Leeds City Council (202219878)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219878

Leeds City Council

29 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 the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports about the condition of the property after void.
2. Handling of the resident’s reports of repairs at the property.
3. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a local authority and the property is a 3-bedroom house. The tenancy began on 9 August 2021. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.

Landlord’s obligations

The landlord’s letting standard policy says a resident will be given the opportunity to view the property before they move in. It says during the viewing it will discuss the letting standard with the resident, explain what work it will do before a resident moves in and the work it will do after moving in. It also says:
1. Decorating the home is the resident’s responsibility.
2. It will repair all obvious large areas of damaged plaster before a resident moves in, but if damage is identified after this time, the resident should notify it through its repairs service.
3. It will complete non-urgent repairs after a resident has moved in.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance handbook (repairs policy) explains the repairs it is responsible for, which include, among other things, window sills/frames and plastering work. It also explains that a resident would be responsible for decoration. It explains that:
1. An emergency repair will be responded to within 24 hours.
2. Priority repair- 3 days for some and 7 working days for repairs that include extractor fans not working or a roof leak.
3. General repairs will be carried out within 20 working days.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance handbook also explains that when a property becomes void, repairs are carried out to meet its letting standard.
The landlord’s compliments and complaints policy explains its 2 stage complaints process.
1. Stage 1- where it will respond within 15 working days. If it can not meet this timeframe it will provide a response within 2 weeks and provide updates.
2. Stage 2 – it will respond within 15 working days and again provide regular updates if it can not provide a response within a further 2 weeks.
The landlord’s goodwill, time and trouble, request for compensation guidance says:
1. Moderate financial redress of up to £100 can be awarded when a resident has been moderately inconvenienced or upset.

Summary of events

The evidence shows that in December 2020 the landlord completed some void work to the property.
A post inspection checklist from 29 July 2021 was completed by the landlord’s surveyor where it confirmed the property met its lettable standard. It confirmed electric and gas testing. It also listed works to the lounge flooring.
The landlord’s void team confirmed it completed a post inspection on 4 August 2021.
On 6 August 2021 the landlord completed electric and gas checks at the property.
On 2 September 2021 the resident sent the landlord pictures of the property. He said:
1. the area behind the bathroom door and above was “uneven and bumpy” and that he could not paint it.
2. The ceiling space at the top and bottom of stairs had cracks and uneven holes from old alarms.
3. Walls were uneven, raised, bumpy and he could not paint those areas. He said he had tried sanding but the walls needed skimming.
4. The above issues were preventing him from moving into the property as he could not decorate the areas.
The landlord’s repairs log shows it logged the plaster not being completed in the bathroom behind the door on 10 September 2021. It is noted that the landlord noted works as a priority 3 at that time.
The landlord has provided a follow-on works order from 13 September 2021 which lists works to the plaster at the top of the hall wall, a ceiling and architrave around the loft hatch.
On 17 September 2021 the resident raised his complaint. He said that he was told work would be carried out on 16 September 2021 at 12pm. However, no one arrived and when he called the landlord it said that the work was not on its contractor’s list. The resident told the landlord how he had had nothing but “trouble” with it and said it could not “be bothered to show up”.
On 21 September 2021 the landlord responded to the complaint and apologised for the resident’s experience. It explained that work was booked but due to an oversight the appointment was not carried out. It noted the resident had been offered further appointments. It accepted that this was not the level of service it would expect from its contractor. It said it had provided feedback and told the resident to contact it if he wanted to re-raise the works.
On 19 October 2021 the repairs log shows the landlord was made aware of the extractor fan not working. This work was completed on 16 November 2021.
On 22 October 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord asking for it to appeal its decision not to grant a grace period with rent. Here the resident listed a number of points, which included:
1. He had to fill beading that was showing in a chimney breast and how 7 ceilings in the property needed painting.
2. The door frames were “disgusting” and smelt “horrendous”.
3. Issues with the landing, hallway and stair walls and ceilings that had cracks, were damaged and were awaiting a repair.
4. He said the work needed was not minor plastering but instead was a “catalogue of repairs”. He said it held up moving in and he did not want his children moving into another “substandard property.”
The landlord waived 1 weeks rent on 1 November 2021 following the resident’s complaint. A system note provided by the landlord shows it upheld the resident’s complaint and provided a verbal response at that time. It noted that some issues may have hindered the resident’s move into the property. It noted that the resident was happy with the response and agreed for the complaint to be closed.
In January 2022 the resident raised another complaint about outstanding works. He said repairs were logged as a priority in August 2021 and that the work was still outstanding in January 2022 with no completion date. He said there were works needed in the bathroom, upstairs hall and ceilings. He told it that he wanted it to complete works to resolve his complaint.
On 12 January 2022 the landlord’s internal email shows it was discussing the resident’s complaint and that it sought for works to be completed in the “near future”. It noted that it also spoke to the resident explaining what it would do. It said the resident was happy with its response and the complaint was closed.
On 22 February 2022 the landlord raised work for a leaking kitchen window. On the same day the landlord completed works involving plastering behind the bathroom door.
The landlord’s repair log notes that on 9 March 2022 a report of plastering being incomplete on the ceiling since the resident moved to the property. The repair log notes the work was completed on 6 April 2022.
On 27 April 2022 the resident submitted an online complaint. He told the landlord that repairs were not completed during its voids process and he had been waiting nearly a year for it to complete the repairs. He listed the repairs which included:
1. Damage caused by a contractor to a window sill and not replacing a door frame.
2. He also said the plastering had not been completed in the hallway.
3. Issues with the windows which included letting in cold air and water appearing on the surface.
4. The resident told the landlord that he wanted a surveyor to attend and assess the works needed and for it to keep him updated.
On 29 April 2022 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint from 27 April 2022. It said it had logged the complaint at stage 1 and would investigate it in line with its complaint policy. It said it aimed to complete its investigation by 19 May 2022.
On 23 June 2022 the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said it attempted to contact the resident on 15, 20 and 24 June 2022 with no success. It said there was only 1 live repair for a leaking kitchen window which it had booked in for 7 July 2022. It said it had arranged for a surveyor to also attend that day.
The landlord’s internal notes show the work for the leaking kitchen window was completed and it conducted an inspection on 7 July 2022. The landlord has not provided a copy of its survey/inspection from that time.
On 11 July 2022 the landlord raised the following work orders:
1. 4 windows for living room, kitchen, front room and back bedroom.
2. Architrave
3. Guttering
4. Kitchen and bathroom extractor fan and bathroom light.
On 31 August 2022 the resident complained about the repairs again. He said it was the third complaint he had made and despite the landlord sending a surveyor to inspect the property, no work was done. He told it again that he had moved into the property 1 year ago and listed the outstanding repairs which included plastering, damage to the window sill, door frame issue and “faulty” windows. The resident said he left his previous property that was “falling apart” and was in another where he felt he had been left with “substandard housing”. He asked for a manager to handle the matter and expressed further dissatisfaction in the landlord closing complaints after it had sent a surveyor.
On 1 September 2022 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 request. It said it would aim to respond by 21 September 2022 and would contact him if it could not meet this timeframe.
On 21 September 2022 the landlord inspected the windows at the property and said it completed the works for the windows and architrave.
On 30 September 2022 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It listed the resident’s complaint and said:
1. It had spoken to the resident that day and he confirmed the repairs were completed and was happy with the work.
2. The resident was still concerned with the windows as some double glazed units were “blown” and the resident had asked for a technical officer to visit to assess the windows.
3. It confirmed that it had arranged for a technical officer to contact the resident to arrange a visit about the windows. It said any necessary work orders would then be raised.
4. The resident had confirmed there were no other repairs to report.
5. It offered its sincere apologies for the delays in completing the repairs.
The landlord has said that it completed a review of works on 4 October 2022. It found that work completed was satisfactory. It also found that the windows were in a satisfactory condition.

Assessment and findings

Handling of the resident’s reports about the condition of the property after void

The landlord’s lettable standard policy says that it will repair all obvious large areas of damaged plaster before a resident moves in.
The evidence shows that during the void period the landlord appropriately conducted inspections of the property which found the property met its lettable standard. At that time its surveyor raised no concerns about “large areas” of damaged plaster board. As such it was reasonable for the landlord to accept what its surveyor told it about the property in the circumstances. It follows there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the void process.

Handling of the resident’s reports of repairs at the property

After the resident’s move to the property, on 2 September 2021 he raised concerns about being unable to decorate areas due to the condition of plaster behind the bathroom door, the ceilings at the top and bottom of the stairs and some walls within the property.
It is noted that on 10 September 2021 the landlord logged the plaster issue for behind the bathroom door. On 13 September 2021 it raised works for the ceiling at the top and bottom of the stairs. Following this, the resident continued to chase it to complete works and while in January 2022 he was told the work would be completed in the “near future” it was not until 22 February 2022 that the landlord completed some of the work. The timeframe of 5 months to complete work to the area behind the bathroom door was not appropriate and significantly exceeds the timeframe set within the landlord’s repair policy.
It then took the landlord a further 2 months, until 6 April 2022, to complete the plaster work to the ceilings. The timeframe of 7 months to complete this work was also not appropriate.
On 23 February 2022 the landlord noted a report about a kitchen window leaking. Within its stage 1 response from 23 June 2022 the landlord confirmed that this issue was booked to complete on 7 July 2022. It took the landlord almost 5 months to resolve this issue, this timeframe was not appropriate and exceeded that set within its policy.
It is noted that the resident reported issues with the windows and within the landlord’s stage 2 response from 30 September 2022, it confirmed that it would arrange an inspection and complete the necessary work. In October 2022 the landlord told the Service that it completed the review and found the windows were in a satisfactory condition. Despite requests for surveys and inspection reports the landlord has been unable to provide this. However, its approach here was reasonable in the circumstances.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of repairs at the property was not appropriate. The resident repeatedly chased it to complete repair work at the property and raised several complaints in attempts to progress matters. The timeframe taken by the landlord significantly exceeded that set within its policy and it failed to proactively keep the resident updated with delays. The landlord’s failings here amount to maladministration.
It is noted that within the landlord’s stage 2 response it offered its sincere apologies to the resident and confirmed repairs had been completed. While it was appropriate for the landlord to offer an apology in light of its failings, when considering the significant time taken to complete repairs and the resident’s repeatedly chasing it, the Ombudsman has decided to make a further order for compensation.

Complaint handling

In September 2021 the resident raised a complaint about outstanding repairs, the landlord responded to this on 21 September 2021 and on 1 November 2021 it confirmed it had waived 1 weeks rent and closed the complaint.
In January 2022 the resident raised a further complaint about outstanding works. Here the landlord discussed the complaint with the resident and said the resident was happy with its response and again it closed the complaint on 12 January 2022. The landlord did not issue a stage 1 response at that time, this was not in line with its policy.
On 27 April 2022 the resident raised a further complaint again about outstanding repairs. The landlord acknowledged the complaint and said it would respond by 19 May 2022. It did exceed the timeframe it set and that from its policy and did not issue a stage 1 response until 23 June 2022. The timeframe of 2 months to issue a stage 1 response was not appropriate.
The resident escalated his complaint on 31 August 2022, while the landlord appropriately acknowledged the complaint it also said it would respond by 21 September 2022. However, it failed to meet the timeframe it set and did not issue its stage 2 complaint until 30 September 2022.
Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling was not appropriate. At times it attempted to resolve complaints informally outside its complaints policy despite the resident clearly expressing dissatisfaction. When it did eventually trigger its complaints process it did not issue a stage 1 or 2 response within the appropriate timeframes or update the resident about any delays. This was not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code applicable at that time. The landlord’s failings would have added to the resident’s frustration as he had to repeat his complaint and expressed his unhappiness with his complaints being closed.
The landlord’s failings amount to maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports about the condition of the property after void.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of repairs at the property.
2. Complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord conducted inspections during the void period and acted reasonably in following its surveyor’s recommendation that the lettable standard policy was met. There was no maladministration in its handling of the property during the void period.
The landlord repeatedly exceeded the timeframe set within its repairs policy. It took between 5 to 7 months to complete repairs and failed to keep the resident appropriately updated. This meant the resident had to constantly chase it for updates and to complete the works.
The landlord tried to resolve complaints informally outside its complaint process on 2 occasions. Which meant the resident had to repeatedly raise similar complaints about repairs. When the landlord did trigger its complaints policy it took it 2 months to issue a formal stage 1 response and exceeded the timeframe it told the resident it would respond by.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to apologise for the failings identified within this report. This should be within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £500 compensation within 4 weeks of the date of this report. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. This comprises of:
1. £350 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble in its handling of repairs at the property.
2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.