Leeds City Council (202230989)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202230989

Leeds City Council

2 December 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 report of a leak.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been a secure tenant of the property since 14 August 2017. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a 1 bedroom flat. The resident’s first language is not English. The resident has an appointed representative who for the purposes of this investigation will be referred to as the resident.
The resident reported a leak in his property on 27 June 2022. The landlord attended the same date but was unable to trace the leak as it needed other equipment.
The contractor who attended the following day, found the leak within the loft area, and temporarily fixed the issue. On 6 July 2022, a contractor was at the resident’s property undertaking further works in relation to the leak when the contractor fell through the resident’s ceiling. The contractor made the ceiling safe with a board and the landlord raised a further job to repair the ceiling.
A contractor attended on 9 July 2022 to repair the ceiling, but the resident was not home. The contractor left a card asking the resident to make contact to rearrange the appointment.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 12 August 2022. The key points were as follows:
1. The resident explained his property had a leak which had taken the landlord a number of a visits to resolve. The resident had to take time off work for each visit.
2. Between the visits, the leak continued which caused the living room ceiling to collapse and damage the living room furniture.
3. When the ceiling collapsed, the contractors in attendance informed the resident the landlord would contact him about further repairs.
4. His sofa was damaged, and the living room was unusable.
5. He requested a decant until the repair was complete as he could no longer take time off work for repair appointments.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 31 August 2022. It apologised for the inconvenience caused and confirmed it would not compensate for damaged belongings and explained it recommends all residents have contents insurance for these circumstances. It further confirmed that the works needed did not require a decant and as per the tenancy agreement, the resident would need to be available for appointments.
A contractor attended on 9 September 2022 however the resident was not home.
The landlord arranged an appointment for a plasterer to attend for 12 October 2022. The resident requested the contractor attend on the same date to inspect the insulation, following the leak.
The plastering appointment went ahead on 12 October 2022 and the contractor completed the final plastering works on 26 October 2022. The contractor did not complete the loft insulations works on this date and the resident asked the landlord to chase the contractor.
The resident requested escalation to stage 2 of the complaints process on 27 November 2022 following which the landlord said it would escalate if the contractor had not completed the outstanding works by the end of the week.
On the same date, the resident sent a letter to the landlord under the pre-action protocol. The letter set out the resident’s request for completion of the works and £2138.04 in compensation for the damage to his items. It is important to note the resident did not pursue legal action beyond this initial letter.
The roofing contractors attended on 16 December 2022 and noted the insulation was dry and it needed no further work.
The resident requested escalation to stage 2 of the complaints process again on 6 January 2023. The landlord acknowledged this on 6 February 2023.
It provided its stage 2 response on 22 March 2023. The key points were as follows:
1. It apologised for the delay in completing the repairs and gave an extensive history of the repair and works undertaken.
2. The landlord acknowledged it should have completed the works sooner.
3. It confirmed its contractor had fallen short of its expectations and confirmed it had addressed this with the relevant teams and ensured it include the learning in training going forward.
4. It reiterated its earlier point in relation to compensation and confirmed that the resident had an open compensation claim with its insurance team.
5. It hoped that it had provided reassurances to the resident that it took his complaint seriously and had taken steps to improve its service as a result.
The resident referred is complaint to this Service as he remained dissatisfied that some of the works were outstanding and that he had received no compensation for the damage caused to his personal belongings.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The resident’s tenancy agreement sets out that the landlord will respond to repairs as follows:
1. It will respond to emergency repairs within 3 hours and complete them within 24 hours.
2. It will respond to priority repairs that included plumbing and drainage within 3 working days and priority repairs that include roof leaks within 7 working days.
3. It will respond to general repairs within 20 working days and non-urgent repairs within 60 working days.
The agreement sets out that residents must have adequate home contents insurance to cover belongings and accidental damage to internal decoration. It confirms that residents may be responsible for internal damage from internal water leaks.
It says that the landlord is responsible for making good internal decorations that are affected during a repair and is only responsible for making good internal decorations that are affected by improvement works if the damage had been caused by the landlord’s negligence.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. It will acknowledge a complaint at stage 1 within 3 working days and respond within 10 working days. It will acknowledge a complaint at stage 2 within 3 working days and respond within 20 working days.

Landlords handling of a leak.

The resident first reported the leak in his property on 27 June 2022 and the landlord attended in line with its policy on the same date.
As the contractor was unable to find the source of the leak, the landlord raised a further repair, and the contractor attended the following day. While it is unfortunate that the contractor was unable to stop the leak at the first visit, the landlord arranged for its contractor to attend again at the earliest opportunity and stop the leak. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
While the contractor isolated the leak on 28 June 2022, it did not complete the final works until 6 July 2022. It is unclear if the leak had continued between this time and there is no evidence to make a determination either way; however, on 6 July 2022, the ceiling collapsed, and the repairs log shows this was due to a contractor falling through the ceiling. It is not for the Ombudsman to determine if this was due to negligence of its contractor, but the Ombudsman will assess the landlord’s actions following this.
The landlord appropriately raised the repair to the ceiling as an emergency appointment and its contractor attended on the same date to make safe and board the ceiling. This swift action highlighted the landlord’s commitment to resolve the issue quickly for the resident.
The landlord arranged a further repair for the ceiling for 9 July 2022 which did not go ahead as the resident was not at home and a contact card was left. However, there is no evidence to show that the landlord communicated the details of this appointment to the resident. Landlords need to ensure they have effective communication with residents to ensure situations such as these do not occur. Not doing so caused a delay in resolving the repairs.
Given that the contractor left a no contact card asking the resident to contact it to rearrange the appointment, it was reasonable, at that stage, that the landlord closed the job due to no contact.
However, once the resident raised his formal complaint on 12 August 2022, due to the lack of contact following the first repairs, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have raised the repairs needed. The resident chased this again on 25 August 2022. The landlord has provided no evidence to show that it either raised a repair or that it chased its contractor for an update in relation to any outstanding repairs. This caused the resident to spend time chasing the landlord for updates and highlights a lack of effective record keeping.
In his formal complaint, the resident said he would no longer be able to make himself available for appointments for the repair work and requested a temporary decant. In its stage 1 response, the landlord appropriately set out the relevant points of the resident’s tenancy agreement which highlighted his obligation to ensure someone over the age of 16 was available for appointments. While the Ombudsman understands that repair appointments can be inconvenient, the landlord was correct in requiring the resident to make himself available, especially given there had not been an unreasonable number of appointments at this stage. It was also appropriate of the landlord to link its reasoning to the relevant section of the tenancy agreement.
The landlord then arranged for an appointment for the 9 September 2022 and informed the resident of this. However, the resident was not home, and a contact card was left. Given that the resident had been informed of the appointment and given opportunity to inform the landlord that he was not available, no fault can be attributed to the landlord for this missed appointment.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 12 September 2022 and the landlord arranged an appointment, in line with its repairs policy, for 12 October 2022. As the resident had asked that both the plastering and insulation works be undertaken on the same date, the landlord appropriately requested this of its contractors. While it was reasonable of the landlord to ask this of its contractors, it managed the resident’s expectations and explained that it might not be possible due to different contractors completing the works.
The contractor completed the repair works to the ceiling on 26 October 2022. This was 4 months after the issue had occurred. This delay was unreasonable and the landlords lack of action in raising the appointments promptly can be attributed to the delays. Landlords need to ensure they have efficient and robust systems in place to track and monitor repairs to ensure they are completed in line with its policies and tenancy agreements.
Following completion of the plastering, the resident contacted the landlord on 27 October 2022 as he had not received an appointment through about the insulation. Throughout November 2022, the resident informed the landlord 5 times that he had not heard from the contractor in relation to the outstanding issue. Despite the landlord being aware of this, there is no evidence to show that the landlord chased up the delay with its contractor. This is not acceptable, given that at this stage it was now 5 months since the leak had occurred, the repair was well outside of the landlord’s own repair policy timescales and its lack of action highlighted a disregard to the resident’s situation.
Due to the lack of action, the resident sent a letter to the landlord under the pre-action protocol procedures and asked them to complete the outstanding repairs and for an update on his insurance claim. The landlord responded the next day to say it had emailed the contractor asking for an update. It is not appropriate that it took the resident escalating the issue for the landlord to chase its supplier. This further highlights a lack of effective system in place to track and monitor repairs.
Furthermore, given the already extensive delays in this case, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have escalated matters internally itself. Its contractor was clearly failing in its obligations to undertake repairs, and it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered if another contractor would be able to complete the repair. Not doing so showed a disregard to the resident’s situation who was concerned about his living situation and inadequate insulation particularly going into the winter months.
Following this, the landlord arranged an appointment for 16 December 2022. Given that the resident was away until the day before, this was reasonable and was the next available date the resident could do.
Upon attending this appointment, the contractors found that the insulation was dry and did not need to be replaced. The resident has disputed this and chased the landlord on 6 January 2023 and 9 February 2023 setting out the insulation issue was outstanding. Landlords are however entitled to rely on the opinion of their qualified contractors, and it was therefore appropriate that it did not replace the insulation.
However, given the residents assertion that it was indeed damp and needed further inspection, the landlord set out in its stage 2 response that it had arranged for a further inspection. This was reasonable given the circumstances.
Following the repair, the landlord agreed to decorate and make good the wall and ceiling area that had required plastering. However, the evidence shows that the landlord did not raise the decorating works until 24 April 2023; 124 working days after the contractor completed the plastering. This is outside of the landlord’s repairs policy which sets out it would complete non-urgent repairs within 60 working days. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the landlord communicated with the resident during that time to manage his expectations as to when it would complete the work. This further highlights a lack of an effective system to track and monitor outstanding repairs.
Throughout the complaint the resident asked the landlord for compensation for the damage to his sofa and carpets. In its first complaint response, the landlord appropriately set out its position to the resident and highlighted its expectations that residents have contents insurance for cover such circumstances. This was a reasonable response and in line with the resident’s tenancy agreement.
When the resident responded to say he believed the landlord was responsible for the damage, it appropriately directed the resident to its own insurance team and instructed him how to make a claim. Again, this response was appropriate and in line with the tenancy agreement. It appropriately reiterated its position to the resident throughout the complaint process and explained clearly why the resident would need to follow the route it had set out to gain compensation.
However, given its admission in its final response that there were delays in its service and its service had not been satisfactory, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have acknowledged that and offered compensation in line with the remedies guidance to reflect the overall distress and inconvenience caused.
Overall, while the landlord responded swiftly to the leak in the first instance, its response following that fell below the standard expected by the Ombudsman. The landlord’s lack of action meant the resident had to spend time chasing the landlord for updates and even after chasing, the landlord did not always take any action to chase the necessary repairs with its contractors. Its lack of communication with its contractors caused significant delays in returning the resident’s property to its condition prior to the leak.
Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leak.
A compensation order has been made for £700, made up of the following:
1. £300 for the overall distress and inconvenience caused.
2. £200 for the delays.
3. £200 for the time and trouble taken by the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

The resident raised a formal complaint on 16 August 2022, the landlord responded on 31 August 2022. This was in line with both its complaint policy and Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The resident then asked for escalation to the next stage of the complaints process on 27 October 2022. However, the landlord responded and said it would escalate to stage 2 if its contractor did not complete the works by the end of the week. This is not appropriate. Where a resident has requested the next stage of the complaint process, a landlord should accept that, in line with the Code which sets out that if a resident is still dissatisfied, the landlord must escalate the complaint. Furthermore, the issue was not then resolved by the end of the week, yet the landlord did not escalate the complaint at that point either.
The resident further requested escalation to stage 2 on the 6 January 2023, yet the landlord did not acknowledge this until 6 February 2023. This is not in line with its policy which sets out that it would acknowledge the complaint within 3 working days.
The landlord then provided its stage 2 response on 22 March 2022; 17 working days after its response was due. This was not in line with its policy or the Code, which sets out that a response should be given within 20 working days. Furthermore, the landlord has provided no evidence to suggest that it communicated the reason for its delay, in line with its policy, to the resident. This delay was unreasonable and caused the resident a delay in receiving a resolution to his issue. However, it did apologise for these delays in its stage 2 response.
While the landlord responded within the time limits set out in the Code and its own policy at stage 1, it failed to escalate the complaint at stage 2 when the resident first requested it. It then did not acknowledge the escalation request and give its response at stage 2 within the time limits set out.
Therefore, there was maladministration in its complaint handling.
A compensation order has been made for £200, made up of the following:
1. £50 for not escalating the complaint initially.
2. £50 for the delay in acknowledging the escalation request.
3. £100 for its delay stage 2 response

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leak.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Within 6 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must pay compensation to the resident of £900, made up of the following:
1. £700 for the failings identified in the handling of the leak.
2. £200 for the failings identified in its complaint handling.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this determination, a senior member of staff must write to the resident to apologise for the failings found in this report.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must undertake a review of this complaint to understand where it can embed learning from the failings identified in this report into its policies and practises going forward.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders