Leeds City Council (202226092)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226092

Leeds City Council

20 August 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 the resident’s report that the contractor did not take adequate measures to cover and protect her flooring and belongings during the repair works.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report that her front door was left open and unattended by the contractor during the works.
3. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Background

The property is a 2-bedroom house and the resident has a secure tenancy which began on 3 May 2010.
The landlord’s records stated that it had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.

Summary of events

On 27 January 2023, the resident phoned the landlord to make a stage one complaint. The points noted by the landlord included:
1. The resident stated that the landlord and the contractor had attended the property on the day before the work was due to start and advised her that she did not need to vacate the property for the work to be carried out.
2. The resident stated that the landlord and contractor had not produced a plan to enable the work to be carried out, including any measures needed in relation to her belongings.
3. The contractor had laid partial floor covering to protect the carpets; however, dust was still able to spread over the parts of the property that had not been covered. The contractor later added more protection prior to carrying out painting.
4. The resident stated that she had been away from the property for 2 weeks and was unable to return to the property in the condition it was in.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 8 February 2023 with its stage one response in which it included the following:
1. The landlord stated that one of its technical officers had attended the property to discuss the start date for the works and the arrangements.
2. The landlord said that the contractor had used floor protection and had placed additional protection down due to the dust travelling around the property.
3. The contractor had arranged for the property to be cleaned while the works were in progress. However, following a report from the resident that the standard of cleaning had been unacceptable, it carried out further cleaning on the day of the resident’s report.
4. The landlord said the gas had been turned off as a safety precaution as the resident was staying in temporary accommodation and a contractor attended on the day the resident moved back to the property to ensure the heating was in full working order.
5. The landlord concluded that it had correctly followed its processes when dealing with the resident’s claim and the contractor had dealt with the dust issues appropriately at the time.
6. The landlord confirmed that one of its technical officers would inspect the works when completed to check the standard.
The resident contacted the landlord on 15 February 2023 and asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2. The resident stated the following:
1. The contractor had only laid floor protection where the operatives were walking.
2. The resident said she had submitted photos showing cement on the bed frame and bedroom cabinet. She stated that the contractor should have covered these and other belongings in the property to protect them.
3. The resident had returned from the hotel and found the front door open while operatives were upstairs in the property.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 16 February 2023 and attached photos to support her complaint.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 6 March 2023 to confirm it had been contacted by this Service that day about her complaint. It attached a further copy of its stage one reply and confirmed that her complaint was being investigated at stage 2.
The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 7 March 2023 in which it stated the following:
1. The landlord confirmed it had spoken to the resident on 23 February, 2 March and 7 March 2023 to understand her complaint and the outcomes she was seeking.
2. The landlord said it had spoken to the contractor and the contractor had agreed that the floor covering was unacceptable and more dust sheets should have been used while works were in progress. The contractor apologised that this had not occurred.
3. The landlord stated that it had spoken to the resident regarding her report that some of her possessions had cement on them. The resident had advised the landlord that she did not want the landlord to investigate this as her solicitor was dealing with the matter.
4. The landlord said it had spoken to the contractor about the resident’s report that the door had been left ajar while the operatives had been upstairs. The landlord explained that the contractor had said the door had been left ajar while one of the operatives went to their van. The landlord stated that despite having a different account of the events to the resident, the contractor had accepted that the front door had been left ajar and this should not have occurred. The contractor therefore apologised for this. The resident had confirmed to the landlord that no items were missing from the property.
5. The landlord confirmed it had raised the matters with the contractor and the contractor had assured the landlord that it had raised the issues with the operatives involved and during ‘toolbox talks’ to prevent the problems reoccurring.
6. The landlord stated that during its conversation with the resident she had requested permanent rehousing. However, the landlord had advised the resident that it was unable to offer a permanent transfer as an outcome of the complaint. It agreed to investigate the resident’s housing application and provide advice and assistance where possible.
7. The landlord confirmed it had offered the resident £300 compensation for the failings during the works but the resident had advised the landlord that she needed time to think about the offer. The landlord apologised for the issues the resident had experienced.

Events after the landlord’s stage 2 reply

The landlord’s records state that the repair works were signed off as completed satisfactorily in April 2023.
The landlord carried out a tenancy check on 7 January 2024 and recorded that there were no outstanding repairs in the property. The inspection report was signed by the resident.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

A key part of the Ombudsman’s role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information being investigated by the Ombudsman as part of its complaint response. It is therefore considered fair and reasonable to only investigate matters covered in the resident’s stage 2 complaint and responded to by the landlord in its stage 2 reply. Information following the landlord’s final complaint response has, however, been included in this report for context.
The Ombudsman is aware that the resident advised the landlord during the complaints process that one of the outcomes she was seeking was to be rehoused. The Ombudsman is unable to investigate matters relating to local authority rehousing or allocations issues as these fall within the remit of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).

The resident’s report that the contractor did not take adequate measures to cover and protect her flooring and belongings during the repair works

The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Handbook states that it will:
1. “Protect your home by using clean dustsheets to cover furniture and floor coverings where appropriate and wear protective shoe coverings”.
2. “Take care of your home and belongings”.
The landlord stated in its stage 2 reply that it had spoken to the contractor about the resident’s report that it had not adequately covered her flooring and belongings during the works and this had caused items to be covered in dust. it was reasonable that the landlord had discussed the complaint with the contractor as part of the investigation. The contractor accepted that the floor covering had been unacceptable and agreed that it should have used more dust sheets. The contractor apologised for its failing.
As the landlord’s repairs handbook states that contractors will use clean dustsheets to protect furniture and floor coverings, it was unreasonable that the contractor had not used sufficient sheets to fully cover the furniture and flooring. Although the contractor later carried out cleaning in the property, the resident was distressed by the level of dust that was present on the floor and on her possessions. The Ombudsman therefore agrees that the lack of adequate protective covers was a failing and that it was appropriate for the contractor and the landlord to apologise to the resident.
The resident had stated in her stage 2 complaint that there had been cement on the bed frame and the bedroom cabinet due to the lack of protective sheets used by the contractor. The landlord stated in its stage 2 reply that the resident had said she did not want the landlord to investigate this reported damage as her solicitor was dealing with the matter. It was appropriate that the landlord had offered to investigate the reported damage as it was part of her stage 2 complaint. It was then reasonable that the landlord had not pursued the investigation after the resident had requested the landlord not to do so. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence from the resident disputing that she had advised the landlord not to investigate this aspect of her complaint.
The landlord offered the resident £300 compensation for the contractor’s failings during the works. The Ombudsman’s assessment of the landlord’s offer is covered below under a separate heading of ‘the landlord’s offer of compensation’.

The resident’s report that her front door was left open and unattended by the contractor during the works

“The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Handbook states: “we will…ensure your home is secure while we are working in it and when we leave”.
The resident stated in her stage 2 complaint that she had returned home from the hotel to find the front door open and the operatives were upstairs. She was concerned that she had been able to enter the property without the knowledge of the operatives and therefore felt they had not had due regard to the security of the property while working in it. The landlord confirmed it had spoken to the contractor about the matter and the contractor had said that the door had been left ajar while one of the operatives went to their van.
The landlord concluded in its stage 2 reply that it did not have sufficient evidence to decide which of the different accounts was accurate. However, it confirmed that the contractor had accepted the door should not have been left ajar and the contractor therefore apologised for this.
The evidence shows that there were conflicting accounts of the circumstances in which the front door was left open. However, the contractor accepted that the door should not have been left open and it apologised for this. As the contractor was aware that the resident was not living in the property while the works were being carried out, the contractor was responsible for ensuring the property was kept secure. Furthermore, the landlord’s repairs handbook states that it will ensure the property is kept secure while it is working on it. Therefore, the Ombudsman’s view is that it was inappropriate for the contractor to have left the front door open while it was unattended. The resident was distressed that she had been able to enter the property without the contractor’s knowledge and therefore was concerned about the lack of security in relation to the property and her belongings. It was therefore right for the contractor and the landlord to apologise for this failing.
As previously stated, the landlord offered compensation of £300 to put things right for the contractor’s failings and this is considered below under a separate heading.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. The landlord responds to stage one and stage two complaints within 15 working days. Its Compliments and Complaints Policy states that if it is unable to reply within the 15-working day target, it will provide the complainant with regular updates at least every 2 weeks, which will detail the reason for the delay and state when the complainant can expect a reply.
The resident made a stage one complaint on 27 January 2023 and the landlord sent its response to the complaint on 8 February 2023. The landlord therefore took 8 working days to reply, which was within its 15-working day target. The landlord therefore replied to the stage one complaint within an appropriate timescale.
The resident contacted the landlord on 15 February 2023 and asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2. The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 7 March 2023, which was 14 working days after the resident had asked for her complaint to be escalated. The landlord therefore replied to the stage 2 complaint within its 15-working day target.
The landlord therefore responded within its prescribed timescales at both stage one and two of the complaints process. The Ombudsman has noted that the landlord spoke to the resident 3 times before replying to the stage 2 complaint. This was positive as it showed that the landlord wanted to fully understand the complaint and the outcomes the resident was seeking. It was also helpful that the landlord had offered to investigate the resident’s housing application, even though this was not part of her complaint.

The landlord’s offer of compensation

As part of the stage 2 reply, the landlord offered the resident compensation of £300 due to the issues she had experienced. The failings identified were the lack of adequate protective covers on the floors and the resident’s belongings and the contractor leaving the front door open while it was unattended. The dust caused the resident distress and inconvenience in having to arrange for the contractor to carry out cleaning and leaving the front door open caused her distress about the lack of security.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord acted fairly by acknowledging its contractor’s failings and apologising for these. It also offered redress of £300 to put things right. The amount offered was within the range of sums given in the landlord’s compensation guidance for failings where the resident has been adversely affected and has suffered significant inconvenience and/or upset. The sum was also in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance. Therefore, the Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord’s offer was proportionate in terms of the failings that had occurred.
The landlord demonstrated learning by speaking to the contractor about the issues and ensuring that the contractor had spoken to the operatives concerned and to other operatives to prevent the problems reoccurring.
Overall, the Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord offered reasonable redress in relation to the lack of protective covers used by the contractor and the contractor leaving the front door open.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to its response to the resident’s report that the contractor did not take adequate measures to cover and protect her flooring and belongings during the repair works.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s report that her front door was left open and unattended by the contractor during the works.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints.

Reasons

The landlord offered financial redress, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion was proportionate and put things right in terms of the lack of protective covers used by the contractor.
The landlord offered financial redress, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion was proportionate and put things right in terms of the contractor leaving the front door open.
The landlord responded within its prescribed timescales at both stage one and two of the complaints process.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord reoffers the resident the £300 offered in its stage 2 reply if this has not already been paid.