Leeds City Council (202219543)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219543

Leeds City Council

14 February 2024

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:
1. The landlord’s response to a reported leak.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of damage caused to her property by the leak.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the property. The property is a first floor flat within a block of flats. The resident lives at the property with her partner who is a joint tenant. The resident’s partner is terminally ill and suffers from a number of medical conditions, including chronic lung disease.
On 25 October 2022, the resident’s partner contacted the landlord and reported that there was a leak entering the property through the kitchen window. When asked by the landlord if he could control the situation until a contractor was available, he advised he could not. No records were provided to this Service in relation to how the landlord then responded. It is known, however, that the leak was not fixed at this time and water continued to enter the property.
The next available records indicate that 3 days after the leak was first reported, the resident’s partner contacted the landlord again to report that the leak was getting worse. Contractors were sent to the property twice that day. During the second visit a contractor asked the landlord for access to the 2 void flats above as it was suspected that the leak was coming from one of them. The void flats were both owned by the landlord. The landlord’s records do not indicate if the contractor was aware at this stage that it was a blockage on a stack pipe causing the problem. The resident however has indicated that one of the contractors informed her at this stage that it was a drainage issue that had caused the leak.
On the fifth day, 30 October 2022, contractors visited the property a further 2 times to try and control the leak. The contractors were also tasked with making safe electrics in the property. On the second visit of the day the contractors contacted drainage specialists and asked them to attend the void flats. The leak was controlled and the drainage specialists reported to the landlord that an emergency stack clean was required in one of the void flats to fully resolve the issue. This full repair took place a further 6 days later.
On 1 November 2022, the landlord sent a technical officer to inspect the kitchen window where the water had been entering the resident’s property. The officer then raised a repair order for gaps around the outside of the window to be filled in.
Later that day, the resident complained to the landlord about the length of time it had taken to control the leak and the number of visits it had taken from contractors to resolve the issue. She stated that the leak was so bad “it looked like it was raining.” She queried why the drainage specialists were only called out on the fifth day, when a contractor on the third day had advised the resident that the leak was due to a blocked drain. The resident stated that her property had been badly damaged as a result and that the lights were not working in the living room. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint and advised that it would provide a response within 15 working days or, if longer was required, it would contact the resident to advise her.
The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response 18 working days later. In its response the landlord apologised for the delay in resolving the repair. It advised that having investigated the repair orders, it found that contractors had attended on numerous occasions and failed to trace the leak “due to several issues regarding access to the flats above”. No further explanation was provided as to what the access issues were. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience caused by this. It noted that the leak had since been resolved, the living room lights reconnected, and that the work to fill in the gaps around the window would be carried out the following week.
The resident requested her complaint be escalated. She said that the leak was due to “bad workmanship” and that the landlord’s contractors had left water on in an unoccupied flat. She outlined the difficulties contractors had with gaining access to the void flats, including one occasion where a contractor sat in her property while awaiting a phone call to advise him where he could obtain keys. The resident then contacted a housing manager herself to try and track keys down for the contractor.
The resident also outlined that the leak had damaged wallpaper, paintwork and flooring in her property. She asked the landlord to either fix this or cover the costs of materials and a decorator. She advised that the flat had been redecorated 6 months previously and that her partner was unable to carry out the repair work that was required due to a terminal illness. She advised that the wall in the kitchen where the wallpaper had come off was still damp and was black. She raised concern that this was not good for anyone’s health, particularly not her partner as he had a lung condition. The resident also highlighted that she was without living room lights for 3 weeks and had to buy a new switch.
A stage 2 response was issued by the landlord 6 working days later. The landlord said it was sorry to hear of the damage the leak had caused. The landlord advised it had discussed this with the technical officer who had attended the property following the leak. He advised that the internal walls were wet but not damp and would need time to dry. The landlord also noted in its response that the work to fill in the gaps around the outside of the window had now been completed.
The landlord advised that it was the resident’s responsibility to repair any damage to decorations and that therefore it could not meet the request for compensation. The response stated that residents are advised to have home contents insurance in place to cover such events. The landlord cited clause 10.17 of the ‘Tenancy Agreement Handbook’ which provides, “The council will not be responsible for any damage to your property including decorations or loss from the property which happens through fire, flood, theft, burst pipes or similar events, unless it can be shown that this is caused by the council’s negligence, breach of contract or breach of statutory duty… You are advised to obtain insurance to cover such damage or loss.”
The resident was not satisfied with this response and referred the complaint to the Ombudsman. She stated that the outcome she seeks is for the landlord to either pay for her property to be redecorated or for the landlord to carry out the work itself.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the reported leak

The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms it is the landlord’s statutory responsibility to keep the structure and exterior of the resident’s property, and installations for the provision of water and sanitation, in good repair. It is not in dispute that it was the landlord’s responsibility to repair the leak. The landlord correctly categorised it as an emergency repair which in accordance with its ‘Repairs and Maintenance Handbook’ ought to be attended to within 3 hours and repaired within 24 hours. No records have been provided to this Service to indicate how soon the landlord’s initial response was, but it would appear from the complaint correspondence of both parties that it was more than 3 hours. The first attendance evidenced in the records provided by the landlord was 3 days later. It took 5 days to source and control the leak, which is considerably more than the 24 hours provided for by the Handbook.
The delay in controlling the leak was extended due to difficulties encountered by the contractors in accessing the void flats. This was acknowledged by the landlord in its stage 1 complaint response. However, it provided no explanation as to why the access difficulties arose. The flats were in the possession of the landlord at the time given they were void; it is therefore unclear why there were access issues. The resident also queried in her complaint why a drainage specialist was not called until the fifth day, when a contractor had told her on the third day that a blockage was causing the leak. The landlord did not address this query in its complaint responses. Therefore, it provided no justification that there was reasonable cause for the delay in accessing the void flats.
Once the leak had been sourced and controlled, there still remained the issue of the full repair. According to the ‘Repairs and Maintenance Handbook’, plumbing and drainage faults are a priority repair that should be completed within 3 working days. However, the evidence shows that it was 5 working days later before the full repair was complete and all necessary steps had been taken to resolve the reported leak.
The landlord therefore failed to meet the timeframes set out in its ‘Repairs and Maintenance Handbook’ on at least 3 occasions when responding to the reported leak. These avoidable delays amount to maladministration. The delays meant that the resident had to live with an ongoing leak that caused visible damage to her property for 5 days. This added to the stress and inconvenience she experienced. The numerous contractors coming and going, and the issues outlined in this report with obtaining keys, added to the resident’s frustration and caused her avoidable distress and inconvenience.
On account of these findings, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay £250 to the resident for the stress and inconvenience. This relates solely to the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in resolving the leak. In line with the Ombudsman’s ‘Remedies Guidance’, this amount reflects that the landlord did acknowledge and apologise for the delays, but it failed to provide full explanations or address the detriment to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of damage caused to the resident’s property by the leak

It is not disputed that the landlord was responsible for repairing the living room lights and the gaps around the kitchen window where the water had been entering the property.
On the same day that the landlord was made aware that a switch in the living room was crackling and smoking, it sent a contractor to the property to make the electrics safe. This was in keeping with the timeframes for emergency repairs set out in the landlord’s ‘Repairs and Maintenance Handbook’. However, while the immediate safety hazard was attended to, the contractor did not at the same time fix the living room lights which were no longer working. It was a further 12 working days before the lights were fully repaired. This was despite the Handbook defining partial loss of electrical power as a priority repair that should be fixed within 3 working days.
It was evident as soon as the leak was first reported that water was entering the property through gaps in a kitchen window. It took the landlord 26 working days to fill in the gaps around the window. The ‘Repairs and Maintenance Handbook’ provides that general repairs such as this should be completed within 20 working days.
The resident complained that she was without living room lights for 3 weeks. The landlord did not address this in its complaint responses. It did not provide an explanation in the information provided to this Service as to why the repair was not completed within the appropriate timeframe. Likewise, it has provided no justification for the delay in repairing the gaps around the kitchen window. The landlord was aware and had acknowledged that there were delays in its initial response to control the leak. It should have ensured that any further works required were carried out as soon as possible so as to bring the matter to a close and minimise the overall interruption caused to the resident.
The landlord does not accept that it was responsible for the repairs required as a result of water damage to wallpaper, paintwork and flooring. Instead, the landlord referred to clause 10.17 of the ‘Tenancy Agreement Handbook’ which states that residents are responsible for any damage to decorations caused by burst pipes or similar events, unless the damage is caused by the landlord’s negligence, breach of contract or breach of statutory duty. The stage 2 complaint response stated, “It is advised all tenants have the necessary home contents insurance in place to cover such events.”
According to the Association of British Insurers, buildings insurance, rather than contents insurance, “covers the structure of your home such as walls, wallpaper, ceilings and permanent fixtures and fittings like baths, toilets, and fitted kitchens”. This means that even if the resident had contents insurance in place, it is unlikely it would have covered damage to wallpaper or paintwork. Flooring that is stuck to the ground, such as in the resident’s kitchen, is also unlikely to be covered by contents insurance. Rather than considering this, the landlord categorised the damage as being decorative and without justification or regard to the cover, indicated the damage would be covered by contents insurance.
Even if decorative items that would be covered by contents insurance were the subject of the resident’s complaint, it would not have been reasonable for the landlord to respond in the way that it did. As per the Ombudsman’s ‘Guidance on Complaints Involving Insurance Issues’, landlords should always consider whether there is any evidence that it has been at fault for any claimed damage to a resident’s property or belongings. They should not refer residents straight to their own insurer. The guidance also states that if a landlord accepts that it was or may have been at fault, it may not be reasonable to ask residents to claim on their own contents insurance policy as all claims made on a policy may affect the resident’s future premium and/or require them to pay an excess.
The landlord has not demonstrated that it considered whether the delays in controlling the leak, which were avoidable as outlined in this report, made or may have made the damage worse. It did not consider that an additional repair responsibility of the landlord – the gaps around the outside of the window – may have enabled the leak to affect the resident’s property to the extent that it did. In responding to the resident’s complaint, it did not address the allegation that the leak occurred due to contractors leaving the water on in a void flat. The landlord has since advised this Service that it checked with the contractors and they said they did not switch the water on. However, the landlord has not provided any contemporaneous records to confirm this. It has not demonstrated that it probed this with the contractors and made further enquiries as to how such a significant leak could have occurred when the water was switched off.
The reasonable course of action would have been for the landlord to refer the resident to its insurers to make a claim.Instead the landlord cited clause 10.17 as a stock response. It offered no explanation as to why it believed this clause applied, and instead the onus for proving it did not was placed on the resident. This was unfair in the circumstances.
When responding to the complaint, the landlord made no enquiries as to whether the resident had any insurance in place. This was despite the landlord’s guidance for staff on ‘Goodwill, Time and Trouble’. This states that in cases where it is the resident’s responsibility to repair items, the landlord has discretion to provide support to residents who do not have contents insurance and signpost them to agencies who may be able to assist. The landlord should have considered exercising this discretion, particularly in this case as the resident had explained that her partner was terminally ill, so they were unable to carry out the work themselves. In its complaint response the landlord ignored the resident’s comments concerning her partner’s health and offered no support.
The resident also advised the landlord when escalating her complaint that a damp wall in the kitchen was turning black. She expressed concern about the health impacts of this, particularly given her terminally ill partner had a lung condition. The stage 2 complaint response simply stated that the internal walls were wet but not damp and would need time to dry. This response was not adequate. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould calls for landlords to adopt a zero tolerance approach to dealing with damp and mould; this includes being proactive in preventing the problem occurring in the first place. The Spotlight report is available on the Ombudsman’s website.
In its complaint response, the landlord referred only to the wall being wet and it did not address the resident’s comments that black marks had appeared. The response did not acknowledge that one of the inhabitants of the property suffers from a serious lung condition. As a minimum, the landlord should have referred the resident to the damp and mould team to assess whether any cleaning or other treatment was required. This team would have also been able to provide the resident with advice on how to dry the wall out and what to do if the problem appeared to spread.
Overall, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord’s handling of the damage caused to the resident’s property amounts to maladministration. The landlord did not adhere to the timeframes set out in its own policy when completing repairs to lights and the gaps around the kitchen window. It provided no justification for these delays. The landlord incorrectly suggested the damage to the walls and flooring would be covered by the resident’s contents insurance. It failed to consider whether it should have accepted any responsibility for damage caused to walls and flooring due to the delays in controlling the leak. If it had, an appropriate outcome would have been to refer the resident to the landlord’s insurers to make a claim. As a consequence of the landlord’s inadequate response, the resident was unable to carry out the repair works to her walls and flooring. She has had to live with this state of disrepair rather than reap the rewards of her redecoration efforts carried out only 6 months prior to the leak. The landlord’s complaint responses showed limited empathy to the resident, and opportunities to signpost and support the resident were missed, particularly in relation to a potential damp issue.
Given the number of failings identified in the landlord’s response to the damage in the property, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £500 compensation for the stress and inconvenience caused. This is near the top end of the compensation scale for maladministration as set out in the Ombudsman’s ‘Remedies Guidance’. The amount is also intended to reflect that the landlord has not acknowledged the failings or attempted to put them right, and this has had an ongoing adverse impact on the resident’s enjoyment of her property.
The Ombudsman also requires the landlord to put the resident in the position she would have been in had it referred her to its insurers when the complaint was first made. Given the passage of time, this may mean an insurance claim is not possible or practical. The landlord should therefore engage with the resident to agree the best means of ensuring the damaged wallpaper, paintwork and flooring is repaired at no expense to the resident.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires landlords to address all points raised in a complaint and to provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate. As outlined in this report, there were a number of instances where the landlord did not acknowledge or address all aspects of the resident’s complaint. For example, at stage 1, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delays in its response. However, it did not explain why those delays occurred other than to refer to ‘access issues’. It did not respond to the resident’s query as to why drainage specialists were only called 5 days after the initial report.
At stage 2, the landlord’s response largely focussed on the resident’s request for compensation. It did not explain why it believed the clause of the tenancy agreement referred to was applicable to the case. Instead it provided a stock response and placed the onus to prove it was not applicable on the resident which was unfair in the circumstances. The landlord’s response did not acknowledge or address the resident’s other complaints of ‘bad workmanship’ or that she was without living room lights for 3 weeks. Additionally, the response failed to provide an appropriate response to concerns raised about black marks appearing on a wet wall. It did not acknowledge that the resident’s partner was terminally ill and suffered from a lung condition.
Overall, the landlord’s responses at both stages of its complaint process did not fully address all the points the resident had made. Additionally, the landlord advised the resident that a stage 1 complaint response would be provided within 15 working days. This is not in compliance with the landlord’s own complaints policy which states that in line with the Code, housing complaints should be responded to within 10 working days, while any non-housing complaints should be responded to within 15 working days. The landlord provided the stage 1 response after 18 working days. No evidence has been provided that the resident was advised the response would be delayed. This was a further departure from the guidance set out in the Code.
The Ombudsman finds that the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint amounts to maladministration. It is ordered that the landlord pays the resident £100 on account of the delay in providing the stage 1 response. The stress and inconvenience caused by the quality of the complaint responses has already been outlined in the above section of this report dealing with the landlord’s response to the damage caused, and is reflected in the £500 compensation awarded for that.
The landlord is also required to review how it handled this complaint. When doing so, it should remind staff dealing with complaints of the distinction in its policy between housing and non-housing complaints. It should also remind them that any delays in responding within set timeframes should be communicated to the complainant.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to a reported leak.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of damage caused to the resident’s property by the leak.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £850, broken down as follows:
  1. £250 to recognise the stress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s delays in resolving the leak.
  2. £500 to recognise the stress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the damage caused to the resident’s property by the leak.
  3. £100 on account of the failures identified in its complaint handling.
3. Review its handling of this complaint. When doing so, it should remind relevant staff of the timeframes set out in its complaints policy for responding to housing complaints. It should also remind them that where response deadlines need to be extended, this should be communicated to complainants in advance of the original deadline.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should ensure that the damaged wallpaper, paintwork and flooring is repaired to a high standard and at no expense to the resident. The landlord should consult and agree with the resident the preferred way to achieve this. Options include the landlord carrying out the work itself, providing details of its insurers and supporting the resident to make a claim, or reimbursing the resident for the cost of materials and a decorator. Any reimbursement of costs must be in addition to the compensation ordered for stress and inconvenience.