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

Leicester City Council (202012354)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012354

Leicester City Council

29 April 2021


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:
    1. reports of multiple repair issues at her property, including:
      1. skirting boards;
      2. bedroom door;
      3. bedroom ceiling;
      4. asbestos;
      5. mould;
      6. external guttering;
      7. kitchen electrical wiring;
      8. kitchen cupboards;
      9. bathroom window handle;
    2. request for information about the allocation of property to another tenant.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. Paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme notes as follows:

39. The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

a) are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.

  1. The resident, in her communications with this service on 21 January 2021 and 13 April 2021, advised that she is experiencing repair issues with her skirting boards, bedroom door, bedroom ceiling, and with asbestos. It is not evident, however, that these issues arose prior to the complaint and subsequent response, nor is it evident that these issues have been reported to the landlord.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about repair issues i. to iv. as noted above are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  3. If the resident makes a formal complaint, progresses it through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure and is dissatisfied with the outcome, she will then be able to refer the complaint to this service.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident has been a secured tenant at the property of the landlord since 13 December 2004. The landlord is a local authority.
  2. At the time that this complaint was made the landlord operated a single stage complaints policy. The policy does not give a specific timeframe for providing a response. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord has recently introduced a two stage complaint process for housing complaints.
  3. The landlord operates a repairs policy. The policy prioritises repairs into three priorities. Repairs to windows and kitchen units are noted as examples of ‘priority 2’ repairs and will be completed within 10 working days. Repairs to guttering are noted as examples of ‘priority 3’ repairs and will be surveyed within 10 working days and completed within 8 weeks to 12 months.

Summary of events

  1. The landlord has provided this service with its repair logs, which noted that it carried out repairs relating to condensation at the property on 8 May 2017 and 25 June 2017. On each occasion it gave condensation mitigation advice to the resident.
  2. The resident made a formal complaint on 25 June 2020. She advised that in 2016 she had been attacked by a resident, who had now been relocated to a property nearby previously occupied by her son. She expressed her dissatisfaction that this person had been allocated the property and advised that although the attack had been dealt with by the police at the time, she wished to know why the council had allocated this person with a property, “when another family in need could have had the property.”
  3. She also disputed the landlord’s advice that the mould at her property was caused by condensation and expressed her concern that the mould was exacerbating her daughter’s asthma. She further reported a number of other repair issues including her concerns that the wiring in her kitchen was faulty, that her kitchen cupboards were broken and needed to be replaced, that the guttering at the property was blocked, and that her bathroom window handle was broken.
  4. The landlord has provided this service with its internal emails, which note that, as part of its investigation into the resident’s complaints, it would be unable to disclose information about its investigation into the tenant allocated the property the resident had complained about due to its data protection responsibilities.
  5. The landlord provided its formal response on 30 July 2020. Regarding the allocation of property to a person that had previously been involved in an ASB incident with the resident, the landlord noted that “this happened over 4 years ago … [and] the matter was dealt with [by the] Police.” Regarding the guttering, it noted that the most recent blockage had not previously been reported, however, it advised it had raised a work order to have this cleared following the easing of COVID-19 restrictions. Regarding her ongoing issues with mould, it referred her again to its condensation mitigation advice and further advised it could add her to the waiting list for an insulation/damp inspection should the issues persist. Regarding the resident’s concerns about her wiring, it noted its operative had attended the property on 24 July 2020 and had “found no faults,” but said that it would also arrange for an ‘Electrical Installation Condition Report’. It further advised it had arranged for repair works for the kitchen cupboards and the bathroom window handle.
  6. The landlord’s repairs log also notes that it attended the property on 20 October 2020 and carried out repairs to the resident’s kitchen cupboards, as well as an inspection of her guttering. The landlord’s internal emails note that on 27 October 2020, the other repairs were put on hold pending an inspection of the property, which it later noted was arranged for 15 December 2020.
  7. On 21 January 2021 and 13 April 2021, the resident contacted this service and advised that she considered that the guttering required replacement, and that the kitchen cupboards were still not fully repaired. She further advised that there were still ongoing issues with condensation at her property.

Assessment and findings

Repairs

  1. Regarding the mould at the property, given that the landlord had attended the property on two previous occasions relating to mould, and on each occasion determined that it was due to condensation, in the absence of specific evidence of another cause, it was reasonable that it gave further advice on how to mitigate condensation. It was also appropriate that the landlord advised it could arrange for an insulation/damp inspection if the resident was unsuccessful at reducing the mould using the landlord’s advice.
  2. Regarding the guttering at her property, it is not evident that the resident previously reported this issue to the landlord and so it was appropriate that it raised a repair order following the resident’s complaint. The Ombudsman accepts that during periods of COVID-19 restrictions, it is reasonable for landlords only to carry out urgent repairs. Given that the landlord’s repairs policy considers repairs to guttering to be a priority three repair (i.e. a non-urgent repair), it was reasonable that it advised the resident that it would be unable to carry out repairs until after COVID-19 restrictions had been lifted. The Ombudsman further notes that the landlord subsequently carried out a preliminary investigation of the guttering, in line with its repairs policy, but that the resident has reported she considers the issue to persist. It would be helpful for the resident therefore if the landlord kept her updated with its position on any repairs necessary to the guttering.
  3. Regarding the resident’s concerns about wiring, it is again not evident that this was reported to the landlord prior to the initial complaint. It was appropriate that the landlord subsequently arranged for its operative to attend the property to assess the wiring and it was also appropriate that it agreed to carry out an ‘Electrical Installation Condition Report’. It would have been helpful for the resident, however, had it confirmed a timeline for this report to have been completed.
  4. Additionally, as with above, it is not evident that the resident reported issues with her kitchen cupboards or bathroom window handle prior to the initial complaint, and it was therefore appropriate that the landlord subsequently raised repair orders.

 

Allocation of property

  1. The Ombudsman understands that experiencing ASB related violence will have caused a significant amount of distress for the resident. The Ombudsman also notes that landlords have data protection responsibilities, and it is not always possible or appropriate to disclose information to third parties about its allocation of property.
  2. Following the resident’s expression of concern at the allocation of property to the individual involved in the ASB incident, the landlord reasonably noted in its internal communications that the resident was not an authorised person to receive information about its decision to allocate the property. In its formal response, however, the landlord did not give this advice to the resident, which would have left unsure as to the landlord’s position on why the property was allocated to this individual.
  3. In the landlord’s formal response, it instead referred to the age of the ASB complaint and also that it had been dealt with by the police at the time. While the landlord’s complaints policy does not give a time limit on when it will no longer consider a complaint, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it is reasonable for a landlord not to consider an issue which is four years old. It is not evident, however, when the allocation of the property occurred, and so the landlord’s reference to it being out of the timeframe for it to be able to consider the complaint would have also caused confusion for the resident.
  4. While the landlord’s reasoning was not clearly articulated in its response, given that its data protection responsibilities meant it could not provide information to the resident about the allocation of property, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this did not constitute service failure. It would nevertheless be helpful to the resident for the landlord to provide her with further correspondence outlining its position on why it cannot disclose information about the allocation of the property.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its response to the resident’s:
    1. reports concerning repair issues at her property;
    2. request for information about the allocation of property to another tenant.

 

 

Reasons

Repairs

  1. It is not evident that the resident had previously requested the repairs noted in her initial complaint and so it was appropriate that the landlord raised various repair orders. Given the COVID-19 restrictions in place at the time, and that the repairs were non-urgent, it was also reasonable that the landlord advised it would complete the repairs following the removal of restrictions.
  2. Given that it had not received evidence of underlying causes for the mould reported by the resident, it was reasonable that it offered advice regarding condensation, and it was appropriate that it offered an insulation/damp inspection should the issues persist.

Allocation of property

  1. It was reasonable that the landlord was unable to provide information to the resident about its decisions to allocate property given its data protection responsibilities, however, it would have been helpful for the resident had it more fully articulated its position in its formal response.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to contact the resident within four weeks of the date of this determination and include the following (if it has not already done so):
    1. enquire with the resident if issues with mould are continuing at the property, and if so, reiterate its offer for an insulation/damp inspection;
    2. update the resident as to its position on any repairs to the guttering;
    3. advise the resident as to the timeline for completion of its ‘Electrical Installation Condition Report’;
    4. enquire with the resident as to any outstanding repairs at the property;
    5. advise the resident of its position as to why it cannot disclose information about the allocation of property to the individual referred to by the resident.