Leicester City Council (202215676)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215676

Leicester City Council

16 January 2024

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. Request for an investigation and review of the landlord’s letter dated 31 March 2022 in relation to his queries.
   2. Disrepair and damage to the ceiling caused by water from a flood in 2003.
   3. Queries about Insurance for water damage.
   4. Concerns of asbestos in the property and request for a survey.
   5. Queries about the completion of repairs to the district heating system.
   6. Several queries regarding the front door.
   7. Reports of repairs to the fire escape door.
   8. Associated formal complaint.

Jurisdiction

2. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
3. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(e) of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
   1. Disrepair and damage to the ceiling caused by water from a flood in 2003.
4. In accordance with paragraph 42(e) this Service cannot investigate complaints which concern matters where the complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings.
5. The matter concerning the disrepair and damages caused in 2003 was subject to legal proceedings by the resident in May 2006, and the matter was decided by the court. Any further mention of this matter is for contextual purposes and will not be assessed in this report.

Background

6. The resident and his son are joint leaseholders of the landlord which is a local authority. The property is a 3-bedroom maisonette. The lease commenced 23 August 2004.
7. The resident wrote to the landlord on 5 March 2022, listing a number of queries relating to repairs, asbestos, and home insurance. He requested an appointment to discuss his concerns and the landlord visited on 17 March 2022. Following the visit, the landlord wrote on 31 March 2022 confirming its response to each point discussed.
8. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 8 July 2022. The queries from his previous letter and the landlord’s subsequent response formed the basis of the resident’s complaint. He said that the landlord’s response had been “misleading and deliberately omitted facts” and asked for an investigation and review of the letter dated 31 March 2022.
9. In its stage 1 response of 20 July 2022, the landlord confirmed its position in relation to both parties’ responsibilities for repairs and provided an explanation for each point raised by the resident. 
10. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 23 August 2022, asking for further explanations detailing each point of the landlord’s response. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 15 September 2022 and repeated its explanations from its stage 1 response.
11. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought his complaint to this Service on 17 October 2022. The resident said that he wanted the repairs to be completed, a response provided regarding the home insurance enquiry and for the asbestos to be removed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

12. As part of the resident’s complaint to this Service he requested an investigation of:
    1. The reasons the landlord allowed its maintenance staff to visit unannounced and without identification.
    2. The reasons why the same staff came to his home with COVID-19 and left the virus in his home.
    3. A full investigation to identify the health and safety violations and breaches in relation to his home.
13. These matters did not form part of the original complaint and have therefore not been considered in this investigation. Our approach is in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which provides that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.
14. The resident may wish to make a formal complaint to the landlord on these new matters in the first instance, but it must be noted that landlord complaint policies would usually include a timescale within which complaints can be raised.

Request for an investigation and review of the landlord’s letter dated 31 March 2022 in relation to his queries.

15. The resident complained that the landlord’s officer had been “misleading, deliberately omitting facts, not acknowledging damage to his home, or fully addressing all issues discussed during the visit on 17 March 2022.
16. The landlord’s response at stage 1 stated that the resident had not provided any further information of the allegations. He had not given any examples of what he felt had been omitted or where the response had been misleading. It was therefore unable to investigate further.
17. In the resident’s request to escalate to stage 2, he provided no further information in relation to his statement. The landlord’s stage 2 response repeated that it was unable to investigate without examples of why the resident thought its response had been misleading.
18. The landlord’s stage 1 response said that it had reviewed the letter of 31 March 2022. It found the report to be comprehensive, it covered several issues in depth, the contents were accurate, and the advice provided was correct.
19. In the resident’s escalation request he asked for confirmation of the “several issues covered in depth”. The landlord’s stage 2 response did not elaborate further however, it provided a full response to each of the points in its stage 1 and 2 responses.
20. While the landlord’s response was reasonable, that it could not investigate matters for which the resident had provided no detail, it could have sought to clarify with the resident the points he felt had been omitted. Nonetheless, its response to the resident’s request for a review of the letter of 31 March 2022 was reasonable as it provided detailed explanations as outlined below.

Queries about insurance for water damage

21. The resident’s letter of 5 March 2022 raised issues with floods to the property in 2003, 2014 and 2021. The officer’s response on 31 March 2022 stated that it had no information regarding the incident in 2003 and could not comment further due to the amount of time that had passed. It said that it had contacted the insurance provider regarding the 2014 flood and confirmed that the claim had been dealt with at the time. It had also spoken with the insurance provider about the flood in 2021 which the resident had said was declined. The officer confirmed that the insurance provider had agreed to review his claim despite being outside its 90–day policy and advised him to contact the insurance provider.
22. The landlord’s stage 1 response said that, as a leaseholder, the resident was responsible for internal repairs and decorations. The matter had been “adequately and properly” responded to on 31 March 2022. The matter of the insurance claim not being acknowledged was a matter between him and the insurance provider. However, as a gesture of good will, the landlord’s officer had contacted the provider in March 2022, and they had agreed to relook at the claim on the basis that the resident provided information. This was his responsibility to do and was not within the remit of the landlord to intervene or to resolve the matter.
23. The resident’s escalation request asked for copies of insurance documents from 2003 to 2023 and the name of the insurance providers. He also asked why the officer had spoken directly with the insurance provider and why this was a “gesture of good will”.
24. The landlord’s stage 2 response did not acknowledge the request for the documents or provide an explanation of “gesture of good will”. It repeated its response from stage 1. However, in the landlord’s response of 31 March 2022 it provided copies of the requested documents along with a copy of the leaseholders’ handbook, demonstrating that it had already provided the documents requested by the resident. It would have been good practice for the landlord to have acknowledged that it had previously provided the documents. Its explanation was clear in its stage 1 response that “as a gesture of good will” it had contacted the insurance provider but that it was not its responsibility to do so.
25. The landlord’s response to the resident’s query was reasonable in that it had taken appropriate action in contacting the insurance provider, on the resident’s behalf, and informing the resident that the insurance provider had agreed to revisit his claim. The landlord had also previously provided all requested documents to the resident. The landlord’s response was therefore reasonable.

Concerns of asbestos in the property and request for a survey

26. The landlord’s letter dated 31 March 2022 responded to the resident’s query relating to the removal of asbestos. It said that when the resident exercised his Right To Buy (RTB) in 2003 he would have been issued with a Section 140 notice to complete outstanding matters. He was invited to confirm if there were any “relevant matters” to the landlord. It also said that “the purchaser shall buy with full notice of the actual state and condition of the property and shall take it as it stands”. It had recommended that an independent survey from a qualified surveyor, structural engineer or architect be carried out.  As none of these had been carried out, the landlord was not responsible to complete asbestos removal for the resident.
27. The landlord’s stage 1 response advised that the officer had responded to the matter in the letter of 31 March 2022. It repeated the paragraph of the letter and said that the reply was correct. As a leaseholder, when he purchased the property, he did so in the knowledge and acceptance that any matters or repairs to the interior of the property transferred to him immediately on completion. As he chose not to have a survey carried out prior to purchase to inform him of any potential defects, this was entirely at the resident’s risk. In the case of RTB transactions the Section 140 notice specifically indemnified the landlord against future claims which had not been brought to its attention before completion. It said that there had been previous surveys carried out at the property and it would not be commissioning any further surveys. 
28. Following the stage 1 response the resident asked why his asbestos concerns were not highlighted as a liability and why his question had not been answered. The landlord’s stage 2 response repeated its previous explanations from stage 1.
29. The landlord’s leaseholders handbook, provided to the resident, states that leaseholders need to be aware of the terms of the lease, respective responsibilities of the leaseholder and landlord under the terms of the lease. While the landlord’s response was detailed and appropriate it would have been good practice to have advised the resident to seek independent advice in relation to the matter and his obligations as a leaseholder. However, this Service finds that the landlord’s response was comprehensive and provided a detailed explanation of its responsibilities to the resident.

Queries about the completion of the district heating.

30. The landlord’s letter of 31 March 2022 confirms that the officer had raised a repair to inspect the thermostatic valve on the hot water cylinder. An appointment was made for 30 March 2022.
31. The landlord’s stage 1 response stated that on 10 March 2022 an engineer attended his home to repair a radiator that was not getting hot enough. The operative could not rectify this as a valve needed to be changed due to a bigger issue with the isolation valves in the communal roof space. There was a project underway to replace all the isolation valves and it required planning. It would be completed when the system was shut down. It decided in March that to complete the repair, it would be necessary to wait until the valve project was underway before repairing the radiator. This was based on the warmer weather coming and that the system in his home was still adequate.
32. In the resident’s request to escalate his complaint he asked for a timeframe for the repair to be completed. The landlord’s stage 2 response repeated its explanation from stage 1.
33. It would have been good practice for the landlord to have acknowledged the resident’s request in its stage 2 response and advised that an estimated timescale would be sought from its contractors. However, the landlord’s explanation was reasonable.

Several queries regarding the front door.

34. The resident’s letter of 5 March 2022 did not refer to the front door and was therefore not covered in the landlord’s response of 31 March 2022. In the formal complaint he made reference to “a number of requests regarding the front door” but did not clarify what the requests were.
35. The landlord’s stage 1 response said it was unable to progress this part of the complaint as it did not have enough information. It did not know what “front door” the resident was referring to and whether this was the door to the flat or communal front door.
36. In the resident’s request to escalate his complaint he did not clarify which door he was referring to. The landlord’s stage 2 response repeated its stage 1 explanation.
37. It would have been good practice for the landlord to have contacted the resident to clarify which door he was referring to; however, the landlord’s response was reasonable as it did not have specific information to enable it to respond.

Reports of repairs to the fire escape door

38. In the landlord’s letter of 31 March 2022, it confirmed that an emergency appointment had been completed on 29 March 2022 to inspect the fire escape door. It had found that the lock needed repairing and a further appointment would be made.
39. The landlord’s response at Stage 1 said that it appeared that a repair had been raised on the incorrect priority which had led to a delay. The matter had been raised and the repair would be carried out as soon as possible. It apologised for its service failure. It also clarified that the fire door was designed as an escape route only and that there was no external lock as the door was not needed as an entrance to the building.
40. Following its stage 2 response, which repeated its stage 1 response, the landlord advised this Service that operatives had attended and found the mechanism was fully functional and no repair was needed.
41. While the landlord had stated that the repair had been raised on the incorrect priority and apologised, it later found that no repair was required.  The landlord’s response was therefore reasonable.

Associated formal complaint.

42. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in line with its complaint policy timescales and provided detailed explanations to each of the resident’s queries.
43. It acknowledged in its stage 2 response that the resident had raised further questions and addressed the issues, however its responses could have been more robust, as already discussed above. However, this Service finds that the shortcomings in the landlord’s responses did not result in a level of detriment as to warrant a finding of maladministration. Having concluded that it has provided a reasonable response to the resident’s complaint, a recommendation has been made below for the landlord to provide a further response to the resident specifically including the suggestion in paragraph 33.

Determination (decision)

44. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s:
    1. Request for an investigation and review of the landlord’s letter dated 31 March 2022 in relation to his queries.
    2. Queries about insurance for water damage.
    3. Concerns of asbestos in the property and request for a survey.
    4. Queries about the completion of repairs to the district heating system.
    5. Several queries regarding the front door.
    6. Reports of repairs to the fire escape door.
    7. Associated formal complaint.
45. In accordance with paragraph 42(e) of the Scheme, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of disrepair and damage to the ceiling caused by water from a flood in 2003 is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Recommendations

46. This Service strongly recommends that the landlord send the resident a letter of apology with respect to not providing a clearer timescale with respect to the district heating and commits to sourcing the information from its contractor and providing it to the resident.