Leicester City Council (202225927)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225927

Leicester City Council

18 November 2024

Amended at review.

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:
1. The reasonableness of the District Service Charge.
2. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the heating system.
3. The landlord’s invoices to the resident for repairs carried out to the heating system.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is the leaseholder of the property, a ground floor maisonette, and lives alone. She has held the lease since June 2018 but has lived in the property prior to this. The property’s heating is part of a District Heating System, maintained by the landlord. The landlord has told this Service it is not aware that the resident has vulnerabilities. The resident states she is elderly and has a form of arthritis which is aggravated by cold or draughts.
In March 2022, the resident reported problems with the radiator in her living room. The landlord attended the property and told her that new parts would need to be ordered. She chased the landlord on several occasions, but the repair was not completed.
On 1 August 2022, the resident called the landlord to formally complain. She said the repair had been outstanding since March and she was reliant on the landlord’s engineers to turn the radiator on and off. She stated the radiator was switched off and she was getting cold.
The landlord provided a response under stage 1 of its complaint process on 11 August 2022. It explained that it was in the process of replacing the isolation valves in the blocks, and all non-essential repairs, such as to radiator valves, had not been completed. It stated that it intended to start valve replacements the following week, beginning with the blocks that had been waiting the longest, and her repair would be completed.
Following the landlord’s complaint response, the resident chased the repair on several occasions, and on 22 November 2022, she escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process. She said the repair had not been completed and the problem had escalated to her also having issues with the radiator in her bedroom. She asked why she had received invoices for radiator repairs, as well as District Service Charges, as she felt she should not be paying for such work.
The landlord repaired both radiators at the resident’s property on 6 December 2022, and in doing so, moved the valve on the living room radiator from the right side to the left. In its new position the resident was unable to use the valve and attempts by the landlord to adapt the radiator were unsuccessful. During a further visit to rectify the issue on 12 December 2022, the landlord informed the resident that a new radiator would be fitted, but it would have a thermostatic radiator valve (TRV).
The resident told the landlord the following day that she was used to having lock shield valves on the radiator. The landlord replaced the radiator cover on 20 December 2022, but the resident refused to have the TRV fitted. The landlord left the radiator isolated, due to the resident being unable to access the valve in its new position.
On 30 December 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to report her bedroom radiator was not working again. She also asked about the living room radiator and was informed it would not be switched back on until she allowed the TRV to be fitted. The landlord attempted to repair the bedroom radiator on 3 January 2023 but was unsuccessful.
In its stage 2 response, dated 9 January 2023, the landlord apologised for the information given in its stage 1 response. It said that while the information was correct, it was not clear that the resident’s block would not have its valves replaced until a much later date. It confirmed that the original repairs had been completed and that further repairs to the bedroom radiator had been scheduled for later in the month due to her being away.
The landlord stated that the repositioning of the living room radiator valve and the attempted adaption had been carried out at her request and had caused a health and safety concern. It acknowledged that while she previously had an agreement in place for her valves to be the lock shield type, this was not best practice, and her radiator would remain isolated until she agreed to have the TRV fitted.
The landlord informed the resident that she was liable for the District Service Charge and one repair charge but stated that all other charges in relation to the radiators would not be processed.
The resident reported the matter to the Ombudsman on 10 July 2023. She disputed the landlord’s explanation that she had requested the valve to be moved and said the living room radiator remained switched off as she refused to have a TRV fitted. She also stated that the landlord had issued further invoices for the incomplete repairs to the heating system.

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 42 (d) of the Scheme further states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern level of rent or service charge or service charge increase.
In this case, the resident’s complaint was related to the reasonableness of the District Service Charge. It is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to determine the cost and reasonableness of service charges or cyclical works. It is more appropriate for this part of the complaint to be dealt with through the First-Tier Tribunal and the resident is advised to seek free and independent advice from the Leasehold Advisory Service.

Scope of investigation

In her correspondence with this Service, the resident has raised other matters that have not yet been through the landlord’s complaint process. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues that arose from the repairs to the heating system, which completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 9 January 2023. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of this Service.
The resident has also described how the issue has impacted on her medical condition. It is beyond the remit of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions/inaction, and the resident’s health. While we cannot determine whether there was a causative element to the landlord’s actions which had an effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any failures by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the heating system

As part of managing its services, and in particular with reference to managing complaints, a landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, investigations and communications with the resident. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. The landlord’s staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these.
As part of the investigation, the landlord was asked to provide documents, correspondence and any other evidence relevant to the resident’s complaint. Significant information was missing from what the landlord provided, such as the resident’s original reports of the repairs, and communication with her throughout the repair and complaint process. It is only apparent that contact has been made from the resident from internal emails that discuss the contact being made.
The resident told this Service she reported the repair to her living room radiator in March 2022 and the landlord told her that new parts needed to be ordered. She said she chased these repairs before submitting her complaint on 1 August 2022. The landlord’s work log for the property shows an entry in April 2022 for an unrelated repair, and one on 19 July 2022 that stated the heating could not be turned off.
The landlord’s repair policy stated that routine repairs were given a ‘priority 2’ and aimed to be completed within 10 working days. It failed to record the resident’s initial report in March, and when a request was recorded in July, it failed to complete the repair within the time scales set out in its policy or inform the resident of any reason why the repair would be delayed. This caused the resident avoidable distress and inconvenience due to the effort required to follow up and progress the repair, and subsequently make a complaint.
The landlord confirmed its knowledge of the outstanding repair in its stage 1 complaint response dated 11 August 2022. It informed the resident that non-essential repairs would begin the following week. However, at the time of its response, it knew that non-essential repairs to the resident’s block would not be carried out for some time later as part of the series of works ongoing. This was a missed opportunity for it to find out what it could do to support the resident until the repair was completed. This was particularly important given she was elderly and had complained that she was cold. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) sets out the health risks to the elderly when temperatures fall below the minimum satisfactory levels for relatively long periods. However, it still took no positive steps to support her while she was waiting for the repair to be completed such as expediting the repair or providing alternative temporary heating.
Despite the resident contacting the landlord, on at least 4 occasions according to its work log, it failed to update her with a more realistic date for her repair to be completed. This lack of communication caused distress to the resident, particularly given the lack of heating from the effected radiator during winter. The resident escalated her complaint on 22 November 2022 and reported a further issue with her bedroom radiator. In its acknowledgement from the same day, the landlord again failed to provide her with a date for the work to be carried out and further failed to provide the resident any further support such as temporary heaters.
The landlord repaired both radiators on 6 December 2022. The resident has told this Service that when the landlord’s engineer moved the position of the valve to the left-hand side of the living room radiator, it caused it to be inaccessible when the radiator cover was put back on. She said to address this, the landlord’s engineer cut a hole in the cover so she could access the valve. She stated that she never asked for this to be done, as the valve had been positioned on the right-hand side for 25 years and she had no problems accessing it from its original position. Her right hand is her stronger hand and the one she uses to operate the valve. She said moving the valve to the left-hand side made no sense.
The following day, the landlord’s work log recorded a further call from the resident to say the radiator was not turning off. She called again on 12 December to say the hole made in radiator cover to provide access to the valve was dangerous and she had cut her hand on it. The landlord attended the property the same day to assess the situation.
In an internal record of the visit, the landlord stated its engineer had adapted the radiator cover at the resident’s request. It said the adaption had caused a health and safety issue, and as it was unable to order just the radiator cover, it would need to replace the radiator. It left the radiator isolated to ensure the resident did not burn herself. The landlord also stated that the lock shield valve they had fitted would be replaced with a TRV.
The resident stated she did not ask for the valve to be moved when it had been on the right-hand for 25 years with no problems. The resident also stated that she did not request for the radiator cover to be cut and would not have thought it was something that could be done. The landlord stated that she asked for the cover to be cut as an adaptation. Regardless, the landlord’s engineer carried out the adaptation and ultimately caused the health and safety issue at the property which was a failing. It was also inappropriate for the landlord to blame the resident for this in its stage 2 response.
The landlord did not proactively provide temporary heaters to the resident. She requested them on 13 December 2022, and her son made a further call to chase them 2 days later. The failure to be proactive in providing temporary heating was unreasonable and aggravated by the cold weather and need for functioning heating at the time of year and caused the resident further distress.
The landlord fitted a new cover, rather than a new radiator, in the living room on 20 December 2022. The landlord justified this as saving money, as the radiator did not need to be fully replaced. This was reasonable in the circumstances as the old radiator was still functioning. However, the resident refused to have the TRV fitted, and the radiator was left isolated, meaning the resident was reliant on temporary heaters in the living room. A replacement radiator would not have changed the valve situation for the resident.
The resident told this service that she had the same type of valves (lock shield) on her living room radiator for 25 years. This type of valve allows the heating in a room to be either on or off, unlike a TRV that regulates the temperature of a room. She told this Service that as this is the room that she spends the most time in, she keeps it warm due her medical condition.
The landlord does not dispute that an agreement was in place whereby the resident could have lock shield valves fitted when the valves needed to be replaced. However, in its stage 2 complaint response dated 9 January 2022, the landlord informed the resident that this was not “best practice” or “in line with current processes”. The resident asked the landlord for copies of the practice and policy it was referring to, but the landlord failed to provide this to her.
The landlord relied on the Building Regulations 2010 for this decision, in particular, the Conservation of Fuel and Power document (2021 edition). This document stated, “For heating systems in new dwellings, or when a heat generator such as a boiler is replaced in an existing dwelling, each room should be provided with thermostatic room controls.” The document also defined a ‘heat generator’ as the part of a system that generates useful heat using processes such as the combustion of fuels (a boiler). The definition does not include the radiator itself.
The resident’s property was not a new build, nor had it received a boiler replacement, therefore the regulation was not mandatory in this instance. In its statement to this Service, the landlord accepted this was the case, but stated that as a local authority they aimed to uphold these standards of practice as part of meeting the government’s guidelines for net zero.
When the valve was initially replaced on 6 December 2022, it was replaced like for like with a lock shield valve (albeit the landlord’s engineer repositioned it on the opposite side of the radiator). The landlord has told this Service they that were not aware that the wrong valve had been fitted until a return visit on 12 December 2022. However, an internal email dated 9 December 2022 contradicts this. It says, “We have fitted a radiator valve for her…these are the valves she requested previously and every time a radiator valve is replaced.”
In further evidence provided by the landlord, an internal email read, “One of the main problems that will come from allowing a tenant to dictate how they want their district heating to operate will set an example as all of the people on these estates do talk amongst themselves.” This is not a fair or reasonable basis to reject the resident’s request. Decisions like this, which allow for discretion, should be made taking into account the needs of the individual. The landlord has failed to do this in this instance and left an elderly resident without use of the radiator in her living room for a long period. Furthermore, the landlord has not provided the resident with copies of the polices it used to inform its decision making, leaving her feeling ignored.
The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles include being fair and putting things right. The landlord has not acted fairly towards the resident, taking into account all the facts. If the radiator valve had been replaced in the first instance, without any modifications being made to the radiator, it would have saved both the landlord and the resident time and inconvenience in pursing the matter to this point. It is not reasonable for the landlord to leave the living room radiator isolated, especially during the colder months, given the resident is elderly and has repeatedly explained her need for a constant level of heat.
This Service understands the landlord’s concern that the intended use of lock shield valves is not to control the temperature, and that using them in this way could lead to them breaking more easily. Given that the resident is a leaseholder and any costs related to the heating system and chargeable to her, there is no financial impact on the landlord in this regard.
Regarding the bedroom radiator, it is not clear from the information provided when this was first addressed after being reported on 22 November 2022. The resident contacted the landlord on 30 December 2022 to report the radiator was not working again, which suggests a repair was carried out on the radiator prior to this date. The landlord attended the same day and reported that a further part was required. Due to the resident being away for a period of time, it was unable to complete the report until later in January 2023. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord’s stage 2 response, dated 9 January 2023, acknowledged that bedroom radiator would be repaired when the resident returned. It stated the living room radiator would be left isolated until such time that she agreed to having a TRV fitted. To date, the resident has been unable to use the living room radiator since March 2022.
The resident is elderly and has a health condition which she told the landlord about. The volume of enquiries from the resident, and the content of such, should have made the distress and inconvenience experienced obvious. The landlord could have applied its own compensation policy to address the failings at an earlier stage. Its policy recognises distress and inconvenience as factors that could be considered for compensation, following a failing. It failed to consider this when handling the repairs.
Therefore, there was maladministration due to delays to the repairs, the lack of communication with the resident, failing to provide additional support when the resident reported she was cold and for leaving the resident without a functional radiator in the most used room of her property for 16 months, including 2 winter seasons. An order has been made that the landlord pay compensation of £500 to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

The landlord’s invoices for repairs carried out to the heating system.

The resident has complained that as a result of the works carried out to her radiators, the landlord has issued her with invoices for the work, which she does not believe she should pay for.
When she escalated her complaint on 22 November 2022, the resident told the landlord that she had received invoices for the repairs that were still outstanding, and she believed she did not have to pay as they were communal repairs. While this issue did not form part of her original complaint, the landlord answered it in her stage 2 complaint response.
The landlord stated that while the resident was liable for one repair charge, all other costs in the relation to the radiators would not be processed. It sent a further invoice to the resident on 18 May 2023, in which it confirmed previous invoices for heating had been revised and the charges in dispute had been removed.
The landlord sent a further invoice to the resident on 3 July 2023 that covered the cost of repair to the bedroom radiator, completed on 24 January 2023. Given there are no other charges for any repairs to the radiators during the period of the complaint, this is the repair charge referred to in the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response.
The resident’s lease and the leaseholder handbook set out that the maintenance of the District Heating System is the sole responsibility of the landlord. However, it further states that all components within the property, while maintained by the landlord, will be charged to the leaseholder. Therefore, the resident is liable for any repair and maintenance charges to her heating system.
It is reasonable for the landlord to invoice for the repair and expect the resident to pay for this. However, it would have been helpful if this invoice had been issued sooner, to avoid causing the resident any confusion.
It was proactive and solution focussed for the landlord to remove all further charges for the radiator repairs following the resident’s complaint. The repairs to the living room radiator have not been completed and any unsuccessful adaptions carried out while trying to complete these repairs appear to have been instigated by the landlord rather than the resident. It was appropriate for the landlord to remove the charges under these circumstances. There was no maladministration regarding the landlord’s invoices to the resident for repairs carried out to the heating system.

Complaint handling

A landlord’s complaint process is an essential aspect of the overall service delivery position. An effective complaints process will enable a landlord to identify and address service delivery issues in a timely manner. It will also provide learning for future service provision and assist in developing positive landlord/leaseholder relationships.
The landlord’s complaint policy sets out the timescales in which formal complaints should be dealt with. It states it will acknowledge a formal complaint within 3 working days, provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
The resident raised her complaint on 1 August 2022. In doing so, she expressed her frustration in trying to raise a complaint. She said the repairs service could not transfer her call to the complaints team, and when she tried to call herself, she was overwhelmed with the number of options and spent up to an hour on the telephone trying to get through.
The landlord failed to acknowledge the complaint as per its policy but did provide its stage 1 response within 10 working days.
In its stage 1 response dated 11 August 2022, the landlord informed the resident that non-urgent valve repairs were due to be started the following week and the work would commence in the blocks that had been waiting the longest for valve replacements. While the landlord knew that the repairs to the resident’s block would not be started for some time, it failed to manage her expectations by providing her with this information.
On 22 November 2022, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. While this was outside of the landlord’s 28-day period for escalations, the landlord was reasonable in allowing the escalation. It issued an acknowledgement letter on the same day, in line with its policy, but incorrectly stated her complaint was in relation to the District Heating Charge only, and not the repairs to her radiator. It informed the resident it would reply within 20 working days (by 20 December 2022).
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was issued on 9 January 2023. The landlord has provided evidence showcasing that it issued a letter to the resident on 20 December 2022 requesting an extension of 10 working days to issue the stage two response. As the letter was likely posted to the resident due to her lack of preference for email contact, it is unknown when she received the letter. Having considered everything, it is this Service’s view that while there was a delay in issuing the stage two response, this delay was minor, particularly considering the holiday period which would have likely been a contributing factor.
Under the circumstances, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling by failing to meet the timescales set out in its policy for its stage 1 acknowledgement and its stage 2 response. Furthermore, its stage 1 response lacked vital information that could have negated the complaint escalation and helped to manage the resident’s expectations. These failings caused further frustration and distress to the resident. An order has been made that the landlord pay £100 compensation to the resident in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42 (d) of the Scheme, the complaint relating to the reasonableness of the District Service Charge is outside of the Ombudsman’s Jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the heating system.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s invoices for repairs carried out to the heating system.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide the resident with a written apology for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident a total of £600 in compensation, made up of:
  1. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in handling the repairs to the heating system.
  2. £100 for the frustration and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
3. Provide the resident with a functioning radiator that she is able to operate given her physical vulnerabilities and which is able to provide the level of functionality and control that meets her requirements.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with the orders within the timescales set out above.