, apart from an apology, it did not attempt to put things right or offer an appropriate remedy. That was not reasonable, as it was counter to the expectations set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code at the time of the complaint, and to the landlord’s compensation policy. Appropriate remedies could have included explaining why its communication had been poor, explaining what it was doing to improve, and offering compensation. It did not do these things, either at the first or second stage of its complaints process. That meant the resident’s complaint was not properly resolved.
  7. The resident has said that the work to repair the damage to her property was not done properly as the damp and mould has returned. She explained that she reported this issue to the landlord in November 2022 and was informed it would not able to attend the property until February 2023. As was explained above, the landlord needs to consider these more recent issues and investigate why the damp and mould is continuing before the Ombudsman may consider these more recent events.
  8. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the actual repairs was reasonable in the circumstances, as was its decision not to compensate for damaged items and other belongings. However, it acknowledged its communication about the repairs was poor but did not provide a proportionate or appropriate remedy for that failing, meaning the resident’s complaint was not wholly resolved.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaint.

Orders

  1. For the service failure in its poor communication with the resident about the status of the leak, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150.
  2. This payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this Service when payment has been made.