Leeds City Council (202222091)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222091

Leeds City Council

30 April 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 response to the resident’s concerns about:
1. Having to pay rent whilst the disrepair was fixed.
2. Damp and mould around windows in his property.
3. The number of times the elevator broke down.
4. Debris falling from the above balcony.
5. The standard of painting at the property.
6. Flaking paint on his balcony.
7. A spider infestation at his property.
8. The level of customer service received.
9. Pigeons on his balcony.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlords record keeping.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 35(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states: “a complaint is duly made when it has exhausted, or the Ombudsman has decided it has exhausted, the members internal process for considering complaints”. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 9 June 2023.
This Service asked the landlord to provide evidence related to this investigation to assist with the assessment and determination. However, the information it provided contained evidence of activity that goes beyond its final stage 2 complaint response, and therefore beyond the scope of this investigation.
It is, however, prudent for some elements of the additional evidence to be considered and referenced in the report; where it provides clarity on activity that is within the scope of this report. Where this occurs, it is noted.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, the landlord is a local authority. The resident lives in a 1 bedroom flat on the sixth floor of a 10 storey block of “Reema construction”. The tenancy began on 7 August 2017.
The tenancy agreement states the resident “must immediately report any repairs, defects or damage” to the landlord if it is responsible. The agreement also states the resident must allow the landlord “to arrange for inspection and/or repair(s) to be carried out”.
Section 10.9 of the agreement says the landlord “will seek to use independent mediation services to deal with disputes between it and its tenants about repairs, which cannot be resolved by using the Council’s complaints procedure”.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its policy states it will acknowledge complaints at both stages within 3 working days, either verbally or in writing and aim to respond in full within 15 working days. It also says that residents would “normally have 28 days from the date we responded to your initial complaint to review your complaint, unless there are exceptional circumstances”.
The landlord’s repairs handbook states that the landlord is responsible for repairs the structure of the property, including external walls, the roof and balconies. The landlord’s repairs handbook also states that emergency repairs would be completed within 24 hours and general repairs would be completed within 20 working days. It also states that improvements such as damp eradication, major repairs to walls and roof repairs would be completed as planned works.
The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 amended the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, with the aim of ensuring that all rented accommodation is fit for human habitation. It required landlords to ensure their properties are fit for human habitation at the beginning of, and throughout, the tenancy. Section 10 of the Landlord and Tenant Act states that when considering whether a property is fit for human habitation, regard should be given to various matters including repair and freedom from damp.

Scope of investigation

The resident has brought numerous complaints to the Ombudsman relating to separate issues with the landlord. For clarity this report will only focus on those issues raised to and responded from, the landlord in its stage 1 and 2 complaint which is detailed below. For clarity, these are the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about:
1. Having to pay rent whilst the disrepair was fixed.
2. Damp and mould around windows in his property.
3. The number of times the elevator broke down.
4. Debris falling from the above balcony.
5. The standard of painting at the property.
6. Flaking paint on his balcony.
7. A spider infestation at his property.
8. The level of customer service received.
9. Pigeons on his balcony.

Summary of events

Evidence was provided that showed the resident signed a disclaimer in 2019 to say he did not want the following works to be carried out at his property:
1. “Various works to the bathroom
2. Thermal board and damp treatment to window wall in the bedroom
3. No fans to the kitchen and bathroom.
4. No bed ceiling and paint walls
5. Leave all times to the bathroom and no thermal board to ceiling or wall”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 12 December 2022 and said he was not happy, had mental health and mobility issues. He had been told he had to pay rent whilst the disrepair was fixed and wanted to take it further. He did not feel he should pay rent in this period and when he had requested help with filling paperwork in, none was provided.
The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 14 December 2022. Within its response, the landlord confirmed a telephone conversation with the resident on 21 December 2022. The landlord detailed the resident’s complaint as:
1. “Rent payment while living in a decant property.
2. Communal areas of the flats not cleaned.
3. Mould issues”.
The landlord clarified that:
1. Rent must be paid on the property whilst repairs were undertaken and the decant property would be paid by the landlord.
2. It had asked the cleaning team to ensure corridors are cleaned thoroughly, but advised spiders are not considered to be a pest.
3. The resident had confirmed the mould issue to be minor, but the landlord had agreed to raise an inspection for this.
The resident emailed the landlord on 14 December 2022 and advised he had appealed against the landlords “rejections to not pay me back the rent money during decant/repair” of his property.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 16 December 2022 and advised the landlord he had mental health issues and asked for reasonable adjustments. He stated:
1. The elevators had not been fixed due to “poor technical skills” or “replacing spare parts”.
2. Compensation of £1000 should be paid for a 5 year period of “perpetual fixing”.
3. The quality of the repair work was “a disgrace”.
4. There was a “serious” issue with a spider infestation due to “poor standards of cleaning”, which affected him in a negative way.
5. The resident demanded £2000 be deducted from his rent account “immediately” and £30 for future months where the spiderwebs are not cleaned.
6. He felt the manager of the cleaning team should be held accountable and lose his job.
A disrepair pro forma dated 30 March 2023 stated that damp and mould was present in the property, it was noted that the resident would speak to his solicitor and get back to the landlord as he was unsure he could allow anyone to enter the property until a survey had taken place.
According to the landlord’s disrepair pro forma it called the resident on 26 April 2023 and booked an inspection.
On 11 May 2023, the resident emailed the landlord about a spider in his property, asked if the cold walls were to be insulated as he was still having mould issues around windows. He had concerns about the letterbox letting a draught in. He said the kitchen and 1 room had uninsulated walls left over from a previous legal case which he found concerning. He also mentioned “burnt electric sockets in the wall”. The resident sent a further email on this day and said he needed confirmation the kitchen window had generated black mould and what insulation improvements could the landlord confirm to keep the overall condensation down. The landlord took this email as an escalation of the resident’s complaint and logged a stage 2 complaint.
The resident also called the landlord on 11 May 2023 on 2 occasions to raise the issue with the spider webs and additional items following an inspection.
On 11 May 2023, the landlord texted all residents in the block to advise the lift was out of order and then again later on this day to advise it was then working.
On 26 May 2023, the landlord emailed the resident and said it needed more time to respond to his complaint. It advised a full response would be provided by 16 June 2023.
According to its stage 2 response, the landlord attended the resident’s property on 1 June 2023. It also spoke to the resident on 6 and 7 June 2023 according to its stage 2 response.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 9 June 2023. Within its response, the landlord:
1. Said the mould around the windows had been inspected and was included in the proposed schedule of works.
2. Said the elevator was in working order when it visited, the resident had clarified his complaint was about the number of times it had broken down over a number of years. The landlord apologised for any inconvenience caused and confirmed an emergency job was always raised to ensure at least 1 elevator was always in use for residents.
3. Confirmed:
  1. It would inspect the balcony above to check if any repairs were required as the resident had stated the paint was flaking and dropping onto his balcony.
  2. The painting within his property had been inspected and was included in the proposed schedule of works.
  3. The property’s insulation had been inspected and was included in the proposed schedule of works. The external wall in the kitchen and living room would be thermal boarded.
  4. Spiders were not considered a pest and no infestation had been found when the property was inspected. The landing outside the residents front door and window was the tenant’s responsibility, cleaners would sweep and damp mop as per the service standard. It had asked the cleaners to wipe down the communal light on the ceiling however, outside the resident’s property.
4. Said the resident had confirmed that his complaint about the level of customer service received was related to the housing officer not dealing with the spider issue.
5. Said the resident had confirmed pigeons fly onto the balcony and leave excrement but had some suggestions he would try which would hopefully address this issue.
6. Clarified the resident wanted compensation as an outcome to his complaint as he had to complain numerous times about the repairs and spiders.
7. Confirmed the resident had an open disrepair claim which would determine any damages to be awarded.
8. Offered £50 as a gesture of goodwill as it had not been clear about the standard of cleaning the resident could expect.

Events following the landlord’s internal complaints process.

The landlord provided evidence of 3 no access letters hand delivered to the resident dated, 19 July 2023, 27 July 2023 and 3 August 2023. Notes from a disrepair proforma showed the resident refused to allow a new front door to be fitted on 23 October 2023 as he could not understand why the landlord would spend money on a property when it was going to demolish it soon. Notes also suggest the resident was not happy with the proposed internal works to his property and was still liaising with a solicitor. An initial demolition notice was sent to the resident on 15 November 2023.
At the time of this determination the landlord confirmed it had received no updates from the resident’s solicitor despite contacting it in June 2022 with the proposed schedule of works and October 2022, therefore it is presumed the disrepair claim has not been pursued and issued at court. The landlord also provided information regarding a further support referral made, a care act assessment resulting in a package of care required, which was in the process of being put in place by adult social care.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about having to pay rent whilst the disrepair was fixed.

The landlord addressed this point in its stage 1 response on 14 December 2022, by advising that rent must be paid on the property whilst repairs were undertaken and the decant property would be paid by the landlord, which is a reasonable stance to take. No additional information has been seen by the Ombudsman that shows a further response to this issue. The resident has not elaborated on why he felt this was not appropriate, nor had the landlord request this from him.
Information has been seen that confirmed the resident was temporarily moved out in July 2021 to another flat in the block so it would be reasonable to conclude that the resident was complaining about a previous decant. The resident advised in his email of 14 December 2022 that he had contested the decision to not refund the rent during the period of the decant, again no additional information has been seen by the Ombudsman that shows a response to this issue.
It has been difficult to establish whether the landlord acted appropriately to this issue due to the lack of records provided and its limited response to the resident’s complaint. The resident’s complaint said that he had asked for help with filling forms in, but none was provided. The housing contact logs provided by the landlord do not show any records of this issue being previously raised to the landlord. The resident has also not provided evidence that supports his statement of contesting the decision to not refund him money, the Ombudsman would not necessarily expect residents to be able to do so, not having access to the resources and systems that a professional body such as the landlord has. Without evidence, the Ombudsman is unable to form a view as to which account is most accurate, however the landlord should have investigated whether the resident had requested help and responded with the full details of its findings in its complaint response.
The resident is obliged to pay the rent for the property in line with his tenancy agreement and it is appropriate for the landlord to enforce the terms of the tenancy if required. A finding of service failure has been made for the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about having to pay rent whilst the disrepair was fixed as it has been unable to demonstrate it carried out an adequate investigation and therefore was unable to provide a full response into this part of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about damp and mould around windows in his property.

The landlord has advised a disrepair claim was brought to it in March 2023, following the residents refusal to have a number of repairs completed. It is not clear if the decant in July 2021 had any impact on this claim, as the Ombudsman has not been provided with the detail of the claim. However, it is evident from the residents communication with the landlord over the repairs required that additional items were included in the proposed schedule of works following its visit in June 2023 and these works are largely improvement works to help with the issue of mould in the property.
It has been difficult to establish whether the landlord acted appropriately in this aspect of the resident’s complaint as it is not clear when the landlord was put on notice of the damp and mould. In its stage 1 response it confirmed the damp issues were “minor” but agreed to arrange an inspection. No evidence has been seen that this was arranged prior to the disrepair claim being made in March 2023, which is not appropriate. Repair logs show only 4 repairs being reported between May 2022 and March 2023, none of which relate to damp and mould.
From receiving the disrepair claim, the landlord acted appropriately and tried to inspect the property. According to the landlord’s disrepair pro forma it attempted to inspect the property, called the resident on 26 April 2023 and booked an inspection. The detail of this call has not been seen, furthermore the landlord visited the property on 1 June 2023 and according to its stage 2 response, spoke to the resident following this on 2 separate occasions. Notes of the visit or these subsequent calls have also not been seen. It would have been appropriate for the landlord, especially with a pending disrepair claim, to keep full, detailed notes of all contact it had with the resident.
Following its visit in June 2023, the landlord provided a full list of proposed works required to the property, this was appropriate as the landlord is required to ensure the property is fit for human habitation at the beginning of, and throughout, the tenancy. The proposed schedule of works included improvements to the property to help improve its thermal efficiency which was appropriate. Taking the above into consideration, a finding of service failure has been made in relation to this aspect of the resident’s complaint as the landlord has been unable to demonstrate it attempted to inspect the resident’s property as per its stage 1 response in December 2022.
It is apparent from the evidence seen by this investigation following its final response that the relationship between the landlord and resident had broken down. The resident was undoubtedly frustrated with what he saw as persistent problems in his property, however his refusal to allow access for repairs was unreasonable, contrary to the conditions of the tenancy and impeded the landlord in resolving the issues.
A recommendation has been made for the landlord to explore independent mediation services as outlined in section 10.9 of the tenancy agreement to help try to resolve the issue of access.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the number of times the elevator broke down.

From the evidence provided the resident first raised the issue with the elevators in his email dated 16 December 2022. This was after the landlord had issued its stage 1 response. No evidence has been seen however that the resident’s email was responded to, which is not appropriate and would have caused further frustration for the resident.
From the evidence provided, the landlord responded to this point within its stage 2 response on 9 June 2023. It apologised for any inconvenience caused and confirmed repairs are always raised as an emergency to ensure at least 1 elevator is always in use, which it could evidence through its repair records. Its repair logs showed 22 emergency call outs between 24 November 2022 and 22 June 2023. Although the landlord has provided the Ombudsman with evidence and a detailed investigation into how it resolved the elevator issue, it would have been reasonable for it to elaborate on this in its complaint response. The resident would have then been made aware of the ongoing failures and the subsequent actions the landlord was taking.
Taking the above into consideration a finding of service failure has been made for how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about the number of times the elevator had broken down.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about debris falling from the above balcony.

From the evidence provided it is not clear when this issue was raised with the landlord. It agreed to inspect the balcony above in its stage 2 response as the resident had said paint was flaking and falling onto his balcony. As this could have been a service request the landlord acted appropriately in agreeing to inspect the balcony above therefore a finding of no maladministration has been made.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the standard of painting at the property.

As above, from the evidence provided it is not clear when this issue was raised with the landlord. It agreed to repaint all the walls in the property within its proposed schedule of works. As this is an improvement and not a repair the landlord was liable for, it acted appropriately in agreeing to carry the works out for the resident, therefore a finding of no maladministration has been made.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about flaking paint on his balcony.

Again, as above, from the evidence provided it is not clear when this issue was raised with the landlord. It agreed to repaint the front balcony of the property within its proposed schedule of works. As this is an improvement and not a repair the landlord was liable for, it acted appropriately in agreeing to carry the works out for the resident, therefore a finding of no maladministration has been made.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a spider infestation at his property.

The resident raised issues with the standard of the cleaning in his email dated 12 December 2022. 50. The resident believed spiders were in his property due to the cleanliness of the external corridors. The landlord confirmed that spiders were not considered a pest, which was a reasonable stance to take.
After the landlord had issued its stage 1 response, the resident emailed on 16 December 2022 clearly stating his continued dissatisfaction with the standard of cleaning. No evidence has been seen however that the resident’s email was responded to, which is not appropriate and would have caused further frustration for the resident.
The landlord provided evidence to show the communal cleaning is monitored through various means at the block. It was appropriate for the landlord to advise of the service standards in its stage 2 response and acknowledge it had not communicated these clearly to the resident prior to him making a complaint. The landlord offered £50 compensation for this aspect of the resident’s complaint which, in the Ombudsmans opinion provides reasonable redress.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the level of customer service received.

From the evidence provided it is not clear when this issue was raised with the landlord. It confirmed in its stage 2 response that the resident’s complaint about the level of customer service received was related to the housing officer not dealing with the spider issue. Therefore, there has been no maladministration by the landlord as it offered reasonable redress detailed above.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about pigeons on his balcony.

As above, from the evidence provided it is not clear when this issue was raised with the landlord. It confirmed in its stage 2 response the issue was pigeons fly onto the resident’s balcony and leave excrement, but he had some suggestions he would try which would hopefully address this issue. The landlord did not detail what these suggestions were or the discussions it had with the resident, but this aspect of the complaint has not been disputed further and a finding of no maladministration has been made.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlords record keeping.

Throughout this investigation it has been difficult establish whether the landlord acted appropriately at times due to the lack of records provided. In its stage 1 response, which was dated 14 December 2022, the landlord referenced a conversation with the resident on 21 December 2022. Although this is expected to be an error in its response, the landlord could have clarified this if it had provided full detailed records, including notes of the conversation it had with the resident.
Furthermore, its disrepair pro forma noted a call to the resident on 26 April 2023, its stage 2 response referenced an inspection at the property on 1 June 2023 and subsequent conversations between the landlord and resident on 6 and 7 June 2023. No records have been provided to show what was discussed at the visit or within the conversations it had with the resident which is not appropriate.
Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a landlords housing management and repairs service, not only so that a landlord can provide information to the Ombudsman when requested, but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure that the landlord has a good understanding of its customers and its property. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these, as should contractors.
Taking all the failures identified in this report with the landlord’s record keeping into account a finding of maladministration has been made.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about having to pay rent whilst the disrepair was fixed.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about damp and mould around windows in his property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in relation to how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about the number of times the elevator had broken down.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about debris falling from the above balcony.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the standard of painting at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about flaking paint on his balcony.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a spider infestation at his property satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the level of customer service received.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about pigeons on his balcony.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

The resident is obliged to pay the rent for the property in line with his tenancy agreement and it is appropriate for the landlord to enforce the terms of the tenancy if required. The landlord has been unable to demonstrate it carried out an adequate investigation and therefore was unable to provide a full response to the resident’s concerns about having to pay rent whilst the disrepair was fixed.
A finding of service failure has been made in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about damp and mould around windows in his property as the landlord has been unable to demonstrate it attempted to inspect the resident’s property as per its stage 1 response in December 2022.
The landlord apologised for any inconvenience caused due to the elevator breaking down and confirmed repairs are always raised as an emergency to ensure at least 1 elevator is always in use, which it could evidence through its repair records. Although the landlord has provided the Ombudsman with evidence and a detailed investigation into how it resolved the elevator issue, it would have been reasonable for it to elaborate on this in its complaint response. The resident would have then been made aware of the ongoing failures and the subsequent actions the landlord was taking.
From the evidence provided it is not clear when the issue of debris falling onto the balcony was raised with the landlord. It agreed to inspect the balcony above in its stage 2 response. As this could have been a service request the landlord acted appropriately in agreeing to inspect the balcony above therefore a finding of no maladministration has been made
From the evidence provided it is not clear when the issue of the standard of painting was raised with the landlord. It agreed to repaint all the walls in the property within its proposed schedule of works. As this is an improvement and not a repair the landlord was liable for, it acted appropriately in agreeing to carry the works out for the resident, therefore a finding of no maladministration has been made.
From the evidence provided it is not clear when the issue with paint flaking on the balcony was raised with the landlord. It agreed to repaint the front balcony of the property within its proposed schedule of works. As this is an improvement and not a repair the landlord was liable for, it acted appropriately in agreeing to carry the works out for the resident, therefore a finding of no maladministration has been made.
The landlord provided evidence to show the communal cleaning is monitored through various means at the block. It was appropriate for the landlord to advise of the service standards in its stage 2 response and acknowledge it had not communicated these clearly to the resident prior to him making a complaint. The landlord offered £50 compensation for this aspect of the resident’s complaint which, in the Ombudsmans opinion provides reasonable redress.
From the evidence provided it is not clear when the issue of customer service was raised with the landlord. It confirmed in its stage 2 response that the resident’s complaint about the level of customer service received was related to the housing officer not dealing with the spider issue. Therefore, there has been no maladministration by the landlord as it offered reasonable redress as detailed above.
From the evidence provided it is not clear when the issue about pigeons was raised with the landlord. It confirmed in its stage 2 response the issue was pigeons fly onto the resident’s balcony and leave excrement, but the resident had some suggestions he would try which would hopefully address the issue. The landlord did not detail what these suggestions were or the discussions it had with the resident, but this aspect of the complaint has not been disputed further and a finding of no maladministration has been made.
Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a landlords housing management and repairs service, not only so that a landlord can provide information to the Ombudsman when requested, but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its obligations. The landlord failed to provide full details of its communications with the resident. Taking all the failures identified in this report with the landlord’s record keeping into account, a finding of maladministration has been made.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £250, for its poor record keeping.
The landlord should provide evidence to this service that it has complied with the above order within 4 weeks of this determination.
Within 12 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must initiate and complete a management review of this case, identifying learning opportunities and produce an improvement plan that must be shared with this Service outlining at minimum its review findings in respect of:
1. Its intention and a timescale to complete a self-assessment using the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023).
2. Its intention and a timescale to review its record keeping processes, and ensure its staff are fully aware of the landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these in cases such as this.
The landlord should provide evidence to this service that it has complied with the above order within 12 weeks of this determination.

Recommendations

It is recommended the landlord explore independent mediation services as outlined in section 10.9 of the tenancy agreement to help try to resolve the issue of access.
The landlord should provide this service with its intentions to carry out the above recommendation within 4 weeks of this determination.