Leicester City Council (202208302)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208302

Leicester City Council

19 July 2023

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. This complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of repairs to the resident’s property.
   2. Handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a one-bedroomed bungalow, where she has lived since 2 August 2021.
3. Prior to the resident taking up occupancy, the landlord’s records on 21 June 2021 show the neighbouring property housed a tree which required removal as it had caused damage to the resident’s external wall, which was badly cracked. The landlord’s tenancy handover sheet dated 20 July 2021 noted there was rubbish in the garden and the garden required strimming and clearing. On 27 September 2021, the resident notified the landlord that an external wall at her property was splitting, and cracks had occurred. She requested an inspection which was arranged for 8 October 2021, though no evidence has been provided of this inspection or any subsequent development on the issue. On 4 April 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to advise the cracks in the wall were getting worse and requested an update as no action had been taken.
4. On 11 April 2022 the resident formally complained to the landlord. She was concerned about its handling of a series of outstanding repairs and works to her property including the cracks in the external wall, rubbish in her garden, inadequate fencing and damage to her property due to security issues. The landlord provided its stage one response on 9 May 2022. It said that the garden had now been cleared of rubbish and building materials and work had been raised to repair / replace the fencing. The landlord did not include a response on the cracks in the external wall issue. The resident registered her dissatisfaction with this response on 14 May 2022 and requested resolution as soon as possible. She also raised issues with uneven paving in her garden. On 22 July 2022, she asked this Service to intervene and escalate her complaint as no response had been provided.
5. The landlord’s final response on 16 August 2022 provided an apology for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint. It reported a technical inspection was carried out on the cracked wall on 3 August 2022 and the works passed to a contractor to complete although the timescale had not yet been identified. The landlord confirmed there were no records of the uneven paving in its system but had instructed its staff to review and identify the works to rectify the repair. It also addressed the resident’s concerns about the difficulties experienced in logging repairs and being passed between departments. The landlord confirmed that all matters had been handled in line with expectations and within the timeframe of repair categories.
6. On 13 October 2022 the resident brought her complaint to this Service. She was concerned the landlord’s response was late and had not addressed the issues it had agreed to resolve, only reiterating works already completed previously. It had also failed to address the structural integrity of the external wall as this had only been made good and not rebuilt as had been agreed. She also said the landlord had failed to complete the agreed work to the uneven slabbing. The resident sought completion of all required works within the property to a satisfactory standard and in a timely manner and compensation for the stress and inconvenience caused.

Assessment and findings

Handling of repairs to the resident’s property:

External wall and debris left in the garden

7. The landlord’s conditions of tenancy state it is the landlord’s obligation to maintain the structure and exterior of the property and associated structures.  The landlord’s repairs priorities’ classification stipulates programmed repairs would be surveyed within 10 working days and completed within eight weeks to 12 months according to the job. Routine repairs would be completed within ten working days.
8. On 11 April 2022, the resident formally complained to the landlord about a series of outstanding repairs to her property which had been raised on several occasions. The resident was concerned about the rubbish and old drainage materials in the garden which was noted during the tenancy handover on 20 July 2021. She had been informed this would be completed prior to her commencing her tenancy on 2 August 2021. The landlord’s records show that the rubbish was cleared on 25 April 2022, nine months after the resident’s tenancy commenced. The landlord failed to address this until the resident formally complained despite her actively chasing it. This was an unreasonable delay by the landlord in dealing with this matter.
9. The resident also raised concerns about the condition of the badly cracked external wall caused by her neighbour’s tree. It is of concern that prior to the resident taking up occupancy, the landlord had previously noted work was required to rectify this issue but has failed to provide evidence that action was taken. The resident first reported this issue to the landlord on 27 September 2021. It arranged a survey to be undertaken on 8 October 2021. This was in line with the expected timescales for surveys for programmed repairs. However, the landlord has failed to provide a copy of the survey or demonstrate it had instructed work to be carried out following the survey. Additionally, it did not update the resident on any plan of works. This was unreasonable and not a resolution orientated approach.
10. On 4 April 2022 the resident raised the wall’s worsening condition to the landlord and requested an update on the remedial works. There is no evidence provided by the landlord to demonstrate this update was provided. The landlord also failed to address the issue of the cracked garden wall in its initial complaint’s response on 19 May 2022. It took no action to rectify this issue until the Ombudsman intervened on behalf of the resident on 22 July 2022. The landlord then arranged for a technical investigation on 3 August 2022 following which instructions were issued to rebuild a section of the wall. This was completed on 15 August 2022, which was nearly one year after the resident initially reported it, despite the landlord having been aware of the issue during the voids period in June 2021.
11. The resident has since reported to this Service that the wall was repaired rather than rebuilt as agreed. She also expressed concern regarding the structural integrity of the wall. The delays in addressing the cracks in the external wall, the disregard of the resident’s concerns by the landlord and not completing the works as planned was not appropriate. It failed to show that it had followed through the repair having previously identified the works required.

Fence

12. In her complaint, the resident also expressed concern about the fence around her property which she believed was not fit for purpose or secure. She informed the landlord on 9 and 14 April 2022 that an aggressive dog had been in her garden and that this experience had left her concerned for her safety. The resident also reported her back door mat was damaged. The landlord in its complaint response, failed to address this alleged damage to the resident’s property.
13. The resident requested replacement fencing to prevent reoccurrence but was informed it was her responsibility to do this. She disputed this as she felt the fence design was inadequate and on 13 May 2022 provided evidence to demonstrate it was broken and unsafe. The resident believed the situation could have been avoided if suitable fencing had been originally installed. Following her complaint, the landlord arranged for the fencing to be repaired with standard issue replacement fencing. This was originally categorised as a non-emergency 12-month job which, following further concerns raised by the resident, was brought forward to a four/five week resolution timeframe. This was completed on 14 June 2022 and was in line with the timeframes in the landlord’s repair handbook.
14. Given the security concerns raised by the resident, it demonstrated a reasonable exercise of discretion on the landlord’s part to agree to complete the fencing works, irrespective of whether the tenancy terms included this repair obligation. It was also commendable that the landlord brought forward the resolution timeframe and was able to complete the works within a reasonable period. It is of concern however, that there is no evidence of the landlord having responded to the resident’s reports about damage to her door mat, an issue that she raised during the complaints process and one which she would therefore have had a reasonable expectation of a response to.

Garden slabs

15. On 14 May 2022, the resident reported uneven garden slabs which she said had caused people to trip on several occasions. She acknowledged she had not previously raised this with the landlord as the responsibility for repairing this was unclear. On 16 August 2022 the landlord confirmed there were no records on its systems regarding the uneven slabbing. The landlord has reported a review had been arranged to clarify the work required to rectify the issue. This Service can see the landlord had taken some action to address this issue. However, when the resident brought her complaint to this Service, she reported this work was not yet complete. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord completed this repair.

Repairs conclusion

16. In its final response on 16 August 2022, the landlord recognised the resident had experienced difficulties with logging repairs but said it was satisfied with its approach. No apology was offered to the resident for the delays in completing the repairs nor did it fully address the resident’s concerns about security which had resulted in a ripped backdoor mat. In this Service’s view, the landlord had an opportunity to review its actions but failed to recognise the delays, its failures, and the inconvenience caused to the resident.
17. This Service can see that the landlord has taken steps to put things right by completing outstanding repairs by 15 August 2022. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord should have addressed the resident’s concerns at a much earlier stage. The delay in repairing the external wall was excessive and did not comply with the landlord’s repairs’ timescales. The landlord had also given reassurances the garden rubbish would be cleared prior to the resident moving in but this took nine months to complete. The landlord had an obligation to keep the resident updated on the actions and expected timescales to complete the repairs. This would have lessened the inconvenience and distress the resident experienced. The delays and the landlord’s approach to the resident’s concerns were unreasonable, unsympathetic, and lacked customer focus.
18. Therefore, in all the circumstances of the case, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaints about outstanding repairs and this Service has made orders below concerning this.
19. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance provides for compensation from £100 to £600 for cases where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident and the landlord failed to acknowledge its failings “and/or made no attempt to put things right.” Given the length of time of the failure of the landlord’s dealing with the external wall repair, the rubbish and the work to the uneven slabs, this service will award toward the higher end of this scale. This Service has made further orders below concerning putting things right for the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

20. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual or group of residents.” Section 1.3 of the Code states that a resident does not have to use the word “complaint” for it to be treated as such.
21. Under section 1.4 of the Code, landlords should recognise the difference between a service request and a complaint. The Code states “A service request is a request from a resident to their landlord requiring action to be taken to put something right. Service requests should be recorded, monitored, and reviewed regularly. A complaint should be raised when the resident registers dissatisfaction with the response to their service request.” Given the resident voiced her concerns on several occasions prior to raising a formal complaint in April 2022, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to recognise this case as a formal complaint at a much earlier stage and taken appropriate action.
22. The landlord operates a two-stage complaint process which states for stage one complaints, the response time is ten working days and for a stage two response it allows 20 working days.
23. The landlord issued its stage one response on 9 May 2022, 18 working days after the resident made her complaint on 11 April 2022, and as such with 8 working days delay. The resident requested escalation of her complaint on 14 May 2022 when she outlined her concerns about the landlord’s response to her complaint. She also requested resolution as soon as possible. However, it was not until this Service intervened on 22 July 2022 the landlord accepted the resident’s request for escalation. The landlord’s failure to treat the resident’s original request for escalation is of concern given the Code’s definition of a complaint outlined above.
24. The landlord issued its final response on 16 August 2022, 64 working days after the resident’s original escalation request. It offered an apology for the delay in response, explaining it had wanted to ensure it had the full facts before replying, an approach that is contrary to the expectations of member landlords as outlined in the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code. The landlord also outlined the actions it had already taken or those planned to complete the repairs. No explanation was provided for the delays the resident had experienced or the reasons why the resident was not kept updated. The landlord failed to offer an apology or acknowledge any failings in respect of the substantive issues.
25. It is of concern that the landlord’s internal correspondence did not seek to identify why no action was taken following the outcome of the survey conducted on 8 October 2021. This would have enabled the landlord to learn from its mistakes and take steps to prevent reoccurrence. The Code states “Landlords should look beyond the circumstances of the individual complaint and consider whether anything needs to be ‘put right’ in terms of process or systems to the benefit of all residents.”
26. It is also of concern neither of the landlord’s responses addressed the issue the resident raised regarding damage to her backdoor mat. The resident believed this was caused by the lack of security provide by the inadequate fencing in place and had requested a replacement mat.  As per the Code, landlords are expected to address all aspects of a resident’s complaint, but there is no evidence the landlord did this here.
27. The landlord’s failure to provide evidence on the actions it had taken, or records of the repair requests made by the resident suggests a record keeping issue. This inhibits effective complaints investigations and can lead to landlord’s being unable to demonstrate that it has acted appropriately in response to service delivery requests.
28. The landlord’s delay in providing responses at both stages of the complaints process, its failure to recognise the resident’s escalation request when first made, its poor record keeping and failure to address the complaint in full, amounts to maladministration by the landlord. This Service has made orders below concerning this. Compensation of £250 is considered fair in these circumstances and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination

29. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of outstanding repairs to the resident’s property.
30. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

31. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for not taking her concerns seriously, not resolving her outstanding repairs at an earlier stage and not keeping her informed of progress.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £750 compensation, comprised of:
       1. £500 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s long delay in resolving repairs to her external wall and dealing with garden rubbish and uneven slabs.
       2. £250 for time and trouble incurred by the resident by the landlord’s failures in complaint handling.
       3. Pay the compensation direct to the resident and not use it to offset any arrears of rent or service charge.
    3. Ensure that the works to the external wall and uneven paving at the resident’s property are re-inspected. Should additional works be identified, these must be completed to a satisfactory standard and within a reasonable timeframe.
    4. Provide evidence to this service of compliance with the above orders.

Recommendation

32. Provide complaint handling staff with training on the landlord’s complaints policy and procedure including the timescales for responding to complaints, the actions to be taken and the importance of accurate record keeping.