Leeds City Council (202220503)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220503

Leeds City Council

17 May 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 handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. Repairs.
2. A rat infestation.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord in a 3 bedroom house, and her tenancy started in July 2016. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
The resident contacted the landlord on 20 January 2022 and said that she was experiencing a number of repairs issues at her property and asked it to attend to the landlord to rectify them. The repairs listed were:
1. Some of the radiators were not working properly, there were no valves to adjust them, and there was no heater in the bathroom.
2. The toilet in the bathroom was leaking.
3. There were issues with mould in the kitchen, and one of the bedrooms.
4. The kitchen units and worktop were “disintegrating” following a historic leak.
5. The boiler was faulty.
6. There were a number of windows that she was unable to open.
The landlord sought to attend to complete repairs to the bathroom in January 2022, and raised a work to repair/replace the kitchen units and worktop in March 2022. In August 2022, the resident reported suspected rat activity at the rear of her property. The landlord attended on 8 September 2022 and found evidence of “11 rat burrows”, it conducted an “initial treatment”, and reported that no “proofing issues” were identified.
The resident contacted the landlord on 11 September 2022 to make a complaint about the landlord’s handling of the repairs, and the rat infestation. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 13 September 2022 and said “not all the repairs” listed were on its system, so it had arranged a further inspection for 28 September 2022, and it was “mid treatment” of the rat infestation in the garden.
The landlord raised a further repair job to the kitchen units on 30 September 2022. The landlord’s records show that it installed a new fan, renewed the kitchen sink taps and renewed the rotten work top to the kitchen sink. However, there is no evidence the other recommended works were completed on that day (repair shelving doors, treat mould to the kitchen window and check a suspected leaking pipe).
The landlord sought to replace the radiator valves on 12 October 2022, but the notes reflect it could not access the property. The landlord completed a damp and mould inspection on 18 January 2023, and raised various repairs. It conducted a further pest control visit on 13 February 2023 to lay bait.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint response and asked her complaint to be taken to stage 2 on 16 February 2023. She said she was unhappy it had closed her case, as all the repairs were outstanding and “nothing” had been done.
The landlord completed various repairs in February and March 2023, which were:
1. It fitted new radiator valves throughout the property on 27 February 2023.
2. It completed a follow up visit in relation to the rat infestation on 6 March 2023, and reported no evidence of rat activity.
3. It inspected the windows throughout the property on 14 March 2023, the outcome of the visit is unclear.
The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 14 March 2023 and apologised for the “errors” and “limited” detail contained in its stage 1 complaint response. It outlined its position on each of the repairs, listing the repairs it had completed, and planned repairs visits. In relation to the reported rat infestation, it said it would “continue to visit” until the infestation was “eradicated”. In relation to the resident’s concerns the rats were entering from nearby properties, it said it was the responsibility of the owners to report and manage infestations on their property.
The resident contacted this Service on 22 March 2023 and asked us to investigate her complaint. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response contained “mistakes” and did not reflect events accurately, and some of the repairs were still outstanding and she wanted compensation.

Assessment and findings

Repairs

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, and keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water and sanitation. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for the drains, gutters, and external pipes of the property.
Landlords are required to consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential health hazards. Where potential hazards are identified, improvement works are typically the starting point and additional monitoring is expected.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance handbook states that it has 3 categories of responsive repair which are:
1. Emergency, which it aims to attend to within 24 hours.
2. Priority, which it aims to attend to within 3 working days.
3. General, which it aims to attend to within 20 working days.
In her email of 20 January 2022, the resident raised a concern about the landlord’s handling of repairs dating back to 2018. It is not within the scope of this investigation to investigate concerns that were not raised within a reasonable timeframe, usually 12 months, of the incident occurring. As such, this investigation has focused on the repairs raised in the resident’s email, that she claimed were outstanding. We have assessed the landlord’s handling of the repairs when she put it on notice on 20 January 2022. We have assessed the landlord’s action from January 2022 up until the resident exhausted its complaint procedure in March 2023.
The landlord’s stage 1 and 2 complaint responses appear to accept that its record keeping was poor, and details of repairs raised were not recorded. The evidence provided shows the landlord’s repair records lack detail in the way of recorded outcomes. That the landlord appeared to accept its record keeping was poor, but did not offer appropriate redress to the resident, was a failing in its handling of repairs. To promote learning for the landlord, this investigation has considered the landlord’s handling of the individual repairs issues below, and identified areas of particular concern, and points of learning.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response did not assess its handling of the outstanding repairs reported in any detail. This was a failing in its complaint handling, and the matter itself. The complaint response itself was dismissive of the resident’s concerns about repairs in her property. That it simply set out that it would inspect her property on 28 September 2022, and send a gas engineer to look at the boiler on the same date was inappropriate. Given it was already on notice about the repairs raised, and had been for 8 months, that it did not assess its handling of the repairs was inappropriate and dismissive. It also cited it did not have a record of all the repairs the resident had raised. This was a failing in its record keeping, as the resident raised numerous repairs in January 2022 and the landlord evidently failed to properly record them.

Repairs to the kitchen

The evidence available for this investigation shows that the landlord was on notice about the repairs needed to the kitchen on 20 January 2022. She reported that the kitchen was damaged by a historic leak and was concerned that the units were not secure into the wall and described it as “disintegrating”. There is no evidence to indicate the landlord sought to attend to the repair at the time, which is concerning considering the resident described a repair that was a possible hazard. This was a failing in its handling of the matter, which caused an inconvenience.
The evidence shows that the landlord did not book the repairs to the kitchen until 31 March 2022, which was over 2 months after it was on notice and well outside of the timeframes set out in its repairs handbook. This caused the resident an inconvenience, as the landlord did not seek to attend to the repair within a reasonable timeframe. It is unclear why the repair did not go ahead when it was first booked, in March 2022. While it is noted the landlord reported some ‘no access’ appointments, the repair log does not indicate the kitchen repair was a failed access appointment. That it was not more proactive in following up with the repair was a failing in its handling of the matter.
The resident was further inconvenienced by needing to raise the repair as part of her stage 1 complaint, in September 2022. This cost her time and trouble, and she was evidently distressed by the condition of her kitchen. Again, it is worth noting that she had described a repair that was a potential hazard, and the landlord was not proactive in seeking to attend to the repair.
The repair log indicates that the landlord did not complete repairs to the kitchen until February 2023, as this is the noted completion date. It is noted the stage 2 complaint response stated that the repair was completed in February 2022. Given the resident raised her complaint in September 2022, and said the kitchen repair was not done, in conjunction with the information in the repair log, it is reasonable to conclude the repair took place in February 2023. This is well over a year after the resident first put the landlord on notice about the repair, and a failing in its handling of the matter.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response outlined its position in relation to the repair, which was reasonable. However, it did not assess its handling of the repair in any detail, which lacked learning. The resident was further inconvenienced by raising concerns about the landlord’s handling of repairs, without receiving an appropriate response that showed learning and reflected on its own actions.

Repairs to the bathroom

The evidence shows that the landlord was on notice about the repairs to the bathroom in January 2022, when she emailed its repairs inbox. The resident reported that when it had completed repairs before the heater was removed, and she had no source of heat in the bathroom, which was causing mould. The resident also reported that the tiles had come loose, and the toilet was leaking.
The evidence shows that the landlord tried to attend to inspect the bathroom on 25 January 2022, which was appropriate and in line with the timeframes set out in its repairs handbook. The evidence shows it was unable to attend to the repair, as the resident was not present when it tried to attend. That it was unable to attend to the appointment was outside of its control, and impacted on its ability to respond.
The resident has raised concerns with this Service that the landlord would often attend repairs appointments without notifying her beforehand. While it is not possible to determine if that was the case on this occasion, the landlord has supplied little evidence of notifications in sent the resident about repairs appointments. Given the lack of available evidence it is reasonable to conclude there were some occasions where the landlord sought to attend to repairs without giving the resident reasonable notice.
Following its failed attempt to inspect the bathroom in January 2022, the records available provide no evidence the landlord sought to inspect the bathroom to identify if any repairs were needed. Given the conditions described by the resident, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to have been more proactive in trying to inspect the bathroom. It is noted that the landlord stated in its stage 2 response that the resident had not raised concerns about the bathroom in its “recent Technical Officer Inspections”. This comment was inappropriate as the resident had put it on notice, on at least 2 occasions. That is has no available records to indicate it inspected is a failing.
Given the lack of available records, it is unclear whether the landlord inspected or completed repairs in the bathroom after the resident put it on notice on 20 January 2022. It is noted it attended an emergency repair earlier that month to fix a leak. However, that it appears not to have completed a follow up visit, after the resident reported further concerns, is a failing in its handling of the matter. Given the lack of clarity about the condition of the bathroom, an appropriate order is set out below.

Repairs to the windows

The resident also raised concerns about the windows in her property in her email in January 2022, and said she had a “number of windows” that did not open. There is no evidence to indicate that the landlord sought to inspect the windows at that time. This was a further failings of its handling of the repairs that caused the resident an inconvenience.
The resident was cost time and trouble due to needing to raise the repair again, as part of her stage 1 complaint, in September 2022. There is no evidence to indicate that the landlord sought to inspect the windows at that time either. It is noted that it did raise a property inspection, as part of the stage 1 complaint, but there is no recorded outcome in relation to the windows. Given she had raised this a specific concern, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to have a record of the outcome within its records.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response stated that its “repair records [did] not show this has been reported as a repair”. This statement was inaccurate, as there is evidence the resident reported this repair in January 2022, before raising a complaint in September 2022, when she mentioned it again. This further supports the conclusion that the landlord’s poor record keeping impacted on its ability to respond to repairs the resident had reported.
The evidence available shows that the landlord did not inspect the windows in the resident’s property until 14 March 2023, over a year after it was put on notice. This was a failing in its handling of the matter as it took place well outside of the timeframes set out in its repairs handbook. It is noted that the inspection of March 2023 appeared to find the windows in working order. However, that it did not inspect before then was unreasonable.

Leaks, damp, mould, and the associated repairs

The landlord was on notice about the resident’s concerns in relation to leaks, damp, and mould from when she raised her complaint in September 2022. The landlord raised a damp and mould inspection when she raised her concerns, which was appropriate. However, the evidence indicates that the landlord did not complete the inspection until January 2023. This was outside of the timeframes set out in its repairs handbook, and a failing in its handling of the matter.
The record the landlord provided to this investigation of the inspection of January 2023 lacks the appropriate detail. It is noted that the report stated there was “minimal evidence of mould” and that the property was “structurally dry”. However, there is no evidence of how it reached the conclusion the property was “structurally dry” as there is no available evidence of damp/humidity recordings, as would be expected at a thorough damp survey. It is not possible to determine if such records were taken, but the lack of detail in its report is further evidence of the landlord’s poor information management in relation to the repairs.
The landlord completed some mould works in the kitchen in February 2023, which was 5 months after she put it on notice about concerns with damp and mould. This was well outside of the timeframes set out in its repairs handbook. The resident also raised a concerns that there was water damage to her ceilings, following a leak, and a mould issue in one of the bedrooms. From the records available it appears the landlord completed works to rectify the issue on 20 March 2023. Again, this was well outside of the timeframes set out in its handbook. The delay increased the detriment experienced by the resident.
As with other repairs, the landlord’s stage 2 response outlined its latest position in relation to the works associated with leaks, damp, and mould, but did not assess it handling of the issue up to that point. This is evidence of a lack of learning on the part of the landlord, which was inappropriate.

Repairs to the boiler and heating system

The landlord was on notice about the resident’s concerns about radiators, and the boiler from January 2022, when she sent her email listing the outstanding repairs. There is no evidence the landlord sought to inspect the boiler, or radiators, at that time, which was a failing in its handling of the matter.
According to the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, it did not try to inspect the boiler until October 2022. This attempted visit is not present within the repair log provide, but the resident does not dispute it took place, so it is reasonable to conclude it did. It is noted the landlord reported it was refused access to inspect the boiler, which would have impacted on its ability to respond to the repair. However, that it did not try and inspect the boiler until 9 months after it was on notice was inappropriate.
In relation to the resident’s concern about the radiators in her property, the comments in the landlord’s stage 2 response were inappropriate. It cited that she had not “formally” raised a repair, according to its records. This was inaccurate as the resident had raised a concern in her email of January 2022, and again when she complained in September 2022. This is further evidence that the landlord’s record keeping in relation to repairs was poor, and impacted on its ability to respond within a reasonable timeframe.
The evidence shows that the landlord did not attend to the radiator repair until February 2023, this was over year after it was first on notice about the issue. This was well outside the timeframes set out in its repairs and a further failing in its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs.
The evidence shows that the landlord’s response to the reported repairs was poor. For several of the repairs it did not seek to attend within a reasonable timeframe. It is noted that on some occasions it did attend within a reasonable time, but was unable to gain access, which impacted on its ability to respond. However, the evidence also shows that the landlord’s communication about repairs visits was poor, and the resident was inconvenienced by the need to repeatedly raise repairs before it attended.
The landlord’s records in relation to repairs were poor, a failing it accepted, but did not offer appropriate redress. The landlord’s complaint responses failed to appropriately assess its handling of various repairs in detail, which lacked learning. The resident was evidently distressed at the conditions she had described, and was inconvenienced by the lack of proactive action to attend to repairs. As such, we have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs, and an appropriate series of orders are set out below.

Rat infestation

The landlord’s pest policy states that it takes responsibility for rat infestations. The policy states that it will attend to vermin infestations within a “reasonable period” in line with its duties under the fitness for human habitation provisions.
This Service is aware that the resident reported concerns about the landlord’s handling of a rat infestation in 2017, and 2020. The landlord’s handling of issues dating that far back are not within the scope of this investigation, as we consider events within a reasonable period of time of the resident raising a complaint (usually 12 months). As such, we have assessed the landlord’s actions in relation to the rat infestation when it was put on notice in August 2022.
The evidence shows that when the resident reported the rat infestation, on 20 August 2022, the landlord’s contractor attended on 8 September 2022. While the landlord’s pest policy is silent on specific timeframes, it states it will attend within a reasonable time. Given it attended within the general repairs timeframe set out in its repairs policy, this Service has concluded its initial response time was reasonable in the circumstances.
After its “initial visit” the landlord’s records reflect that the contract ended and its pest control service was brought “in house” and no other visits were made after the “initial treatment”. That the landlord did not follow up on this was a failing in its handling of the matter. This caused the resident an inconvenience and she was evidently distressed at the presence of rats at her property. It is noted that “debris organic matter and materials” were found in the “front yard” which was contributing to the issue. However, there is no evidence of how this concern was communicated to the resident, which is a shortcoming in its handling of the matter, and its record keeping.
The resident was evidently dissatisfied with the lack of follow up, as she cited in her complaint that she was unhappy bait was laid but never followed up. Despite its own records reflecting it did not follow up after its initial visit, the landlord offered no acknowledgment of this in its stage 1 complaint response, which was inappropriate.
The evidence indicates that, after the resident raised concerns about the rat infestation in her complaint, in September 2022, it did not attend until February 2023. This was a delay of nearly 5 months, and was unreasonable. The delay increased the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
The landlord accepted a further failing in its handling of the matter in an email to the resident’s MP on 7 October 2022. It accepted there was delay in progressing with the pest control visit, due to a member of staff being off sick. However, that its stage 2 complaint response was silent on this admitted failing was inappropriate and evidence that its investigation into its handling of the matter lacked transparency.
As with its handling of the repairs, the stage 2 complaint response simply outlined its latest position on the rat infestation and the steps it was taking. That it did not offer a meaningful assessment of its handling of the matter up to that point was inappropriate and lacked learning.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was also dismissive of the resident’s concerns about rats entering from neighbouring properties. It simply cited it was the landowner’s responsibility and she could report concerns to the relevant team. Given its evident shortcomings in its handling of the matter, a more supportive approach would have been appropriate, such as raising the concerns about a wider issue in the area with the relevant team itself, rather than putting the onus on the resident.
The landlord initially attended within a reasonable timeframe, but failed to follow up. It accepted this, but failed to apologise or acknowledge this shortcoming, which lacked transparency. There were further delays in attending to visits which, again, it failed to acknowledge directly with the resident. Given it admitted failings in its handling of the matter, that it did not make an appropriate offer of redress to the resident was unreasonable. As such, we have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a rat infestation.

Complaint handling

At the time the resident raised her complaint, the landlord operated a 2 stage complaints procedure. Its policy stated that it aimed to respond to stage 1 complaints within 15 working days, and stage 2 complaint within 20 working days.
The resident’s email of 20 January 2022 was a clear expression of dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the various repairs at her property. That the landlord did not open a complaint investigation at that time was a failing in its complaint handling, and to abide by the complaint handling principles set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code states that a complaint is an “expression of dissatisfaction, however made”. The resident was inconvenienced by raising concerns about the landlord’s handling of the substantive issue, and it not opening a complaint investigation.
The resident formally raised a complaint on 11 September 2022, and the landlord sent its response 2 day later. As outlined above, the stage 1 response lacked detail, did not address all of the concerns the resident raised, and was dismissive of her concerns. Given the shortcomings in its response, coupled with the fact it was sent 2 days after it was made, it is reasonable to conclude the landlord did not conduct a thorough investigation into the complaint. This was a failing in its complaint handling, which caused the resident an inconvenience of not having her concerns appropriately addressed.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response went some way to putting right the above failing by apologised for the inaccuracies and lack of detail in its stage 1 response. Given its admitted failing, it is unclear why the landlord did not make an appropriate offer of redress, considering the inconvenience caused by its complaint handling. That it did not do so was inappropriate.
The landlord did not open a complaint investigation when the resident first expressed dissatisfaction with its handling of the issues. The landlord’s complaint investigations lacked transparency and did not accept failings it was aware of. Its response at stage 1 was dismissive, and its response at stage 2 did not show the appropriate level of learning. It admitted a failing in its complaint handling, but failed to offer appropriate redress, or set out what it would do to prevent similar shortcomings happening again. As such, we have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a rat infestation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £950 in compensation, made up of:
  1. £550 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs.
  2. £225 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of a rat infestation.
  3. £175 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint.
3. Instruct an appropriately qualified officer to meet with the resident at her property to identify any outstanding repairs, including damp and mould. At the visit it must agree an action plan with the resident explaining when it will complete any repairs identified.
Within 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Considering the failings identified in this report, complete a review into its handling of the repairs, including how it can reduce the risk of similar failings happening again. The review should consider:
  1. Following up on reports of repairs, and booking repairs in a timely manner.
  2. How its poor record keeping impacted on its ability to respond.
  3. Its poor communication with the resident about repairs visits, and the lack of follow up after a ‘no access’ visit.
  4. The recommendations set out in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report knowledge and information management.
2. The outcome of the above review should be shared with this Service, also within eight weeks.
3. Conduct training with its complaint handling staff to assist them in knowing when it should open a complaint investigation, in line with the Code. It should also focus on the importance of a meaningful complaint investigation that seeks to learn from outcomes, and conduct a meaningful assessment of its own actions. The dates of the training and content should be provided to this Service.