Leeds City Council (202304665)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304665

Leeds City Council

29 April 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 handling of the resident’s report of a leak in the property, as well as works to the bathroom.
2. The Ombudsman has also looked at the complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident occupies a four-bedroom house under a secure tenancy that commenced on 23 August 2011. The resident has been supported during her complaint by her daughter. This report has referenced the resident to include events where the resident’s daughter acted on her behalf. The landlord said it was aware the resident had COPD. The resident said that she was at high risk of chest infections and pneumonia. She had also told the landlord she was undergoing treatment that required access to her shower facilities.
4. On 27 October 2022, the resident reported her kitchen and living room walls were damp. The landlord raised a job on 17 November 2022 to inspect for damp and condensation, however, this was later cancelled. It then raised a job on 8 March 2023 to inspect the drainage in the resident’s wet room. From the landlord’s appointments, it became apparent that to investigate the leak it needed to investigate behind the tiles and under the floor in the resident’s bathroom. This resulted in the landlord arranging for the bathroom to be stripped out and replaced.
5. The landlord said it completed the work to replace the resident’s bathroom and this resolved the leak. It said it completed the work on 11 May 2023. On 11 May 2023, the resident reported the works had not resolved the leak. She said the leak remains unresolved at the time of writing this report.
6. The resident raised a formal complaint on 12 April 2023 because she reported a leak that was causing damp to her living room wall in November 2022. She said the landlord had delayed completing the works in the timeframe it had given her and that it was not prioritising her health conditions. She said that she had numerous chest infections and that the conditions in the property caused these. She said she wanted the landlord to do the work to address the leak and the subsequent damp.
7. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 11 May 2023. It upheld the resident’s complaint because it delayed completing the work. It explained this was because it had incorrectly cancelled the initial job raised in November 2023. In addition, the further works identified in April 2023 took longer than expected because it required multi-trade operatives. The resident escalated her complaint on 18 May 2023 because she said the leak was ongoing. She also felt the landlord did not address why there was a delay.
8. The landlord’s stage 2 response on 8 June 2023 apologised that its repairs service had not been satisfactory because of the delays. It also said it had arranged to overhaul the resident’s heating system to the source where the water was coming in and that it would prioritise the resident’s appointment for this to mitigate the impact on the resident’s health.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

9. The resident said the landlord’s failures caused her health to deteriorate. The Ombudsman is not able to determine the cause of the resident’s reported chest infections or pneumonia. This type of personal injury claim is better suited to the courts, where the judge would benefit from an independent medical expert confirming the diagnosis, cause, and prognosis of the injury. As such, the Ombudsman has not commented on the cause of the resident’s illness.

Reports of a leak causing damp to the property

10. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on landlords to keep in good repair and working order the structure and exterior of properties and the installations for the supply of water and sanitation. In accordance with this obligation, the landlord was required to investigate the resident’s reports of a leak into the property and to make a lasting repair to any issues it identified which were its responsibility.
11. The landlord’s repair policy states it will:
    1. attend within three hours for an emergency repair and to complete the repair within 24 hours. It classifies emergency repairs as presenting a serious risk to the health and safety of residents or cause major damage to the structure of the property.
    2. carry out priority repairs within three working days. This includes plumbing and drainage faults that affect the comfort of residents or cause damage to the property.
    3. carry out general repairs within 20 working days.
    4. tell residents how quickly it will complete the work, give a target completion date, and arrange an appointment where possible.
12. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it will investigate reports of damp and mould to determine the cause and carry out remedial actions in accordance with the tenancy agreement and industry guidance.
13. The landlord said that its safeguarding policy dealt with the vulnerabilities of residents. This policy outlines its statutory duties towards those with protected characteristics and its approach if it has concerns. The landlord told the Ombudsman its tenancy-specific approach is to conduct annual tenancy check-ins to record vulnerabilities and associated actions as well as the ability to refer to the housing support team for further support for residents.
14. The resident reported the leak on 27 October 2022. She said it was causing damage to the property and affecting her health conditions. It is the opinion of the Ombudsman that this would constitute a priority repair under the landlord’s repairs policy.
15. The landlord said it completed the necessary repairs to resolve this by 29 June 2023. This was 242 working days outside of the timeframes in its repair policy. This was maladministration because the landlord unreasonably delayed in both investigating and completing the repairs it had identified. This caused avoidable distress and inconvenience for the resident.
16. The landlord’s repair records do not specify when it attended the resident’s property following her reports. This means the appointment dates specified in the report are those described by the landlord as part of its communications during the complaints process. The repair records should have included attendance dates and detailed findings. This was maladministration because this was evidence of poor record keeping which hampered the Ombudsman’s investigation into this complaint.
17. When the resident reported the leak and associated damp in October 2022, the repair records note that “no further works [were] required.” They also state that there were “works for damp on [the] system.” The landlord’s repair records noted it completed the job on 16 January 2023. The Ombudsman considers the information on the repair records was conflicting because it said no further works were required but also that works were on the system. This was inappropriate and evidence of poor record keeping.
18. The repair records noted the resident re-reported an issue with the leak and dampness on 17 November 2022. The landlord said in its stage 1 response a technical officer had attended and raised a repair in November 2022. The records do not provide any details of a follow-up appointment. However, they do note a further inspection was required to inspect the drainage in the wet room floor because of the presence of damp between the lounge radiator and the doorframes in the lounge and kitchen. The landlord cancelled the job on its system.
19. The Ombudsman notes the landlord’s repair records did not include clear information about when it attended the property between 27 October 2022 and 17 November 2022. This was inappropriate and further evidence of poor record keeping because the records did not include important information about when the landlord attended to inspect the property.
20. In addition, the Ombudsman considers the landlord acted incompetently because it incorrectly cancelled the job it had raised to inspect the property. This caused an unreasonable and avoidable delay as well as distress and inconvenience to the resident because it did not attend again until she re-reported the issue on 8 March 2023. It is also unclear how the landlord responded to the report on 8 March 2023. This was further evidence of poor record keeping and a failure to monitor the resident’s reports to ensure it was acting on them.
21. The resident re-reported the leak on 17 March 2023. She said that it had affected the electrics. The repair records note the landlord cancelled the job due to no access. The records provide no information about when it arranged the appointment for or how it gave notice to the resident.
22. In addition, the Ombudsman notes the landlord was aware the resident was in hospital and being supported by her daughter to arrange the work. It would have been fair and reasonable to have demonstrated it had pre-agreed an appointment to ensure the resident’s health needs were being considered. The landlord ought to have clear records to demonstrate that it took a proactive approach and liaised with the resident’s daughter to arrange the appointments given her (the resident’s) additional needs.
23. The repair records noted the next report for the leak on 17 April 2023. The landlord said in its stage 1 response it had attended the same day with two plumbers and noted there was more damp than initially raised. The repair records noted the following scope of work:
    1. Stain block the walls with damp.
    2. Anti-fungal wash and bio paint.
    3. Floor to be pulled back and relayed with a heat gun.
    4. Tiles to be removed (8 tiles in total) to assess the wall and then retile.

The repair records note this job was completed on 29 June 2023.

24. The landlord said in its stage 1 response that during this time it had arranged to relay the flooring and remove the tiles so that it could inspect the property on 21 April 2023. However, the resident did not want to be left without working bathing facilities over the weekend, so it relayed the floor and rearranged the inspection of the bathroom to 26 April 2023.
25. The Ombudsman considers this was an appropriate response because the landlord demonstrated it had considered the resident’s concerns over the time it may take to complete the works and the impact of this on managing her health conditions. As a result, it concluded the best course of action was to conduct the inspection and the remaining repair works simultaneously to mitigate the time the resident would be without this facility.
26. There is evidence the landlord assessed the bathroom works on:
    1. 26 April 2023.
    2. 9 May 2023.
    3. 12 May 2023.
    4. 16 May 2023.
27. The Ombudsman considers the landlord acted appropriately in its oversight of the works because the landlord demonstrated it attended the property at frequent intervals to manage the progress of the works. The resident said when the landlord’s officer attended, they had been thorough.
28. However, the reports generated from its assessments, although contained pictures of the works and evidence of its oversight, did not provide commentary about its assessment or the projected timescales associated with the outstanding works. It also failed to document any comments it had made to the resident about the completion of the works.
29. The Ombudsman considers the landlord missed an opportunity to audit the works it was carrying out. This combined with the cumulative failures found in its record-keeping was a service failure. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord create a template or checklist for its technical inspections to ensure it captures relevant information such as its comments, outstanding actions, and projected timeframes to help it audit and monitor repairs.
30. The resident emailed the landlord on 5 May 2023. She said she was unhappy because the landlord had failed to attend the property the day before and she was told the works would be completed by 5 May 2023. The resident said she was returning from hospital and the nature of her follow-on care required clean and hygienic washing facilities. She explained this caused her distress and inconvenience because the landlord had not considered her health requirements. She said she had relied on the landlord completing the bathroom repairs whilst she was in hospital. The landlord explained the delay was due to multi-trade operatives being required to complete the repairs.
31. It would have been fair and reasonable to have contacted the resident to explain the nature of the delay and provide a revised timeframe for completion. This would have allowed her to make suitable arrangements upon leaving the hospital. In addition, there is no evidence the landlord considered the resident’s health requirements and offered further support for washing facilities whilst it completed the outstanding works. This was maladministration because the landlord failed to follow its repairs policy by providing expected timeframes for completion.
32. There is evidence of the resident reporting the works remained incomplete on 11 May 2023 and that the bathroom was unusable. The landlord said that the work would continue that day to install the chair, toilet, rails, and fans.
33. On 14 May 2023, the landlord raised a further job to trace the leak and noted a slip risk to the resident. However, it cancelled this job and noted that the works were being done under its former repair reference which related to the bathroom repairs that had been undertaken at the property.
34. The resident reported the flooring was not finished, there was no radiator, the painting was outstanding, and there was still the sound of dripping within the wall. This was by email on 17 May 2023. Although the landlord assessed the property on 16 May 2023, the pictures do not show the parts of the room the resident was reporting. This evidence would have helped the Ombudsman to understand the landlord’s position on the progress of the works at this time. In addition, the repair records did not reflect the resident’s report.
35. The Ombudsman found maladministration because the landlord failed to log repair reports from the resident and monitor an active repair. In addition, the landlord’s assessment the day before the resident’s report ought to have noted any incomplete elements of the repair works.
36. The landlord did not complete the radiator and the flooring, as it had agreed to, at the appointment on 11 May 2023 or explain when it would do this. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have communicated any delays and rescheduled appointments and timescales to the resident. The evidence does not demonstrate the landlord took this approach.
37. The landlord said in its stage 2 response it would be overhauling the resident’s heating system to find the source of the leak. The resident explained the leak was still present. This indicates that the leak is still present despite further work at the property. It is not appropriate that the source of the leak in the property has not been located since November 2022, some 17 months later.
38. Overall, there was maladministration on the basis that:
    1. The landlord unreasonably delayed in diagnosing the cause of the leak and making a lasting repair.
    2. The landlord failed to provide sufficient records of the appointments it scheduled to attend the property and what happened during the appointments.
    3. The landlord failed to communicate appropriately with the resident when it knew it was unable to complete the repairs in the timeframes it had given and provide revised timescales.
    4. The landlord failed to reflect all the resident’s reports in its repair records.
    5. The landlord failed to take the resident’s health conditions into account when it delayed completing the bathroom works in May 2023.

Complaint handling

39. The Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) states that landlords must:
    1. issue stage 1 responses within 10 working days of acknowledgement.
    2. issue stage 2 responses within 20 working days of acknowledgement.
    3. decide whether an extension to the timescales in the Code is required. It must inform the resident of the expected timescale for response, and this must be no more than 10 working days without good reason. The reason must be clearly explained to the resident.
    4. offer a remedy which reflects the impact on the resident as a result of any fault identified.
40. The landlord issued its complaint responses as follows:
    1. 19 working days after the complaint at stage 1. This was 9 working days outside of its policy timeframes.
    2. 14 working days after the resident’s escalation request at stage 2. This was within the requirements of the Code.
41. The Ombudsman considers the landlord failed to follow the Code requirements because it delayed issuing its stage 1 complaint response. The Ombudsman would have expected to see a notification explaining its delays and a revised timeframe, where responses are going to be delayed. This was maladministration because it was a further delay causing inconvenience to the resident.
42. Under the Code, a complaint response must be provided to the resident when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue are completed. Outstanding actions must still be tracked and actioned promptly with appropriate updates provided to the resident. The landlord said it did not issue its stage 1 response because it had not completed the appointments. The landlord should have issued its complaint response when it had the answer to the complaint, not when the appointments were conducted to address the repairs. This was maladministration because the landlord failed to follow the principles set out in the Code.
43. The landlord apologised in both of its complaint responses for its delay in completing the repairs. It also stated that it had resolved the initial appointment by communicating this with relevant colleagues. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged the delays associated with complaint handling in its formal responses to the resident.
44. The Ombudsman found the landlord’s redress insufficient in addressing the landlord’s complaint handling and related failures set out in this report. The Ombudsman considers that due to the nature of the failings, this caused the resident’s distress and inconvenience over an extended period.
45. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion it would have been fair and reasonable for the landlord to have considered a financial remedy and a more detailed review of its working practices to show what it had learnt from to complaint and what it would do in the future to put things right. This would have shown its commitment to resolving any underlying issues to prevent this from occurring again and recognise the resident’s experience of its services.

Determination

46. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak causing damp to her property.
47. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

48. Within 28 days of this determination, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures found in this report.
    2. In recognition of its failings, pay the resident £1,550. This is made up of:
       1. £1,000 for the loss of enjoyment of the home caused by the delay in locating and identifying the cause of the leak.
       2. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in completing the repairs.
       3. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the complaint handling failures.
       4. £150 for the frustration caused by the poor record keeping.
    3. The landlord must appoint an independent surveyor to inspect the property to locate the source of the leak. In doing so, the landlord must:
       1. Appoint the expert and ensure a survey is completed within 28 days of the date of this determination.
       2. Encourage the surveyor to provide its inspection report within 10 working days of the date of the inspection.
       3. Ensure that the report includes:

(1)  Photographs of any defects or disrepair within the property.

(2)  Explain whether the property is fit for human habitation.

(3)  Set out a scope of works – together with the cost and time taken to complete the works.

4. Within 5 working days of receiving the report, the landlord must share a copy with the resident and this service.

49. Within 56 days of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Complete a lessons learning review on what went wrong in this case. The review must:
       1. Determine why the record keeping was poor.
       2. Why repairs were cancelled.
       3. Why there was such a delay in locating the leak.
       4. Why the resident’s medical conditions were not taken into account when considering the works at the property.
    2. The lessons learning review must be shared with the head of repairs and maintenance and their manager – together with the resident and this service. It must include any identified learning and changes it proposes.

Recommendations

50. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord create a policy specifically designed to address vulnerability within its housing services. This is so that it can commit to the specific offer of provision as detailed in its cover letter to the Ombudsman, within one policy. This would make its commitment clear and include the different ways it says it supports residents. This would also ensure that it is accountable for what it will do within its housing services provision more specifically for its most vulnerable residents.