Leeds City Council (202211061)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211061

Leeds City Council

24 March 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 is about the landlord’s response in relation to the resident’s concerns about:

1. a missed appointment;
2. information regarding a kitchen replacement.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant at the property of the landlord. The landlord is a local authority.
3. The resident had a visit from the landlord on 24 February 2022. The purpose of the visit was for the landlord’s annual stock condition survey of the property. During the visit, the landlord determined that the kitchen was in suitable working condition, and that it would look to renew the resident’s kitchen from 2025 onwards.
4. The resident made a formal complaint on 7 June 2022. She advised that she was expecting work to begin on a new kitchen shortly after the visit, and was unaware that it had been scheduled as part of planned works in 2025. She also advised the landlord had informed her a further visit relating to the kitchen had been scheduled for 7 June 2022, but that the operative had to cancel on the day due to an emergency dental appointment. This had caused her inconvenience as she had taken the day off work specifically to be present for the visit. She advised that she did not want to deal with the operative again and asked for somebody else to contact her. The resident also requested the name of the person that she had spoken to who had booked the visit.
5. In its formal responses, the landlord advised that it was unable to find records of who had booked the visit. Regarding the missed appointment, the landlord apologised and advised it had arranged for the repairs team to rearrange the visit.
6. Regarding the kitchen replacement, the landlord apologised for any poor communication the resident had received, and for any confusion that had arisen during the visit on 24 February 2022. It advised that prior to the visit, the property’s estimated date for a kitchen replacement was 2032. The surveyor determined that although the kitchen was in suitable working condition, this was not a realistic date and therefore brought it forward to 2025. It also explained that the kitchen replacement programme for 2023/24 had already been planned, and therefore the resident’s kitchen was unable to be placed in this year.
7. The resident advised this service that she was unhappy that when the annual visit took place, it was not conducted by the person that had arranged it with her. She also expressed her dissatisfaction at the way the landlord had handled the kitchen repairs, and felt that it had been too long since she had moved in without a new kitchen.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

8. The resident has advised this service that her kitchen worktops are full of water, and that water continuously leaked and went down the back of her cabinets. While this is an understandable concern of the resident, it is not clear from the evidence provided that these concerns have progressed through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. As such, this service is unable to investigate this aspect of the resident’s complaint. This is in line with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.” The resident should raise this concern with the landlord as a formal complaint in the first instance.

Missed appointment

9. While the landlord has an obligation to ensure that appointments and visits are carried out as scheduled, the Ombudsman understands that there are sometimes circumstances outside of a landlord’s control that may cause a missed appointment. Depending on the circumstances, this would not automatically result in a finding of service failure.
10. In this case, the reason for the missed appointment was outside of the landlord’s control. The housing officer that was due to carry out the visit had to attend an emergency dental appointment that day, and rightly notified the resident that he was unable to attend at the earliest opportunity.
11. While this would have been understandably frustrating for the resident, especially considering that she had taken the day off work for the visit, the landlord was unable to give any earlier notice due to the fact that it was a medical emergency. The Ombudsman also notes that resident’s are required to provide reasonable access, and the landlord would not be expected to recompense the resident for having taken a day off in these circumstances.
12. Following the missed visit, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the inconvenience caused to the resident in its stage one response. It also explained that it had asked the housing officer to reach out to the resident again in order to re-book the visit. This was appropriate as it demonstrated that the landlord was aware of how the incident had negatively impacted the resident. Additionally, it showed the landlord’s intention to continue to provide the required service to the resident, at the required standard.
13. Following this, the resident advised that she did not want the housing officer to contact her again, and asked for the landlord to ensure that a different operative reached out her to re-book and attend the visit. It is evident the landlord complied with this request, and the visit was subsequently carried out on 2 August 2022.
14. The resident advised in her stage two escalation request that she wanted to know the name of the operative that had originally called her in 2021 to book the appointment. The landlord confirmed in its final response that it had attempted to find out who the operative was, however, it did not hold records that held this information. While the Ombudsman considers it best practice for the landlord to keep accurate records, in this case, it is evident the landlord kept records that the appointment had been made, and it would not be proportionate to find service failure for failing to keep records of the specific call handler.
15. In summary, it was outside of the landlord’s control that the housing officer was unable to attend due to the medical emergency. The landlord’s response to the issue, and willingness to appoint a new housing officer at the resident’s request was reasonable and proportionate. It also showed that it was willing to listen to the resident, and to take steps to ensure that the resident felt comfortable.
16. It was also appropriate for the landlord to attempt to find out who the original operative was that booked the visit in 2021 upon the resident’s request. While it could not ascertain this information, it did apologise to the resident.

Information regarding kitchen replacement

17. The resident has advised it was her understanding following the landlord’s visit that works to replace the kitchen were imminent. The Ombudsman was not present during this visit, and in the absence of clear evidence, it cannot be determined what was specifically discussed.
18. The surveyor who attended has advised that they would have informed the resident that the work was likely to be included in the next planned kitchen programme. While this did not suggest that the works would be beginning imminently, it is also not evident that any clarity was given regarding when the programme would be carried out. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have managed the resident’s expectations by explaining that it was not likely to be done soon, and that the resident could have expected a wait of over one year. It would also have been best practice to have followed this up in writing.
19. Given that there was evidently confusion over when the kitchen would be renewed, the landlord appropriately apologised for this confusion, and clarified its position that the programme was scheduled to take place in 2025. It also provided additional information to explain that in the resident’s case, the kitchen works had been brought forward.
20. This was a reasonable response and it was appropriate for the landlord to clear any confusion and to ensure that the resident was aware of what timescale to expect, and why it would be that long of a wait.
21. In summary, the Ombudsman understands it would have been frustrating for the resident to have expected a kitchen replacement sooner, only to find out this was not the case. However, the landlord acted reasonably be apologising for this confusion and giving accurate information at its earliest opportunity.

Determination

22. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord for its response in relation to the resident’s concerns about:

1. a missed appointment;
2. information regarding a kitchen replacement.