Sheffield City Council (202218131)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218131

Sheffield City Council

22 May 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 the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property when let.
2. Handling of the resident’s requests for various repairs needed in the property.
This Service has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord. The property is a 1-bedroom flat and is in a 3-storey block. The resident moved into the property in 2013. The landlord’s records state the resident is autistic and vulnerable due to health and support needs.
On 14 November 2022, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. She was dissatisfied with:
1. The condition of the property when she moved in.
2. The reported leak in the kitchen.
3. The reported issues with the boiler.
4. The reported missing doors in the kitchen and living room.
5. The reported condition of the walls.
6. The reported leak from the bath.
She also said that asbestos tiles were left in the property when it was let and still remained in the bedroom. There were ends of pipes sticking up through the floor. This had caused damp and mould and damaged the flooring. The walls were full of holes and cracks which she had to pay to get rectified in the hallway and the living room. The replacement bath was too narrow and could not be used due to mobility issues.
The landlord responded on 20 December 2022. It apologised for the delays in addressing his outstanding issues. It said that following a recent inspection, it was evident that there was a number of outstanding repairs. It attached a summary of the items that it was planning to complete as quickly as possible. It apologised for its unacceptable level of service. It offered £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
On 22 December 2022, the resident requested that a senior officer review the amount of compensation offered as she remained dissatisfied. The landlord sent a stage 2 response on 5 January 2023. It said that following an inspection and provision of a schedule of work the works were now in progress. Dates had been provided to the resident. The resident had indicated that she was willing to accept £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused. It enclosed an acceptance form for the resident to confirm. It said the offer of £500 was separate to the claim for damaged property which the resident was pursuing through its insurance team.
The resident contacted this Service as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She said she had been unable to complete the insurance form. There were a number of repairs outstanding including a leak in the kitchen, issues with the boiler, missing doors in the property and a leak in the bath.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

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.
Paragraph 42c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not bought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within six months of the matter arising.
The resident’s dissatisfaction relates to the condition of the property when she moved in. The resident moved into the property under an introductory scheme on 25 March 2013. She signed a secure tenancy on 10 February 2014. The matter concerning the condition of the property when she moved in was therefore raised beyond the reasonable timescale set out in the Scheme.
Furthermore, the landlord no longer has the records relating to that period given the passage of time. Also, there is no evidence that the resident had made a formal complaint to the landlord (about the condition of the property when she moved in between 2013 to 2022) that had exhausted its complaint process or that such a complaint had been escalated to this Service.
While the landlord’s response to the resident’s concern about the condition of the property when let has not been considered as part of this investigation, all other elements of the complaint have been considered.

Handling of various repairs.

In accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for the structure and installations for the supply of heating and water. Once on notice, the landlord is required to carry out the repairs or works it is responsible for within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with its obligations under the terms of the tenancy agreement and in law. The law does not specify what a reasonable amount of time is; this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.
The landlord’s website states when a repair is reported it will decide how quickly it needs to be completed. The landlord has advised this Service that it did not have a repair policy at the time of this complaint. It said it is currently in the process of developing a repair policy, but it still needs to be implemented in terms of communicating it out to its residents.
It is acknowledged that the resident states that the property has been in disrepair for many years. This Service does not dispute the resident’s version of events. The evidence provided however shows that the landlord had completed annual tenancy audits with the resident over the phone for the periods from 2019 to 2021.
Its records showed that it had checked to see if there were any outstanding repairs during these audits to which none were reported. If the resident was unhappy about the condition of the property it is unclear why she did not raise her concerns in the audits. The records provided show that the resident reported some of the repairs mentioned in her stage 1 complaint in April 2022 and also in her annual tenancy audit in June 2022. This Service has therefore investigated the landlord’s responses to the relevant repairs from April 2022 onwards.

Leak in the kitchen.

The records evidence that the resident reported that her kitchen sink was leaking on 1 April 2022. The landlord attended within 3 working days. The records state that the work was completed but the records do not detail what those works were. This is a record keeping failure. It is reasonable to conclude however that the works were completed as there is no evidence that the resident had chased the matter further after this date.
The records show that on 5 August 2022 the resident reported that the kitchen sink was leaking from 2 places underneath. The report stated the water was coming out all the time not just when the sink was in use. The resident had placed a bowl underneath but was having to empty it every 30 minutes. The records show that the landlord attended on the same day. This was appropriate given the issues reported. The job was then marked as completed but there are no records to show what action the landlord took during its visit. This is a further record keeping failure.
The records show that there were further reports of “a leak,” but it is unclear whether the reports relate to the kitchen or somewhere else in the property. The landlord failed to investigate its own handling of the leak in the kitchen within its complaint responses which was a further failing. This lack of investigation coincides with the lack of clear records provided to this Service.
The landlord is expected to keep robust records of its repairs works. When there is a disagreement in the accounts of the resident and the Landlord with regard to the condition of the property, the onus would be on the landlord to provide documentary evidence showing how it satisfied itself that the repair work had been completed to a satisfactory standard. The landlord has failed to show how it satisfied itself even when it had an opportunity to do so within its complaint response. This is a failing in its handling of the matter.

Issues with the boiler.

The records do not show any earlier reports in respect of the boiler. However, during the landlord’s tenancy audit on 30 June 2022 the resident mentions his boiler was not working. The records show that a job was raised on the landlord’s system on 8 December 2022. Which is almost 6 months after the resident made the landlord aware that there was a fault with her boiler. This was unreasonable and a failing in its handling of the matter. It is unclear whether the fault meant that there was no hot water or heat for the duration of this period. This is a record keeping failure.
The issues were then raised again in the resident’s stage 1 complaint request on 14 November 2022. A job planned for 8 December was then cancelled with no explanation as to why. The evidence shows that a further job was then raised on 12 December. The notes said no heat and hot water. The landlord attended on 14 December 2022. This was 1 month after the landlord had been put on notice after the stage 1. However, given the nature of the repair and that it was being raised again in the winter months the landlord’s response times were inappropriate and a failing in its handling of the matter.
The landlord’s lack of information is concerning given that it fails to document what action it took when it attended to the boiler. The landlord advised this Service recently that it had found no fault with the boiler. It is unknown what records it relied upon to reach this conclusion. The landlord failed to assess its own handling of the issues with the boiler within its complaint response which coincides with the record keeping failings that have already been identified.
It is further noted that the landlord’s outstanding repair summary attached to its stage 1 response states that the repair to the boiler was booked for 15 December 2022. It is evident that the records differ and are confusing.
Record keeping is core function of a housing service, not only so that a landlord can provide information to the Ombudsman when requested but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its obligations, including its legal obligations. Furthermore, it enables the landlord to monitor the condition of its housing stock and provide accurate information to its residents. The landlord has failed to respond to the repair within a reasonable period of time, its records differ and lack any substantial information which is inappropriate. This is a failure to provide an appropriate service.

Missing doors in the kitchen and living room.

Internal doors were included as part of an inspection raised. The records provided to this Service state that the inspection was completed on 26 July 2022. This Service requested copies of the landlord’s inspections as the repair records already provided lacked any detail.
The landlord informed this Service that its inspectors do not provide inspection reports. They update the description of work they have agreed to carry out as a result of the inspection on the repair records. It confirmed an inspection had taken place on 20 July 2022 and that no further works were raised following the inspection. It is unknown what records the landlord referred to as they did not coincide with the records provided to this Service.
The landlord said the missing doors were replaced in May 2022. However, the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response issued in December 2022 includes the replacement of the doors in its schedule of outstanding repairs. It states that an appointment would be arranged once the doors were available. It is unclear therefore whether this repair has been completed. The lack of clear information makes it difficult to assess the landlord’s handling of the matter and is a failing.
The issue of the doors had been ongoing for at least 5 months at the point the stage 1 complaint was raised. This is an unreasonable amount of time and a further failing. There is no evidence to show that the landlord communicated with the resident to keep her updated which is inappropriate. The landlord failed to assess its own handling of the matter within its complaint response. It is also unclear whether the repair has now been completed. These failings have been considered in the compensation and order made below.

Condition of the walls.

The records show that the condition of the walls was raised on 1 April 2022. The landlord correctly completed an inspection on 22 April 2022. This was an appropriate initial response. The landlord advised this Service that jobs were raised as a result of the inspection to renew plaster, but this job was cancelled as there was a duplicate on 19 May 2022.
It is unclear what this means as the records do not show any further jobs that could reasonably be linked in May 2022. It is noted however in December 2022 when the stage 1 complaint response was sent the plaster works were listed as still outstanding. The schedule said these would be planned for the next available appointment.
The records then state that the works were completed on 5 June 2023. This is 14 months after the resident raised the initial repair. This is an unreasonable timeframe given that it is a general repair. Furthermore, there is no evidence to show that it communicated with the resident and kept her updated during the delay period. This was inappropriate and a failing in the landlord’s handling of the matter.

Leak from the bath.

The records show that a leak from the bath was raised on 12 July 2022. The notes sate that it was leaking into the flat below. The job was then raised again on 13 July 2022. The notes state that the landlord attended on 15 July 2022 which was 3 days after the job had been raised. The notes again lacked detail as to what works were completed which has been a continued issue throughout this investigation.
Given that the bath was leaking into the property below it would have been reasonable for the landlord to treat the report as urgent and attend sooner than it did. That it did not was a failing. It is acknowledged that the landlord has advised this Service that the bath was replaced on 27 July 2022. This is not supported however in the records provided.
The lack of timescales given by the landlord means that it is not able to show how it prioritises or categorise its repairs. This fails to provide any clarity to its staff or its residents. It also means that residents expectations are not managed which does not foster a good landlord tenant relationship. This is a failing in its handling of the repairs and has been considered in the orders made below.

Asbestos tiles left in the bedroom.

It is acknowledged that the landlord had already removed broken asbestos tiles from the hallway and living room. It is unclear whether as a result of removing the broken tiles the landlord agreed to remove the tiles in the bedroom or whether there were issues with the tiles in the bedroom.
The resident has expressed concerns to this Service about the asbestos tiles remaining in the property. The landlord fails to address this issue within its complaint response. The fact that the matter concerns asbestos means it should be treated as urgent rather than ignored. This is a significant failing given the health and safety implications. This would have caused distress to the resident particularly given her vulnerabilities.
The landlord should have inspected the bedroom floor. It should have satisfied itself of any danger and on that basis decide what action it should take. It should have then communicated this to the resident. The fact it has not done this is a failure to deal with the issue. It is a failure by the landlord to show due regard to the resident’s vulnerabilities and its duties set out in the Equality Act 2010. An order will therefore be made to ensure that the resident is advised of any risks relating to the tiles and what action the landlord is or is not going to take and why.

Ends of piping coming up through the floor

The obsolete pipe work sticking out of the floor was raised on 8 December 2022. It is unclear whether this had been raised earlier but the landlord had certainly been put on notice of the issue when the stage 1 complaint was raised on 14 November 2022. The landlord’s schedule of outstanding works stated that the works were due to take place on 15 December 2022. This would have been 23 days later which would be considered a reasonable time frame for a standard repair. It is unclear however whether these works were completed. The records again lack any real information about what action the landlord took. This is a repeated failing found throughout this investigation which has hindered this Service’s ability to be able to fully assess the landlord’s handling of the matters.

Damp and mould.

The landlord’s records state that it attended to inspect damp and mould in the property on 26 July 2022, but it is unclear what it found during the inspection, whether it took further action or if the matter is resolved.
The landlord has a responsibility under Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard that may require remedy.
The lack of information about the repairs by the landlord during this time is concerning given the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on damp and mould was published in October 2021. The landlord was on notice that the resident was suffering with damp and mould in her property. The landlord’s delays, unclear records and lack of clear communication was unreasonable and did not demonstrate the “proactive interventions” called for in the Spotlight report. This failing has also been considered in the compensation and orders made below.
The landlord failed to inspect the reports of damp and mould in a reasonable timeframe and put in place an action plan to resolve the reports. Furthermore, it failed to communicate with the resident in a sufficient manner which led to distress and inconvenience to the resident. Given the resident’s vulnerability it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider what adjustments it needed to make to prevent the distress from being exacerbated. That it did not is a failure of service and a failure to show due regard to its duties set out in the Equality Act 2010.
In summary the landlord’s continued failings in its handling of a series of repairs amounts to severe maladministration. The landlord’s records fail to show a clear audit trail, which has hindered this Service’s ability to fully assess its handling of the repairs. The landlord has failed to evidence that it had completed the repairs in a reasonable amount of time. The records also fail to show that all of the repairs have now been completed.
The landlord was aware that the resident was vulnerable. The landlord failed to evidence how it had communicated with the resident about any of the repairs. The resident had to live with the uncertainty of when the repairs would be completed. The resident has been left with tiles which she believed to have had asbestos in. She had not been advised about the risks and what action the landlord will take. The landlord failed to show that it had considered the resident’s vulnerabilities including her mental health. It did not therefore have due regard to its obligations under the Equality Act 2010.
The resident had informed the landlord that she had to pay for some of the repairs herself. She also said that her own personal items had been damaged. The landlord acknowledged this in part by providing the resident details of its insurers during the complaint process. However, correspondence provided to this Service shows that the resident was struggling to complete the forms. Although this was after the complaint process and not part of this assessment. The lack of support in relation to this has been considered in the recommendations below.
The landlord failed to assess any of its handling of the repairs within its complaint responses which was a further failing. By not assessing its failings it failed to be able to put matters right or gain any learning to improve its repairs service.
Furthermore, it is concerning that the landlord does not have a repairs policy. A repairs policy sets out clearly the responsibilities for both the landlord and tenant and how the landlord will deliver a repairs service. The failures identified demonstrate the lack of transparency within the landlord’s repairs service. This has affected its ability to provide a high-quality service which has led to the distress caused to the resident.
It is acknowledged that the landlord tried to go some way to put matters right by offering £500 compensation. The landlord has not provided a breakdown of how it calculated this figure. This offer however is disproportionate given the series of failings including its lack of communication, delays and poor record keeping. The landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities but failed to take these into account during its handling of the matter. It is also unknown whether the matter has been fully resolved and all repairs completed as the evidence does not show this.
The Ombudsman considers it appropriate to require the landlord to provide financial redress which recognises the resident did not have full enjoyment of the property for a substantial period due to the various repairs. A 10% amenity loss calculation has therefore been applied. The period considered for this calculation is 1 April 2022 (when the landlord was first put on notice) to 5 January 2023, (when it issued its stage 2 complaint response). This period consists of 40 weeks.
As part of the calculation this Service has factored in that the rent for the first 29 weeks was £88.53 per week and £87.10 per week for the remaining 11-week period.
In the circumstances, the Ombudsman considers it reasonable to require the landlord to pay the resident £352.55 compensation for loss of amenity. This figure has been calculated as follows:
1. An amenity loss calculation for the use and enjoyment of the property 29 weeks x £8.85 = £256.74. 11 weeks x £8.71 = £95.81. Total amount for loss of amenity £256.74 + £95.81 = £352.55.
While the Ombudsman acknowledges that this is not a precise calculation, this is considered to a be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation taking all of the circumstances into account.
This investigation also considers that the landlord’s failings caused additional distress and inconvenience to the resident. The Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance sets out that compensation in the range of £600 to £1000 should be awarded where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident. Compensation may be higher where there was a severe long-term impact.
The landlord’s failure to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities including her mental health was significant. Its poor communication, failure to complete the repairs in a reasonable period and inability to show that all repairs are now complete was a further significant failing. Therefore, in line with the guidance the landlord has been ordered to also pay the resident £1000 for distress and inconvenience.

Complaint handling.

The landlord’s website states it gives ten working days for a stage one complaint response, and 20 working days for a stage two response. The landlord advised this Service at the time of the complaint its policy was not in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Code (the Code). This Service has not had sight of its old policy. It is however noted that it has in April 2024 updated its policy and procedure and this is in accordance with the Code.
In this case, the stage one complaint was raised on 14 November 2022. The landlord provided its response on 20 December 2022. This was 26 days after the request which was outside the times scales provided in the Code and a failing.
The Code states that landlords must address and investigate all points raised in the complaint. The landlord’s complaint responses failed to address or investigate any of the issues raised by the resident. It acknowledged following a recent inspection that there were outstanding repairs. It also apologised for its unacceptable level of service.
However, by not investigating its own shortcomings it failed to re-assure the resident that it was doing all it could. This meant that it was also silent on what it would do to prevent similar happening again. The resident experienced an inconvenience of raising concerns about the landlord’s handling of the repairs, without receiving a detailed response. This was a missed opportunity to put matters right at a much earlier stage. The complaint handling failings caused the resident time and effort having to pursue her complaint further.
The documents provided to this Service did not show when or why the resident had escalated her complaint. This was a further failing in its record keeping which has been evident throughout this investigation.
The stage 2 complaint did not seek to remedy any of the failings found in its stage 1 response. It apologised again and said the repairs were in progress with dates confirmed. It offered no reassurance to monitor the outstanding matters. It agreed to increase the compensation offer to £500 but failed to provide details of how or why it had increased its offer. This was a failing in its complaint handling and a further missed opportunity to put matters right.
This Service considers the complaint handling failures amount to maladministration. There was a failure to respond within the timescales. The responses demonstrated a lack of investigation and curiosity. The complaint response failed to put things right, explain how it had considered the offer of redress or show any learning outcomes. In determining an appropriate order for compensation, consideration has been given to the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to concerns about the condition of the property when let is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of responsive repairs needed in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to arrange for its Chief Executive Officer to apologise to the resident in person for the failings identified in this report.
Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay directly to the resident a total of £1602.55. £500 of the landlord’s compensation offer can be deducted from this total, if already paid. The compensation is broken down as follows:
  1. £352.55 for the amenity loss caused by the landlord’s handling of the various repairs.
  2. £1000 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the repairs.
  3. £250 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
Within 6 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Visit the resident to complete a full assessment of the property and determine if any repairs are outstanding. This assessment should include the asbestos tiles in the bedroom. The findings from the visit should be communicated to the resident verbally and in writing. They should also be clearly recorded on the landlord’s system. The resident should be given an action plan which must provide dates when the repairs will be completed. A copy of the advice letter and action plan should be shared with this Service also within 6 weeks.
2. Take steps (in the form of a refresher course or workshop, based on the contents of this Service’s Complaint Handling Code) to remind its relevant staff of their complaint handling responsibilities and the best practice approaches. Confirmation that this has been completed should be provided to this Service also within 6 weeks.
In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should conduct a senior management review of the case. It should provide a report to its senior executives and to this Service. The review should include as a minimum (but is not limited to):
1. Provide a time frame for when it will implement its repairs policy.
2. The landlord should refer to the Ombudsman’s Knowledge and Information Management Report (KIM) May 2023 to demonstrate how it will improve its service.
3. Satisfy itself that it has effective procedures in place to record and store repair information accurately.
4. It should consider its staff training and system needs, regarding how it arranges repairs, maintains repair records, which reflect its own and contractor’s actions and how it will monitor any follow up action.
5. That there is effective internal communication, and that teams are aware of relevant roles in keeping the resident updated and recording the communication.
6. How it will improve its future repair service in relation to damp and mould reports. Reference should be made to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report of damp and mold (October 2021)
7. The landlord must share the outcome of this review with this Service also within 8 weeks.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider contacting the resident to arrange support and assistance to help her to complete the insurance forms.