Leeds City Council (202105687)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202105687

Leeds City Council

28 May 2025

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 handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the front and back doors, and the associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident was a tenant of the landlord at the time of his initial complaint. The resident purchased the lease to his property from the landlord in October 2023 (during the complaints process).
3. The resident contacted the landlord in January 2021 and informed it his door was damaged by the police. The landlord completed an interim repair and raised an order for a new door.
4. The resident contacted the landlord in December 2022. He reported both the front and back door were damaged by the police in 2021. In December 2022, the landlord cancelled the order for the new door. This was because it had received a ‘right to buy’ application from the resident. The landlord raised an inspection and completed repairs to the back door on 24 January 2023.
5. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 5 September 2023. He said he was unhappy it had not yet replaced the door. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 6 September 2023 and said:
   1. It explained a previous stage 1 complaint response in August 2022 said it had sent an order to its contractor to fit the door.
   2. It apologised it had not attended to the repair raised to the door in August 2022.
   3. It repaired the back door on 24 January 2023.
   4. The door had now been appropriately fixed and it would not be providing a new door.
   5. It offered the resident £50 in compensation for its “poor communication”.
6. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint response and asked it to open a stage 2 complaint on 29 September 2023. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 31 October 2023 and said:
   1. It gave a history of the door issue dating back to 2021.
   2. It explained that following a right to buy application it is only required to undertake repairs in line with its “core responsibilities” as such it was appropriate to only repair the door.
   3. Its position was the front door “remained functional” following its initial repair.
   4. It apologised for the confusion caused by giving the resident the impression it would replace the door.
   5. It offered the resident £200 in compensation for its handling of the matter.
7. The resident contacted us on 4 December 2023 and asked us to investigate his complaint. He said he was unhappy the landlord had refused to replace the door and its compensation offer was too low.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the front door

8. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property.
9. The landlord’s repairs handbook says it will carry out emergency repairs within 24 hours and routine repairs within 20 working days.
10. The landlord’s right to buy policy says on receipt of an application it only carries out emergency repairs.
11. The resident raised concerns the door issue was outstanding from 2021. We are unable to investigate matters dating back to 2021, due to the passage of time. This is because evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult to carry out a thorough investigation. Taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, it is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the landlord’s handling of the events from the 12 months leading up to the resident making his complaint in September 2023. Any reference to the events that occurred prior to 2022 is made in this report to provide context. This approach is taken in line with that set out in our Scheme.
12. The evidence shows that the landlord reraised the door replacement in September 2022 following the resident chasing the progress. On receipt of his right to buy application the landlord cancelled the replacement. While this was an appropriate application of its policy, it would have been appropriate to raise an inspection to ensure the door was safe and met a minimum standard. It was a failing in its response it did not do so. This inconvenienced the resident.
13. Following the resident raising concerns about the safety of the doors. The landlord attended within a reasonable timeframe and completed repairs to the back door. We acknowledge its complaint response indicated it also satisfied itself of the front door was in working order at this visit. However, there is no evidence in its repair log that supports this claim. This is a shortcoming in its record keeping. We acknowledge the landlord attended and completed repairs it identified at the repairs visit.
14. There is no evidence to indicate the landlord communicated its change in position, that it was no longer prepared to replace the front door on receipt of the right to buy application. This was a failing in its communication. The resident was inconvenienced by not knowing the landlord’s position on the matter. He was further inconvenienced by the need to raise a complaint in order to find out the landlord’s position..
15. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was inappropriate in relation to the front door. We acknowledge it set out its position it would not replace the front door. This went some way to putting right errors in its communication. However, it only set out its position on the condition of the back door and did not set out its view of the condition of the front door, or what repairs it had done. This was a further failing in its communication.
16. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response went some way to putting right the errors in its communication about the front door. It gave an explanation of its right to buy policy and set out it was satisfied the front door was left in “functional” condition after its initial repair. We note the resident was unhappy with its position on the matter. However, the landlord was entitled to rely on the findings of its repairs operatives that concluded the door was functional. At the time of its final complaint response the resident was responsible for the front door. As such, the landlord’s position it would not replace the door was reasonable in the circumstances.
17. It was appropriate for the landlord to set out the history of the door issue dating back to 2021 in its complaint responses. This is evidence it sought to respond to the resident concerns. As set out above we have not assessed the landlord’s handling of the matter dating back to 2021, due to the passage of time. However, that it addressed the concerns dating back to 2021 was appropriate and showed transparency.
18. The landlord accepted its communication about the door issue was poor and caused confusion. It offered the resident a total of £250 in compensation for its handling of the issue. Our remedies guidance sets out an order of compensation between £100 and £600 may be appropriate to put things right for the resident where they have been distressed and/or inconvenienced by the landlord’s errors. The exact amount of compensation will depend on the individual circumstances of the complaint. Considering, the failings identified above we have determined the landlord’s offer of £250 in compensation was appropriate to put right its errors for the resident.

Determination

19. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord made an offer of redress which, in our opinion, resolved errors in its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the front and back doors, and the associated complaint.

Recommendations

20. We recommend the landlord pays the resident the £250 it offered for its handling of the door issue if it has not already done so. Our finding of reasonable redress by the landlord is based on an understanding that this compensation will be paid.