Leicester City Council (202311447)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311447

Leicester City Council

14 June 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to concerns about the condition of the property when let.
2. Handling of the associated repairs to the property.
3. Response to concerns about the lack of a new tenancy welfare check.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant. The property is a 3 bedroom house that has been adapted with a wet room. He lives with his wife and 2 children. His son has vulnerabilities that the landlord was aware of. They have lived at the property since January 2023.
When the resident signed for the tenancy the gardens were overgrown and untidy. There were some repairs outstanding that had not been conducted while the property was void. Shortly after moving into the property the resident reported repairs to the landlord.
On 3 February 2023 the resident reported repairs to the landlord. These included issues with the roof, gutters, brickwork, kitchen window, plug sockets, handrails, garden slabs, gates and a damaged gas meter cupboard.
On 10 February 2023 the resident reported that the gas meter cupboard was damaged. He reported that the front and back gates required repairs on 21 February 2023. After chasing the repairs on 27 February 2023, the landlord replied the next day to say there was a backlog of around 12 months.
On 20 March 2023 the resident asked for updates on the gas meter and gate repairs. The landlord replied again the following day and said it was still working through repairs reported in February 2022. It was unable to provide a date the repairs would be resolved.
The resident complained to the landlord on 8 May 2023. He provided details of his son’s disabilities and how these had been affected by the outstanding repairs. He said:
1. When signing for the tenancy he raised concerns about the poor condition of the gardens. He found bikes, furniture, and broken concrete in the back garden. There were broken bottles and bricks in the front garden.
2. The fencing and gates to the garden were unsecure. He was concerned about wire hanging out from some of the posts.
3. He had no response to emails sent on 25 January and 15 February 2023.
4. He understood that the landlord should conduct a home visit within 6 weeks of his tenancy start date. This had not happened.
The landlord replied on 15 May 2023 to say that there had been a temporary reduction in housing staff that caused delays. There would be a new officer assigned on 22 May 2023. The resident replied the same day to say he was unhappy about the poor communication. He felt that the landlord had “neglected” his son as he had been unable to use the gardens.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 18 May 2023. It said that an officer would visit on 22 May 2023 to discuss his concerns and try to resolve the issues at the property. It would issue a stage 1 response by 2 June 2023. Additionally, it requested a garden clearance on 9 May 2023, but was unable to provide a date the works would be done.
The landlord visited the resident on 22 May 2023. He described outstanding repairs to the landlord, including issues with the roof, brickwork, kitchen, gardens, cupboard door, slabs being uneven on the front path and the gas meter cover was damaged.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 5 June 2023. It apologised for misunderstanding the initial complaint. It said:
1. It apologised for not telling him about a change in officers sooner. It had shared learning internally to ensure residents were informed of changes to officers.
2. It cleared the garden on 1 June 2023 after adding it to its high priority list. The delay to conduct this work was caused by resourcing issues.
3. Repairs were raised for the broken slabs and fencing. It would survey the works during the week commencing 19 June 2023.
On 8 June 2023 the resident asked for his complaint to be escalated to stage 2. He said:
1. He felt there was no resolution to his complaint during the visit on 22 May 2023 or in the landlord’s stage 1 response.
2. He felt the communication was poor and the landlord had not responded in a timely way to his reports.
3. The repairs to the gas meter cupboard and gates were still outstanding.
4. The slabs in the front garden were broken and presented a trip hazard. His son was at an increased risk of falls. He felt the landlord had not taken these concerns seriously.
The landlord surveyed the property on 20 June 2023. It scheduled repairs to replace the uneven slabs and replace the gates for March 2024. During the visit it also repaired the plug socket in the kitchen and the cupboard door. It was unable to repair the meter cupboard on the same day. Its records are unclear if it returned to complete this repair.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 28 June 2023. It apologised that the resident felt the communication was unsatisfactory. It listed repairs identified during its visit on 22 May 2023. It provided the repair history for 2023 that reflected the timeline above. It said:
1. There had been a failure to conduct a home visit within 6 weeks of the tenancy commencement. There had been issues with officer capacity and it apologised for any upset this caused. It considered that if it had visited within 6 weeks, it could have progressed some repairs sooner. It apologised for the failures and provided feedback internally to prevent a reoccurrence of these issues.
2. It offered a goodwill payment of £200 for its failures to conduct a home visit.
3. It would resolve the outstanding repairs “as soon as possible”.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s final response. He contacted the Ombudsman on 30 June 2023 and asked us to investigate his complaint. He reiterated the issues raised above and said he felt the landlord had overlooked some vulnerabilities in his household.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman again on 14 August 2023 to say that some repairs were still outstanding.
The resident sought assistance from his MP in November 2023. The MP wrote to the landlord and the Ombudsman to ask for the case to be investigated urgently.
The resident reported an issued with damp and mould to the landlord on 20 November 2023. He was concerned that the leak from the gutters had caused the damp in his upstairs bedroom. He highlighted the impact this could have on his son’s health. The landlord inspected the damp and mould on 13 December 2023.
The resident said that his son was taken to hospital in January 2024. While emergency services were in his home, they saw the damp and said they would highlight the issue to the landlord.
The landlord replaced the gates and repaired the uneven slabs on 11 and 12 March 2024. It inspected the roof and brickwork on 15 March 2024 and found that no works were required.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the Investigation

In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. 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. Following the allocation of this case to the Ombudsman, the resident reported issues of damp and mould in the property to the landlord. He said that the issues became evident in November 2023 and believed that they were linked to the leaking gutters. In accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme these reports have not been considered as part of this investigation. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.
Whilst this service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.

Policy and procedures

The landlord’s letting standard says that it may conduct non-essential repairs within 6 weeks of a new tenant moving into a property. An appointment for the works will be made with the resident. An officer will conduct a first visit within 6 weeks of a resident moving into a property.

Response to concerns about the condition of the property when let.

The resident reported issues with the condition of the property within 2 weeks of moving into the property. Many of the issues raised would be considered non-essential repairs, however the landlord’s policy states that they would be conducted within 6 weeks of the resident moving into the property.
There were no records that showed the landlord attempted to schedule any additional repairs while the resident signed for the tenancy. It should have provided clear advice and guidance to the resident when signing for the tenancy. Issues such as the overgrown garden and damaged gates should have been resolved within 6 weeks of the tenancy commencement.
The landlord knew that there was a backlog in repairs and should have told the resident this at sign up. Its failure to be clear with the resident at the outset caused the resident undue time and trouble to report and chase repairs.
When reporting incidents in February 2023, the resident highlighted the vulnerabilities in his household to the landlord. The landlord should have promptly scheduled an inspection of the property following the reports made. However, it did not conduct any inspection until around 4 months later, on 20 June 2023. This delay to inspect contributed to the overall delays to conduct repairs and caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
Once the landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 in May 2023, it was able to schedule the garden clearance through its priority service. It showed that it was able to use its complaint handling as an effective tool to resolve the substantive issue. It was fair to recognise the impact on the resident. However, it did not offer compensation for the delays or the detriment caused to the resident. Its apology did not put things right in the circumstances. There were missed opportunities earlier in the timeline where it could have arranged this sooner.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to concerns about the condition of the property when let. The delay to clear the garden was unreasonable. It did not provide clear advice to the resident when signing for the tenancy. The communication with the resident post sign up was poor. As it determined that the outstanding repairs at sign up were non-essential, it should have scheduled them with him when signing for the tenancy. The combined delays caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord should pay the resident £300 for his time and trouble.

Handling of the associated repairs to the property.

Sections 11 and 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 require the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the resident’s property in repair, and to ensure that the property is fit for human habitation throughout his tenancy.
The landlord should conduct any repairs within a reasonable period. This can be dependent on the urgency of the repair and the detriment caused to the resident. In this case, there were considerable delays to conduct both non-essential routine repairs and more urgent repairs.
The resident told the landlord that the slabs were uneven on 3 February 2023. The records show he raised this with other issues again on 20 March and 22 May 2023 before the landlord inspected them on 20 June 2023. This was an unreasonable delay of around 4 months before it inspected the slabs. The resident took considerable time and trouble contacting the landlord to report and chase his repairs.
Once it inspected the property on 20 June 2023 there was a delay of around 9 months to relay the slabs and repair the gates. The delays were unreasonable and of significant detriment to the resident and his family. The resident said that his son had mobility issues and was at increased risk of trips and falls as a result of the damaged pathway. The landlord should have had greater regard to its public sector equality duties under the Equality Act 2010. It should have made reasonable adjustments (such as prioritising the repairs) to ensure that the risks to the resident were minimised. It did not, and this caused undue distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The records show that the resident raised concerns about the condition of the gutters on 3 February 2023. There were no records available to the Ombudsman that the landlord conducted any repairs to the guttering. It did not treat the resident fairly and caused distress and inconvenience.
It was fair for the landlord to apologise for the delays in its complaint responses. It was reasonable to schedule an inspection of the property to assess the outstanding repairs. However, in its stage 2 response it did not set out clear timescales for works to be resolved. The resident had waited around 4 months with many repairs outstanding. The landlord did not use its complaint handling as an effective tool to resolve the substantive issues. There were subsequently further delays of around 9 months to complete repairs following the stage 2 response.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property. It was unreasonable to delay the repairs to the slabs outside the property which were uneven. It should have identified these issues while the property was void. It should have prioritised repairs to reduce the risk of slips, trips and falls outside the property. It should have ensured that the pathway was safe for the resident and visitors to the property. It should have arranged an inspection of the property including the gutters earlier in the timeline. It should pay the resident compensation of £500 for distress and inconvenience caused.

Response to concerns about the lack of a new tenancy welfare check.

The landlord’s lettings policy states that an officer will conduct a first visit within 6 weeks of a resident moving into the property. The landlord did not schedule this check and only conducted a visit after the resident complained 4 months later in May 2023. It is important for the landlord to maintain the commitments set out in its policy. A failure to do so can lead to a breakdown in the landlord/tenant relationship.
The landlord recognised the failures to conduct the new tenancy check in its final response. It was reasonable to arrange a new tenancy check to discuss the concerns raised by the resident. It was appropriate to recognise that it could have improved its service had it conducted the home visit in line with its policy. Its offer of £200 was reasonable in the circumstances.
The Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to concerns about the lack of a new tenancy welfare check. It was fair to recognise its failure to conduct the check in time. Its offer of £200 was reflective of the detriment caused.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to concerns about the condition of the property when let.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to concerns about the lack of a new tenancy welfare check.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide an apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £800. This amount is in additional to the landlord’s previous compensation of £200 awarded in June 2023. The compensation is comprised of:
  1. £300 for any time and trouble caused to the resident by its response to concerns about the condition of the property when let.
  2. £500 for any distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of repairs to the property.
3. Review its staff training to ensure an appropriate level of understanding of their obligations to provide reasonable adjustments where necessary.
Provide evidence of compliance to this Service.

Recommendations

The landlord should contact the resident to discuss his concerns about the damp and mould. It should conduct a survey of the property and produce an action plan to rectify and causes identified.
The landlord should re-offer the £200 compensation for its failure to conduct a new tenancy welfare check, if it has not already been paid.