Kirklees Council (202314578)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314578

Kirklees Council

29 November 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:

a.     Response to the resident’s concerns about a rent increase.

b.     Handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs, including:

1. Kitchen smoke damage.
2. Windows and doors.
3. A bathroom leak.
4. A faulty boiler.

c.      Complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

2. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
3. The resident’s complaint to the landlord concerned the increase in her rent while there were outstanding repairs in the property.
4. In accordance with paragraph 42(d) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase.
5. The Ombudsman cannot review complaints about the level of a rent increase and determine whether it was reasonable or payable. Complaints related to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent or service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (the FTT). The FTT can also look at whether a refund of rent should be given.
6. After carefully considering all of the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(d) of the Scheme, the landlord’s decision to increase the rent is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Background

7. The resident has been a secure tenant at the property of the landlord since May 2017. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a 3-bedroom house.
8. The resident applied for the right to buy scheme in October 2024. As a result, the property has been withdrawn from all planned replacement schemes. However, should the resident decide not to purchase the property, the landlord has explained that the property would be readded to any replacement schemes.
9. The resident complained to the landlord on 3 March 2023. She explained that she did not agree with the landlord’s rent increase when she considered there were outstanding repairs in the property, which had been previously raised with the landlord. Her repair concerns included the following:

a.     Kitchen disrepair following a fire and smoke damage.

b.     Kitchen cupboard repairs had failed.

c.      Windows in her property did not retain heat and leaked when it rained.

d.     Front and side doors leaked when it rained, despite previous repairs.

e.     Bath leaks damaged the kitchen ceiling. This caused a breeze block wall to fall down. The resident needed to knock the rest of the wall down for safety reasons. The landlord inspected on several occasions and found no leak.

f.        Replacement of an inefficient immersion water tank to fix water pressure faults and save money.

10. On 14 March 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 response, which included the following:

a.     It had responded and completed all of the repairs previously reported to its repairs team, there was only an outstanding repair in its system for the smoke damage to the kitchen caused by the fire.

b.     It acknowledged that it did not initially inspect and survey the smoke damage. It scheduled an urgent survey on 28 March 2023 to inspect all outstanding repairs reported. Repairs would be carried out to a high standard following the survey. 

c.      Following previous repairs to the boiler, it had not received any further reports of problems in the previous 3 months. It asked the resident to raise any future issues with the boiler to its repairs team for further investigation.

d.     It apologised for any inconvenience caused to the resident.

11. On 15 March 2023, the landlord offered the resident £100 compensation as a gesture of goodwill.
12. On 9 June 2023, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. She said this was because no further repairs were completed following the stage 1 response.
13. On 20 July 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 response, which included the following:

a.     Its surveyor:

1. Attended and reported that the pantry had been removed by the resident without prior agreement from the landlord.
2. Could not see any smoke damage as the kitchen units and tiles had been painted
3. Reported that the doors to the sink unit needed to be rehung; however, the kitchen was in an acceptable condition once this repair was completed.

b.     It offered to renew the kitchen and make good the area where the pantry had been removed. However, the resident would be recharged for this should she agree to the renewal.

c.      If the resident had any further repairs, she should report them to the landlord’s repair team and it would be able to attend and rectify any issues with the windows, bath leak, and boiler issue.

d.     It would not change the type of heating system in the property. It previously attended to repair a fault code on the boiler. However, it was appropriate for the resident’s property type and did not need replacement.

e.     It would not pay compensation to the resident as she did not report the repairs raised in her complaint to its repairs team.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

14. Paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.
15. The resident’s complaint concerned repairs issues which she stated had been long-standing. This Service recognises the distress caused to the resident; however, our investigation will only consider the landlord’s handling of the repairs which were reported during the 12–month period before she made her complaint on 3 March 2023, through to the completion of its internal complaints procedure.
16. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman considers its dispute resolution principles. This is good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:

a.     Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.

b.     Put things right.

c.      Learn from outcomes.

Kitchen smoke damage

17. The resident suffered an electrical fire in her home due to a faulty segway charger. There is no contemporaneous record of the report of the fire in the repair logs; however, on 7 September 2022, the repair logs noted it had occurred 2 weeks earlier and the landlord had to check the electrics due to a smell. It also confirmed that the fire brigade completed their initial checks, but the landlord had to do its own to inspection for smoke damage to its property. However, there was no further record of the landlord completing an inspection.
18. In its stage 1 complaint response dated 14 March 2023, it acknowledged that it had an outstanding repair on its system related to smoke damage in the kitchen. It arranged for an in-house surveyor to inspect the smoke damage and any other outstanding repair issues reported by the resident in her complaint. 
19. The landlord has been unable to provide a copy of the survey to this Service to confirm the date of the visit and what was inspected. It confirmed it did not keep a copy of the survey report. However, it provided an email from the surveyor dated 18 July 2023, which stated that they inspected the property a few weeks before and did not see evidence of smoke damage because the resident painted over the kitchen cupboards, drawers, and tiles. This timeframe suggests that the landlord did not complete its post-fire inspection for approximately 10 months. This was evidence of a service failure. While the landlord acknowledged the inspection should have been completed sooner, it failed to appropriately apologise to the resident for this delay or offer compensation to the resident.
20. While the landlord said it could not see evidence of smoke damage, it did not recognise that it left the resident and her family in the property without an inspection for a considerable length of time. The resident informed this Service she painted over the cupboards, drawers, and tiles because she wanted to cover up the smoke damage after the landlord did not attend. This was an understandable action by the resident where the landlord had failed to uphold its repairing responsibilities.
21. In addition to the smoke related repairs, the resident referred to repairs related to her kitchen cupboard hinges which had come loose, 4 weeks after a repair was completed. This was recorded in the repair log on 12 September 2022 and noted a previous repair had been unsuccessful. While we recognise the frustration caused to the resident, it was reasonable for the landlord to make attempts to repair the cupboard instead of a providing a replacement. The landlord’s surveyor agreed the cupboard required repair following his visit and a repair was later carried out. This was reasonable a reasonable response by the landlord.
22. In summary, the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the kitchen following a fire were unreasonable. While it acknowledged it should have inspected the damage sooner, this was 10 months later. The landlord has not appropriately apologised to the resident or offered compensation for its delay. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord handling of repairs to the smoke damaged kitchen was maladministration. An order has been made for £300 compensation to be paid to the resident to remedy the time and trouble and distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s delay.

Windows and doors

23. The resident reported her windows in her property did not retain heat and leaked when it rained. Her front and side doors also leaked when it rained, despite earlier repairs.
24. The resident reported concerns with her doors on 5 July 2022 after an issue with the locking mechanism. On 31 July 2022, she reported that there was water ingress when it rained which had damaged her floorboards. There was no evidence the resident reported further concerns with water ingress from her door after this date. It is also not evident that the resident reported concerns with her windows until she made her complaint on 3 March 2023.
25. While the landlord confirmed all earlier repairs had been responded to and completed, its repair log was unclear about the inspections and repairs made to the doors. This Service could identify that the landlord did take action in later record entries relating to the floorboards and therefore is satisfied it did respond to the reports. However, its record keeping could be improved to evidence what specific actions it had taken. As a result, it cannot be concluded that the issue was satisfactorily resolved that this time. It would also have been beneficial to follow up on repairs with the resident to ensure they had been successful, which it did not do. As a result, she had to expend time and trouble making further reports. 
26. The landlord confirmed its surveyor would attend and inspect all reported repairs as part of its stage 1 resolution. Understandably, the resident believed this would address the issues she complained about. However, the photographs and email from the surveyor did not show it inspected the windows or doors. Additionally, the landlord failed to provide its position on the doors and windows following the inspection.
27. In its stage 2 response, the landlord suggested that the resident should report these repairs to its repairs team herself. This would have been particularly frustrating given that she had already made it aware there was an issue over 4 months prior. This was unreasonable and demonstrated a lack of ownership of the complaint and a failure to take subsequent action.
28. Additionally, where the landlord considered the repairs reported in the complaint to be new, it should have been proactive and logged the repairs with its repairs team immediately. It did not take its repairing obligations seriously and this was evidence of a service failure.
29. In summary, the landlord failed to appropriately manage the resident’s expectations that her reported repairs would be managed in line with its repair policy timescales. It did not ensure its surveyor inspected all of the repairs she complained about and also failed to log the repairs immediately, instead requiring the resident to report them again to their repairs team over 4 months after making her complaint. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the resident’s windows and doors was maladministration.
30. The landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and did not attempt to put things right. The Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay £300 compensation to remedy the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble caused to the resident.

A bathroom leak

31. The resident complained about the landlord’s response to a bathroom leak and said that unresolved leaks caused damage to the kitchen ceiling and caused a breeze block wall to become unsecure. The resident said she needed to knock the breeze block wall down for safety reasons.
32. On 20 June 2022, the resident reported a leak from the bathroom. The landlord attended on 21 June 2022, but the job was cancelled due to no access. There was no evidence that the landlord or its repairs team tried to reschedule the visit and left the inspection outstanding. This was unreasonable and did not show it took the residents reports seriously. This was evidence of a service failure.
33. There was no further report relating to a leak until 31 July 2022, where the resident reported the leak caused the wall unit to be damaged and the side of the cooker the cupboard to have detached. On 22 August 2022, the repair log stated the landlord responded to the repair; however, there was no evidence confirming its attendance or what actions it took.  
34. As set out in the terms of the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior of the property. While the landlord said it may have attended to inspect the repair, it did not have the evidence to confirm it had. There is not enough information to support that it met its repairing responsibilities set out in its repairs policy. This was evidence of a service failure.
35. Where the resident reported safety concerns over the breeze block wall and removed it herself, this Service cannot see evidence that the resident gave the landlord notice of her intention to knock it down. While this Service understands the reasons why the resident chose to knock down the wall, the resident’s tenancy agreement did not allow her to make alterations to the property without the landlord’s permission. The landlord should have been first given the opportunity to address this repair itself. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to refer the resident to its rechargeable repairs policy for any further works required.
36. In summary, the landlord should not have cancelled the repair job following no access, especially as a leak was an urgent repair under its repairs policy. While it could not gain access to the property, it should have arranged a new appointment or considered enforcement action if necessary. Equally, while the landlord’s evidence was that it attended to the reports of the bathroom leak, it does not have evidence to support its inspection or that it took its repairing responsibilities seriously. The landlord’s handling of the bathroom leak was service failure.
37. The Ombudsman has made an order for compensation to be paid to the resident in the sum of £100 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the bathroom leak. There was minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided and it did not appropriately acknowledge this or fully put them right. This Service notes that the landlord has improved its record keeping since this complaint, therefore no further orders have been made on this point.

A faulty boiler

38. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 sets out that a landlord must keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the property that supply heating and hot water. The landlord’s repair records evidence it was responsive to the resident’s reports of faults to her boiler. On the following dates it responded within 24 hours and repaired the issue:

a.     16 September 2022.

b.     25 September 2022.

c.      14 December 2022.

d.     21 July 2023.

39. The resident asked the landlord to replace her immersion water tank to save money and fix water pressure faults, as she believed it was faulty. This Service recognises the distress caused to the resident by recurring repair issues which affected her water heating. However, the landlord has an obligation to use its funds responsibly. It is therefore reasonable for the landlord to seek to complete a repair before considering a replacement.
40. The dates of the repairs suggest that the boiler was repairable and despite recurrence of similar problems, there were no further reports from 14 December 2022 until 21 July 2023. This suggested that a replacement was not necessary, and the landlord upheld its repairing responsibilities and responded within its repair policy timescales. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to decline the resident’s request for a new boiler.
41. However, in response to the resident’s concerns with the cost of running the boiler, the landlord could have been more proactive and provided the resident with references to support agencies relating to financial hardship and provided information about reducing energy costs.
42. This Service appreciates that on 10 November 2022, the resident reported repairs to her boiler, and it took until 22 November 2022 for a repair to be completed. However, the evidence confirmed that there were instances where the repairs team attended but could not gain access to the property, including the resident’s child being in the property without an adult and therefore it was against the landlord’s policy to complete the repair. The resident also went on holiday during this period. This Service is satisfied the landlord acted reasonably in these circumstances and showed good practice to resolve the issue as soon as it was able to do so. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the space and water heating to be no maladministration.

Complaint handling

43. On 9 June 2023, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 20 July 2023. This was a delay of approximately 6 weeks. 
44. The landlord’s complaint policy set out that it would provide its stage 2 response within 20 working days. Its response times were outside of its own complaint policy timescales and the timescales set out in this Service’s Complaints Handling Code.
45. There was no evidence that the landlord sought to agree an extension with the resident to provide its response outside of the policy timescales. This was unreasonable and left the resident without a clear timeframe to expect a response. The landlord handling of the associated complaint was service failure.
46. This Service has made an order for payment of compensation in the sum of £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the associated complaint. There was minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided and it did not appropriately acknowledge this.

Determination

47. In accordance with paragraph 42(d) of the Scheme the landlord’s decision to increase the rent is outside of this Service’s jurisdiction.
48. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repairs of kitchen smoke damage.
49. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to windows and doors.
50. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of repairs to a bathroom leak.
51. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to a faulty boiler.
52. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

53. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:

a.     A senior manager of the landlord should apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.

b.     Pay the resident £800 which replaces the offer of £100 it previously offered to the resident. The money the landlord has already paid as part of its informal complaints procedure can be deducted from the total when making payment. The compensation comprises of:

1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble caused to the resident by its handling of the kitchen smoke damage.
2. £300 for the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble caused to the resident by its handling of the repairs to windows and doors.
3. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the repairs to a bathroom leak.
4. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its complaint handling failures.