North West Leicestershire District Council (202323994)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323994

North West Leicestershire District Council

27 March 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs.

Background

2. The resident is the tenant of the landlord and he lives in a house. The landlord does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for him.
3. On 4 July 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to make a complaint. He reported various repair issues.
4. The landlord completed an inspection of the resident’s property on 6 July 2023. It found it needed to:
   1. Replace 6 windows.
   2. Repair the boundary fence.
   3. Raise a request to move the thermostat for the heating system.
5. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 27 July 2023 and said:
   1. It had now replaced most of the windows and only had 1 do left to do. It said it would complete the repair within 90 days.
   2. It would move the thermostat within 90 days.
   3. It had raised a repair to the garden fence.
   4. It upheld the resident’s complaint and offered £150 for the delays in progressing with his reports of his repairs.
6. The resident contacted the landlord on 13 September 2023 and said he was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response and its compensation offer. He said the landlord had not yet replaced the last window, repaired the fence, and had not moved the thermostat. The resident contacted it again on 21 September 2023 and reported a leak from a pipe attached to the boiler.
7. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 26 September 2023. It said it had measured and ordered the remaining window and would fit it as soon as possible. It had raised repairs to the fence and boiler pipe, which would be done as soon as possible. It said it was “disappointing” that it had taken that long to progress with the repairs.

Events after the complaints process

8. The resident contacted us on 15 November 2023 and asked us to investigate his complaint. He said the repairs were not yet done and he was unhappy with the landlord’s compensation offer.
9. The landlord completed some fence repairs on 11 January 2024, and more fence repairs on 2 April 2024.
10. The landlord repaired the boiler pipe on 9 May 2024.
11. We asked the landlord for an update on the repairs in March 2023, and it said:
    1. It installed the outstanding window in October 2023.
    2. It completed fence repairs in October and December 2023, and January 2024.
    3. It installed a new thermostat in January 2024

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs

12. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property.
13. The landlord’s repairs policy states it will complete ‘high priority’ repairs within 3 days. For non urgent repairs it states it will complete repair “relatively quickly” on an appointment date chosen by the resident.
14. The investigation has focused on the repairs raised in the resident’s stage 2 complaint. This is in line with the approach set out in our Scheme that states an issue must have exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure before we can investigate. The resident raised numerous repairs in his stage 1 complaint and the landlord responded to each issue raised. As part of his stage 2 complaint the resident only raised concerns about the fence, thermostat, and windows. The landlord also set out its position in relation to the boiler pipe in its stage 2 response, so we consider it reasonable to conclude this in our investigation.
15. If the resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the other repairs, not outlined above, he may wish to make another complaint. We could then investigate if he was unhappy after exhausting the landlord’s complaint procedure.
16. The landlord issued its final complaint response in September 2023. At the time of its stage 2 response the substantive issues addressed in the complaint were outstanding. For fairness, this Service has increased the scope of the investigation beyond the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response to fully consider the landlord’s handling of the substantive issues raised in the complaint.
17. The resident raised concerns about the condition of his property and various repairs issues in July 2023. The landlord inspected 2 days later. This was reasonable in the circumstances and evidence it took the resident’s concerns seriously.
18. The landlord used its stage 1 complaint response to set out its position on the repairs and when it hoped to complete most of them by. This was reasonable. It was a shortcoming in its response that it did not set out when it hoped to complete the fence repair by. We welcome the fact the landlord showed transparency and offered compensation for its failure to progress the repairs in an appropriate timeframe.
19. The evidence shows the landlord did not replace the window or move the thermostat within the timeframe it said it would in its stage 1 response. This was a failing in its handling of the matter that caused the resident a disappointment. He was inconvenienced by the need to raise his concerns again, in September 2023, before the landlord took further action on the repairs. This is evidence the landlord was not proactive in seeking to resolve the repairs, which was unreasonable and inconvenienced the resident.
20. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response offered very little assessment of its handling of the repairs. This was inappropriate. It accepted it had progressed with the repairs which showed transparency. It was unreasonable that it did not seek to make an increased offer of redress despite the further delays. This means it missed an opportunity to show learning and put things right. The resident was inconvenienced by the fact it stage 2 response failed to set out when it hoped to complete the repairs by.
21. The resident told us, in March 2025 that the window and fence repair were outstanding. We asked the landlord about this in March 2025. It said it completed the various fence repairs in 2023 and in early 2024. It said it replaced the outstanding window in October 2023. Based on the information available it is not possible to corroborate which version of events is accurate. The landlord has not supplied corroborating evidence of the repairs. It is therefore not possible for us to determine if the repairs went ahead when the landlord claimed. However, what is also clear as that if the repairs went ahead when the landlord said, they were not done in a reasonable timeframe from when it was on notice. This caused the resident a further inconvenience.
22. Considering the resident’s ongoing concerns about the fence and window, the landlord must inspect both to identify any further repairs needed.
23. The landlord completed the thermostat repair in January 2024. Again, this was 6 months after it was on notice about the matter. This was an unreasonable delay that inconvenienced the resident.
24. The landlord completed the boiler pipe repair in May 2024, 8 months after it was on notice about the issue. This was an unreasonable delay that inconvenienced the resident.
25. The landlord offered £150 for its handling of the repairs at stage 1. Even though some of the repairs had not progressed, a fact it accepted and apologised for, it did not offer compensation at stage 2. This was unreasonable. We have decided its offer of compensation did not put things right for the resident. This is because the issues were outstanding at the time of its compensation offer, and well beyond its stage 2 complaint response. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs.
26. Our remedies guidance sets out that for findings of maladministration an order of compensation between £100 and £600 may be appropriate to put things right for the resident. The exact amount of compensation will depend on the individual circumstances of the complaint. The guidance states that findings of maladministration may be made when we identify failures “which adversely affected the resident”. This is depending on the severity of the failings and the impact on the resident.) Considering, the failings identified above we have determined an order for a further £200 in compensation is appropriate to put things right for the resident.

Determination

27. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs.

Orders

28. Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, available on our website.
    2. Pay the resident £350 in compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused by errors in its handling of the repairs. The landlord’s offer of £150 should be deducted from this total if already paid.
    3. Meet with the resident to inspect the fence and windows to identify any further repairs needed. If repairs are identified it must set out, in writing, when it plans to complete the repairs.