Leeds City Council (202433052)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom flat in a high rise block. She has mental health vulnerabilities which the landlord is aware of. She complained about delays in installing a sprinkler system, and the poor quality and care taken in the subsequent remedial works.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The delay installing a sprinkler system.
   2. The poor care and quality of remedial works.
   3. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found there was reasonable redress made for the landlord’s handling of the delay installing a sprinkler system.
4. There was reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of the poor care and quality of remedial works.
5. There was service failure for the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord failed to install the sprinkler system within the given time frame and to complete the remedial works to a good standard. It did, however, recognise its failings, apologise and offer appropriate redress.
7. The landlord apologised for delays in handling the complaint, but failed to demonstrate any learning, or offer any redress.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we did not investigate

8. The resident told us that the delay had caused her stress and anxiety. It would be fairer, more reasonable and effective for the resident to make a claim through the courts. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice. We have not investigated this further. We can however decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience. 

What we did investigate

9. The landlord provided limited evidence in relation to this case which has affected our ability to accurately assess the timeline of events. Our investigation has relied on the available evidence.
10. The landlord installed a sprinkler system in the resident’s flat on 12 February 2024, promising it would be completed in 1 day. Due to her mental health condition, which makes it hard to have strangers in her home, she vacated the property and arranged for her sister to be present. The contractor arrived earlier than expected, leaving her unprepared. Given her known vulnerabilities it should have ensured its contractor strictly followed the scheduled appointment time.
11. The job took longer than expected, requiring the contractor to return on a second day. This disrupted the resident’s coping strategy and likely caused stress and anxiety. It is unclear when the installation was fully completed. After the initial work, 6 appointments were scheduled in February 2024. The resident rescheduled 2 appointments, the contractor missed 1 and rescheduled another. The contractor attended on 22 February 2024, but it is not confirmed if this was the final completion date. While the landlord made efforts to complete the work, there were delays caused by both parties.
12. Prior to the resident’s complaint, the landlord apologised for the delays and poor communication. It offered a goodwill gesture of £50 in line with its financial remedies guidance.
13. The landlord’s stage 1 response acknowledged miscommunications and apologised for the contractor arriving early. It repeated its offer of £50 compensation but failed to recognise that the installation exceeded the time frame given.
14. In its stage 2 response, the landlord increased its offer of £200 to the resident as an apology for the delay and inconvenience. We have assumed that this offer relates to £100 for the 1-day delay. Plus, a further £100 for the subsequent delays with remedial works. Its offer was reasonable and in line with our remedies guidance. We have therefore not ordered any additional compensation.
15. It is appropriate that the landlord apologised for its failures and recognised the impact on the resident. The installation is complete, and it made a proportionate offer of redress.

16. After the sprinkler installation, the resident reported to the landlord careless work by the contractor, including marks on the walls and ceilings and poor clean up, along with other issues. The date of the report is unknown. Clear record keeping helps landlords provide evidence of events and actions taken when requested for investigation. It should review its approach to effective information management.
17. In May 2024, the landlord arranged for a cleaner to attend but initially gave the resident the wrong date. Accurate information is essential to avoid confusion. The cleaner then failed to attend as scheduled which she says added to her stress and anxiety. Although the completion date is unclear, she later confirmed she was satisfied with the outcome.
18. In a letter to the resident on 20 June 2024, the landlord stated that glue had been removed from the hallway wall and paint touch ups were completed in the hallway and on some trunking. However, in her 6 July 2024 complaint she disputed this, saying the glue remained and the paint didn’t match the existing colour. She also reported there were marks on the bedroom walls and coving. In addition, on 25 June 2024 a contractor arrived early to assess the hallway and kitchen paintwork, again leaving the resident unprepared as she had arranged to have someone with her.
19. In its stage 1 response the landlord said that most works were complete and reported it had found no visible glue during a visit. It acknowledged the residents dissatisfaction with the paint work but offered no comment or resolution. The response failed to clarify if any works remained outstanding and ended by asking how she wanted the matter resolved. It failed to address all of her concerns, confirm resolution, or offer compensation.
20. In its stage 2 response, the landlord demonstrated that it considered the resident’s vulnerabilities and offered 2 compensation options. This first was for £200 for the inconvenience and an offer of £300 for her to arrange for a decorator of her choice. The second for £200 for the inconvenience and it would arrange to redecorate for her. This is in line with its financial redress guidance and legal duty to reinstate decorations damaged during repairs. Its offer was proportionate to the delays and in line with our remedies guidance.
21.  

22. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively.
23. The landlord’s stage 1 response was 23 working days late, and its stage 2 response was 24 working days late. Both exceeding the timescales set out in its policy and the Code.
24. The stage 1 response gave the wrong complaint date, making the information unclear. Landlord’s must ensure accuracy in complaint responses.
25. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged missing response deadlines. It apologised and noted the frustration caused. However, it failed to show any learning or offer redress. We have made an order to reflect this.

Learning

26. The landlord’s £200 compensation offer lacked clarity, as such we made an assumption about its breakdown. It should consider defining its offers to reflect the relevant complaint element to improve clarity.
27. The landlord’s lack of evidence made it difficult for us to assess the timeline of events. Accurate records must be kept and shared during investigations.