The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Leeds City Council (202233265)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233265

Leeds City Council

24 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be reimbursed for loss of earnings.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a secure tenant in a property that is owned by the landlord. She moved into her home in October 2012. Although the property is managed by a tenant management organisation (TMO), the contractual obligations to the resident lie with the landlord. We have therefore referred to the landlord when assessing this complaint. Where necessary, we have distinguished between the landlord and the TMO.
  2. On 17 January 2023, the resident contacted the TMO to report that there was a leak coming through her kitchen ceiling. The contractor attended on 19 January 2023 and completed a temporary repair and recommended that the bath was replaced due to rusting around the plug hole. An appointment to replace the bath was booked for 23 January 2023.
  3. On 23 January 2023, the resident contacted the TMO to cancel the appointment due to illness, and told it she would rebook once she felt better. She called again on 3 February 2023 and booked an appointment for 7 February 2023. Although the contractor attended on 7 February 2023, it could not complete the works because it was unable to turn off the stop tap and required the water utilities provider to attend. The utility provider attended on 10 February 2023 to repair the stop tap.
  4. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 10 February 2023 and stated that:
    1. She received a call from the utility provider to say it could attend on 10 February 2023 to turn her water off so the contractor could replace her bath.
    2. She called the TMO and it told her it would ask the contractor to contact her with an appointment to replace the bath on 10 February 2023, after the water had been turned off.
    3. She did not receive a call from the contractor so she contacted it because her partner had taken a day off work to give it access to the property. The contractor advised her that it could not replace the bath until 14 February 2023.
    4. When she contacted the TMO, it denied it told her that it would ask the contractor to book the bath replacement for 10 February 2023.
  5. The TMO acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 10 February 2023, and sent her its response on 23 February 2023. It stated that:
    1. The member of staff the resident spoke to on 9 February 2023 agreed with her version of events, but with one exception.
    2. She had understood from the phone call that the contractor would attend on 10 February 2023, which was why her partner took the day off work to allow access.
    3. The member of staff stated he was “clear” that he would ask the contractor if it could attend on that day.
    4. In line with the landlord’s policy, the TMO did not record telephone calls. Therefore, the matter rested on the resident’s recollection of the phone call versus the member of staff’s recollection.
    5. As the resident was left with the impression that the work would be completed 10 February 2023, it partially upheld her complaint.
    6. By way of apology, the TMO would send her a £20 shopping voucher.
  6. The resident responded on 27 February 2023 to say she wanted to escalate her complaint. She stated that, as much as she “appreciated the gesture of the £20 shopping voucher”, it did not make up for the loss of earnings due to a member of staff giving incorrect information.
  7. The TMO acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 3 March 2023 and stated that the resident’s complaint would be heard by a panel of TMO members and a senior officer on 13 March 2023.
  8. On 14 March 2023, following the panel meeting, the TMO sent the resident its stage 2 response. In its letter, it gave a timescale of events from when the resident reported the leak on 17 January 2023. It stated that:
    1. The panel agreed it was unfortunate that the resident was not satisfied with the service it had provided. However it considered the TMO had acted appropriately.
    2. It did not accept the resident’s “allegation” that the member of staff had “lied” about the information he gave. The panel therefore did not feel the TMO should reimburse her for her partner’s for loss of earnings.
    3. The panel did not accept the resident’s version of events. This was because it would not have made sense to arrange for the contractor to attend on he same day as the utility provider, who was booked to attend between 12 and 2pm. It would have not been possible to remove an existing bath and install a new one in the time available and would have left the resident without a bath for the weekend.
    4. The panel acknowledged there was a misunderstanding but considered the offer of £20 to be appropriate.
  9. The resident wrote to the Ombudsman on 22 March 2023 and stated that the TMO had “lied” about fitting the bath the same day the water would get turned off. She stated that her partner had to take a day’s unpaid leave to allow the contractor access. The resident added that she wanted to recover the pay her partner had lost due to the misleading information the TMO had given her.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s policies and procedures, and relevant guidance

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining the installations in the dwelling house for the supply of water and for sanitation, including basins, sinks, baths and sanitary conveniences. It will carry out repairs in a reasonable time and will send the resident written confirmation of their request for a repair, unless it is an emergency.
  2. The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Handbook outlines 3 categories of responsive repair. It states it will attend to emergency repairs within 3 hours and complete the repair within 24 hours. This includes uncontrollable leaks and total or partial loss of hearing or hot water. The landlord carries out priority repairs within 3 to 7 working days and these include issues such as plumbing and drainage faults and roof leaks. The landlord will carry out general, non-urgent repairs within 20 working days. The handbook states that the landlord will tell the resident how quickly it will complete the repair, provide a target completion date and arrange and appointment where possible.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy states that financial loss payments are made only where financial loss is clearly evidenced, and where the resident has taken all reasonable steps to limit the loss. It will pay compensation where the resident has made a complaint about a failing in the service provided, and the complaint is upheld. There must also be clear evidence of financial loss to the tenant as a result of the failing. When the resident has not had a quantifiable loss but has suffered from distress, inconvenience, and time and trouble as a result of poor service, it will offer a small token such as a food shopping voucher up to the value of £10.
  4. The landlord’s complaint’s policy has 2 stages. It responds to stage 1 complaints within 10 days and stage 2 complaints within 15 days. If the resident is unhappy with their stage 1 response, they can ask for a review, which is made up of a senior staff member and 2 members of the TMO board. The resident has the opportunity to meet with panel in person to explain their concerns. The landlord refers to the second stage of its process as a review , which considers whether all appropriate factors were taken into consideration at stage 1.

The resident’s request to be reimbursed for loss of earnings

  1. The evidence shows that the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s report of a leak from her bath. It attended on a day the resident had requested, repaired the leak and arranged to return 2 days later to replace the bath. Although the works were subsequently delayed, this was outside the landlord’s control and were as a result of a cancellation by the resident and the requirement for the water utility provider to first repair a stop tap.
  2. The Ombudsman does not dispute the resident’s account of the telephone conversation that took place on 10 February 2023 between the resident and TMO. However, we cannot reasonably conclude what was said without any corroborating evidence. The records show the landlord conducted a proportionate investigation to try to establish what was discussed during the telephone conversation. It interviewed the member of staff who spoke to the resident and acknowledged that, although the two versions of events did not quite align, there may have some confusion caused as a result of the conversation.
  3. Although the TMO disagreed it had said it would arrange for the contractor to attend on the same day as the utility provider, it acknowledged it had told the resident it would ask it if they could attend that day. It is clear the TMO had not considered that it hadagreed a definite appointment with the resident for the contractor to attend. However, following the conversation, the TMO shouldreasonably have contacted the resident to let her know that it had spoken to the contractor and whether or not it was likely a same day appointment would be agreed. That the TMO omitted to follow up on what it had told the resident was a failing.
  4. The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance states that, in general, we would not propose a remedy of compensation to reimburse a resident for loss of wages while repairs are carried out. While such works will inevitably cause some inconvenience to residents, their occupancy agreement will require them to give access for repairs to be carried out as needed. It would therefore not be fair or reasonable for the Ombudsman to order a landlord to pay a resident reimbursement for loss of earnings for routine appointments. However, there may be circumstances when the Ombudsman decides that it is appropriate to make an order that a landlord pays compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused, for example where repairs appointments are repeatedly missed or fail to resolve the repair issue. As there is no evidence an appointment was agreed with the resident for the contractor to attend on 10 February 2023, it was reasonable that the landlord did not consider that further compensation was warranted in the circumstances, or that a payment for loss of earnings was due.
  5. The landlord acted appropriately by partially upholding the resident’s complaint and offering a £20 shopping voucher for its failure to make clear whether or not the contractor would attend on 10 February 2023 to replace the bath. The compensation it offered was in line with its compensation policy. For the reasons stated above, the landlord has offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord had made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, addresses its handling of the resident’s request to be reimbursed.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to ensure that, when the TMO advises residents it will liaise with contractors to ask if appointments can be made on specific days, it follows up on those commitments and calls residents back to update them on the outcome of its discussions.