Leeds City Council (202307483)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307483

Leeds City Council

27 February 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of repairs to the front door of the property.
2. Request for a grab rail.
3. Request for help with his overgrown garden.
4. Reports of a bathroom leak.
5. Request for a different entry point into the property.
6. Concern about delays in a surveyor attending the property.
7. Associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

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 us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why we will not investigate a complaint.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of our jurisdiction – the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a bathroom leak; its response to his request for a different entry point into the property; and its response to his concern about delays in a surveyor attending the property.
Paragraph 42.a of the Scheme says that we may not consider complaints ‘which in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to exhausting a members’ complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.’
In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues that have completed the landlord’s formal complaints procedure. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. We have seen no evidence the resident raised as a formal complaint the issues about the bathroom leak; the time taken for a surveyor to attend the property; or his request for a different entry point into the property. These aspects of the complaint are therefore outside of our jurisdiction.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy agreement with the landlord. The property is a 1-bedroom flat in a low-rise building. The landlord is a local council. It has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
The repair log gives details of a repair to the lock of the front door in April 2022 and a repair to a hole in the door frame in November 2022.
On 10 May 2023 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about several issues including the delay in replacing the front door, its handling of his adaptations and its response to his concerns about his overgrown garden.
On 24 May 2023 the landlord responded to the resident at stage 1 of its formal complaint procedures. The landlord said it had booked an appointment for 4 June 2023 for repairs to the front door. In relation to his garden, the landlord said it had previously suggested he contact a service that helps residents live independently in their home and it suggested he chase them up. It also offered to refer him to another scheme which we understand was run by volunteers. The resident subsequently asked the landlord to escalate the complaint.
At the end of May 2023, the landlord completed a repair to the seal of the bottom of the front door.
On 29 June 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. The main points were:
1. It had now installed a new front door, and the resident was happy with that outcome.
2. In respect of the garden, it had made a referral to the volunteer scheme as a goodwill gesture. It said there was a waiting list and therefore could take a few weeks.
3. Its surveyor considered a grab rail could be attached to the exterior pebble dash of the property and it had booked in that work.
When the resident approached us, he said he wanted compensation for his time and trouble in pursuing matters as well as the inconvenience caused to him by the landlord’s mishandling of repairs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

We can see that the resident has reported repairs to the front door since at least 2020. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme limits our consideration of a case to issues that have been raised with both the landlord and us within a reasonable timeframe. As such, this investigation has focussed on events from March 2022 that led to the resident’s formal complaint in May 2023.
We have seen that an occupational therapist from the local council was involved in decisions relating to adaptations for the resident. Our role is to consider the actions of the landlord in its management of housing. Complaints about other local council functions, including the occupational therapy service, may fall within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (the LGSCO). Any concerns about the actions of the occupational therapist, would be a matter for the LGSCO.
The resident mentions that the landlord’s actions have been detrimental to his health. However, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim. However, we can consider any distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced as a result of errors by the landlord.

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

The landlord’s maintenance and repairs handbook says that it is responsible for keeping the main structure (including doors) and outside of the property in good repair. This reflects the landlord’s obligations under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
The resident reported in March 2022 that the door was not fit for purpose as the lock was loose and there was a draught. The repair records provided by the landlord does not evidence any response to that repair request. That lack of action was not appropriate. In line with the timescales set out in its maintenance and repairs handbook, the landlord should have treated this as an emergency repair. That is because the resident had suggested that the security of the property might be at risk due the faulty lock.
The landlord responded appropriately to the resident when he reported the faulty lock again the following month and carried out a repair the same day. However, there was a delay of almost 5 weeks to complete what should have been an emergency repair.
The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s report of a hole in the exterior frame of the door in October 2022 by carrying out the repair within 20 working days. That was in line with the timescales set out in the repairs handbook for a general repair.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a draught from the door in early February 2023 was not appropriate because it cancelled the job having taken no action. It attended the following month after a further report from the resident. However, it took the landlord 31 working days before it attempted to carry out the repair. That was outside its timescale of 20 working days set out in its repairs handbook.
We note the landlord could not initially gain access to carry out that repair. The resident has a responsibility under the tenancy agreement to allow access to the property for inspection and/or repairs. We are not questioning the resident’s reasons why access was not given at that time, but this ultimately impacted the landlord’s ability to resolve the issues, and the landlord is not fully responsible for delays caused by a lack of access.
The evidence suggests that the landlord decided in May or early June 2023 that it should replace the front door. It installed a new door on 23 June 2023. The resident believes the landlord should have replaced the door when he first reported problems with it. Its maintenance and repairs handbook says the landlord will try to repair in the first instance and only replace items if they cannot be repaired. While we acknowledge the resident’s frustration with the time taken by the landlord to replace the front door, its approach was appropriate and in line with its policy.
In summary, the landlord’s handling of repairs to the front door was not appropriate. The landlord failed to take action in March 2022 and February 2023 which led to delays in responding to his reports of a faulty lock and a draught.
Our role is to provide fair and proportionate remedies where we have identified maladministration or service failure by the landlord. In considering this we take into account our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies. We also consider any extent to which the resident’s actions might have contributed to the situation in which they found themselves, in other words whether they exacerbated or did not take reasonable steps to minimise the impact. Also, our orders are not punitive, this means we do not seek to punish landlords for something having gone wrong.
It is evident that the delays in carrying out repairs to the door caused the resident frustration and inconvenience. It also caused him distress as he was concerned about security for at least some of that time. The sum of £200 is appropriate for this impact. Our remedies guidance suggests awards in this range where the landlord has made errors which affected the resident, but the impact was of shorter duration such as in this case. The resident’s request for a grab rail
The Tenants Handbook says that if a resident’s property is no longer suitable due to the medical needs of a member of the household, it can see if there are any adaptations it can make to the property so that the resident can stay there. It also explains that an Occupational Therapist, employed by the local council’s Adult Social Care, determines whether adaptations are ‘necessary and appropriate’.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a grab rail was reasonable. In April 2023 the landlord identified that a grab rail was needed by the front door; however, it identified an issue with fixing it to the wall. It acted reasonably by engaging a surveyor who gave an alternative way forward, which meant the rail would be fixed to a steel plate on the wall. The landlord gave the resident this information in its stage 2 complaint response.
We can see that the landlord subsequently wrote to the resident on at least 2 occasions seeking his agreement for this steel plate to be fixed to the wall. This was reasonable as it said it would be visible from inside the property. We understand that the landlord did not ultimately fit the grab rail and that this is no longer needed as the resident’s injury was temporary.

The resident’s request for help with his overgrown garden

The tenancy agreement says that it is the resident’s responsibility to ensure the garden is kept cultivated, neat, tidy and free from rubbish, pests, weeds and animal waste or faeces. It says that lawns must be cut, and trees, shrubs and hedges kept trimmed.
The landlord acted reasonably in response to the resident’s requests for help by signposting him to 2 organisations that might have been able to assist him free of charge. In its final complaint response, it explained it had made a referral to one of those organisations. That was a goodwill gesture by the landlord as it was under no obligation to do so. While we understand that this organisation was ultimately unable to assist because it had reached capacity on their referral numbers, the landlord acted proportionately and reasonably in trying to assist the resident.

The resident’s associated complaint

The landlord has a 2-stage complaints policy. It aims to respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and within 20 working days at stage 2.
Complaints are an opportunity for landlords to consider their actions; whether they followed their policies and procedures and acted fairly. In this case, the landlord did not make an assessment of what it had done in relation to the repairs to the front door of the property, the resident’s request for a grab rail or his request for help with his overgrown garden. There was no evidence of any investigation; the complaint responses only gave details of what it would do next in relation to the matters complained about. That was a serious failing which may have given the resident the impression that the landlord was not listening to him or taking his concerns seriously.
The landlord’s complaint handling failures have caused evident distress and frustration to the resident. In line with our remedies guidance as referenced above, financial compensation of £150 is appropriate for that impact.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of repairs to the front door of the property.
2. Associated complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s:
1. Request for a grab rail.
2. Request for help with his overgrown garden.
The following complaints are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction under section 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme – the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of a bathroom leak.
2. Concern about delays in a surveyor attending the property.
3. Request for a different entry point into the property.

Orders

The landlord should take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report and provide evidence of compliance to us:
1. Apologise in writing to the resident for the failings identified in this report. In doing so, the landlord should have regard to the apologies guidance on our website.
2. Pay the resident the sum of £350 made up of:
  1. £200 for the impact of its failings relating to the repairs to the front door.
  2. £150 for the impact of its complaint handling failures.