Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council (202322413)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322413

Kirklees Council

9 June 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Request for a replacement gas fire.
2. Reports of damp.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a council. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The landlord is aware the resident has health issues.
From at least January 2020 the resident has reported damp in the property. The landlord said when it visited him in October 2022, he asked for works to address this to be done in the summer months, when his health was better.
On 14 April 2023 the resident reported the hallway walls were damp. The landlord attended on 26 May 2023 and 9 June 2023. During the second visit it agreed works to the living room and hallway to address this.
The landlord completed the annual gas safety check at the property on 31 August 2023. During this, the gas fire was condemned and capped off. Five days later the resident asked the landlord to replace this. The landlord said it would not install a new gas fire, but would fit an electric one.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 6 September 2023. He said he had been told the damp works would take 5 weeks to complete but this was 9 or 10 weeks ago, and they still had not been done. He told it he had called several times for an update, but no one had got back to him. He said he had ordered a replacement carpet but lost his deposit because of the delay. He also said his gas fire had been capped, so he could not use this.
The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 30 October 2023. This said:
1. The damp works had been scheduled for 20 November 2023. It had not been able to arrange these until a plasterer had attended the property, which they did on 14 September 2023.
2. The landlord had not agreed a date for the works to take place during its initial visit in June 2023, so it would not compensate him for the loss of his carpet deposit.
3. When there was a major fault with a gas fire, it would cap this off but would not replace it. He said he had spoken to the landlord and it agreed to install a new electric fire, but there was no record of this call.
4. The complaint was not upheld as any delays to works were at the resident’s request and there had been no poor communication.
Two days later the landlord visited the resident to discuss the stage 1 response. It noted he said he had been told the works would take around 5 weeks to complete and had paid a deposit for a carpet based on this. He explained he had been given no updates, despite making a number of calls to chase this up. He said the date given in November 2023 was not suitable for health and personal reasons. The landlord treated this as a request to escalate the complaint to stage 2.
On 9 November 2023 the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. This said:
1. The service and communication regarding the damp works was not to the expected standard. It had agreed to contact him at the beginning of March 2024 to progress these works.
2. There was evidence of a conversation on 5 September 2023 where it had agreed to install a new electric fire. Therefore, it would install one and these works would take place in December 2023, which they subsequently did.
3. The complaint was upheld. It apologised and offered £100 compensation for the delays, service failure and poor communication.
In December 2023 the resident asked us to investigate his complaint.
The landlord contacted the resident in late February 2024 to progress the damp works. These were subsequently completed between April and June 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

As part of the stage 1 and 2 responses, the landlord offered £50 compensation (in addition to the £100) for complaint handling. This was in relation to a failure that it said occurred in June 2021. Due to the length of time that has passed, we have not assessed this period as part of our investigation. However, we have assessed the landlord’s complaint handling in 2023.

Handling of the resident’s request for a replacement gas fire

The landlord is responsible for heating repairs in line with the resident’s tenancy agreement. This says it is responsible for repairing any of its systems for heating the property.
When the landlord identified a fault with the gas fire at the annual gas safety check, it was reasonable that it capped this off; as this was to ensure the resident’s safety.
The landlord has said its policy is not to replace gas fires when they have been capped off. It will either leave them in situ or remove and brick up. While it will not replace the fire, it can assess the adequacy of the remaining heating in the property. When the resident called the landlord on 5 September 2023, it told him it would replace the gas fire with an electric one. This understandably raised his expectations that the gas fire would be replaced, despite it not being the landlord’s policy to do so.
When the landlord told the resident in the stage 1 response that it would not replace the gas fire, this left him feeling let down. The landlord said there was no record of the call in which it had agreed to replace this. This is a concern, as the call recording was identified as part of the stage 2 investigation. This calls into question the thoroughness of the stage 1 investigation and was a missed opportunity to put things right for the resident sooner.
The landlord identified its mistake as part of the stage 2 investigation and committed to install a new electric fire, as promised. Despite it not being the landlord’s policy to do so, this was appropriate, as it had told the resident it would do this. However, its failure to identify this sooner, meant there was a delay of around 2 months in this being progressed. This was disappointing for the resident.
After the stage 2 response, it took the landlord around 5 weeks to install the new fire. As this was a replacement, rather than a repair, it was reasonable that this took slightly longer than the 25 day committed timescale for routine repairs, set out in its repairs policy. The landlord told the resident the job would be completed in early December 2023, which it was. Therefore, the timescale was reasonable.
The landlord identified failure in its handling of this issue. It apologised and offered £100 compensation for this and 1 other issue, but did not specify distinct amounts for each. Therefore, we have split the offer in half for each of the issues, meaning the landlord offered £50 for its handling of this matter. Considering the length of the delay and the communication failures, this amount is not quite proportionate to the failings identified.
Balancing the landlord’s failures with the steps it has already taken to put things right; a finding of service failure is appropriate. We have made an order for the landlord to pay the resident £150 compensation, inclusive of the £50 already offered, if not done so.

Handling of the resident’s reports of damp

The landlord is responsible for addressing damp and mould in line with section 9(a) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This says the landlord has an obligation to ensure the property is fit for human habitation during the term of the tenancy, in relation to freedom from damp.
When the resident asked in October 2022 for the damp works to be done in the summer months, due to his health, it was reasonable that the landlord agreed this. While reasonable, the landlord should have considered any interim actions it could take to alleviate the damp during this period, for example, providing a dehumidifier.
This was particularly important as this period was over the winter months when damp often gets worse due to lower temperatures and higher levels of rainfall. This was even more important in this case, as the landlord knew the resident had health issues. There is no evidence the landlord considered any interim actions it could take to alleviate the damp during the period the works were on hold. This was a failure that amounts to maladministration.
When the landlord agreed to place the works on hold, it should have confirmed when it would contact the resident to progress these (as it did the following year), rather than leaving it open ended and putting the onus on the resident to re-report this. The landlord did not do that and this meant the resident was left not knowing when, or if, he would be contacted. This amounts to maladministration.
When the resident re-reported this in April 2023, the landlord raised a works order and sent an operative out on 26 May 2023. It is not clear why it did this as it knew from previous visits what the issues were and what works were required. Therefore, it should have arranged an inspection to follow up on previous discussions and agree how to progress the works needed.
The feedback from the operative visit on 26 May 2023 was that no works were carried out and a bigger scope of works was needed. Therefore, this was a wasted and unnecessary visit that contributed to the overall delay in the landlord progressing these works. This amounts to maladministration and was frustrating for the resident as he took time and trouble to give access for a visit of little or no value.
Following the surveyor’s inspection on 9 June 2023, the landlord raised an order for the works 10 days later. The resident chased the landlord for updates on at least 3 occasions in September 2023. However, there is no evidence any were given until it responded to the stage 1 complaint 4 months later, in October 2023. This was not in line with the landlord’s service standards, which says it will keep in touch with resident’s throughout the repairs process. This delay and lack of updates amounts to maladministration and left the resident feeling that the landlord was not taking the matter seriously.
It is good practice for landlords to confirm the outcome of inspections in writing, to ensure residents are clear on what works will be done and a timescale for these. There is no evidence the landlord did that after the inspection in June 2023. This meant the resident was left uncertain on what was happening and incurred time and trouble chasing for updates, that were never provided. This amounts to maladministration and left the resident feeling ignored.
The resident said he was told during the inspection on 9 June 2023 that the works would take 5 weeks; and on this basis he paid a deposit for a new carpet, which he subsequently lost. We have seen no evidence that this timescale was given, however, the landlord’s record of the inspection is brief, and as there was no written update sent following this, we cannot conclusively say what was discussed or agreed during this visit. The landlord ultimately offered compensation that covered the lost deposit, which was sensible considering the overall delay in it progressing these works.
The landlord said the delay in scheduling the works was because it needed to send a plasterer to the property, which it did on 14 September 2023. From the evidence we have seen, it is not clear the reason for the plasterer’s visit or that the landlord told the resident this was required. The plasterer’s visit was around 2 months after the works order was raised, which was too long considering the landlord said it needed this to happen before it could schedule the works.
After the plasterer’s visit in September 2023, the landlord scheduled the job. Considering the nature and scale of the works required, the timescale at that point was reasonable. However, had the plasterer’s visit happened sooner, it could have scheduled the works earlier. This was important as the resident had said he wanted the works done in the summer, due to his health. The delay in scheduling these, meant the works were further put off until the spring/ summer of 2024. This was an unreasonable and avoidable delay that amounts to maladministration.
As the landlord had agreed a further hold to the works over the winter months, it should have again considered any interim actions it could take to alleviate the damp during that time. There is no evidence that it did, which meant the resident was left living in a property with worsening damp, during a period when he had told the landlord his health was in decline. This amounts to maladministration.
The landlord contacted the resident in late February 2024, as per its commitment. This was positive and showed it was committed to completing the works. During its initial visit on 28 February 2024, the resident asked for the works to start in April 2024, which the landlord agreed. This showed it was listening to the resident and taking his individual needs seriously.
Around a week after the works had started, the resident said he was unhappy with the quality of these and queried the scope of the plastering works. The landlord visited on 2 occasions in late April and early May 2024, in response to this. This was sensible and showed it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously. However, this was partly avoidable, as in accordance with good practice, the landlord should have confirmed the scope of works in writing prior to them starting. This would have ensured the resident was aware of exactly what works would be done and given him the opportunity to query this, before the start.
The landlord agreed to extend the scope of the works following its second visit on 3 May 2024. However, this required an asbestos survey, which further delayed progress. While understandable that an asbestos survey was needed, had the landlord confirmed the scope in writing earlier, this could have been addressed sooner. The landlord’s failure to properly communicate with the resident meant the works were not progressed in a timely manner and the resident was left uncertain on what was happening. This amounts to maladministration.
In an internal email sent on 7 May 2024 the landlord asked for a written update to be sent to the resident to confirm its position, due to some confusion following the recent visit. Despite specifically asking for this, there is no evidence a written update was sent. This was a missed opportunity to provide clarity to the resident, and resulted in him incurring further time and trouble to chase the landlord for an update 6 days later.
The landlord completed the works on or around 14 June 2024. This was at least 20 months after it first identified them, in October 2022. While some of this delay (around 6 months) was at the resident’s request and not attributable to the landlord, there were failures in its handling of these works in 2023 and 2024, that contributed to this. These failures resulted in the works being further delayed by over a year. This was a significant and unreasonable delay that amounts to maladministration. This was upsetting for the resident and has caused him to lose trust in the landlord.
The landlord acknowledged failure in its handling of this matter, apologised and offered £50 compensation (half of the total £100 offered). Considering the failures identified, including the unreasonable delay and poor communication, as well as the detriment to the resident, the compensation offered is insufficient. Therefore, a finding of maladministration is appropriate.
We have made an order for the landlord to pay the resident £550 compensation (inclusive of the £50 already offered). This is in line with our remedies guidance, as it reflects there were failures which adversely affected the resident and the redress needed to put things right is at the higher end of the scale. This is due to the multiple failures and the impact on the resident, who the landlord knew was vulnerable.
The resident has told us that since the works were completed cracks have appeared, which he has repaired himself. He said he has not reported these to the landlord as he does not trust it to complete the works to a satisfactory standard. It is concerning that the resident has lost trust in the landlord, however, considering the failures identified, it is understandable that this has damaged the relationship. The onus is now on the landlord to rebuild some of the trust that has been lost so that moving forward there can be a positive landlord/ tenant relationship between them.
We have made an order for the landlord to contact the resident to discuss his concerns with a view to arranging an inspection to identify any repairs needed. This contact should be made by a member of staff not previously involved in the case and any subsequent works agreed should be carried out by a contractor that has not previously done works in the property. The resident can choose to not engage with the landlord, and if he does, the lack of action would not be considered a failure by the landlord.

Complaint handling

During a call on 6 September 2023, the resident asked to make a formal complaint. Despite this, no complaint was logged. This amounts to maladministration and left the resident feeling ignored.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 14 and 22 September 2023, during which he expressed ongoing dissatisfaction. Despite this, the landlord still failed to log a complaint, even though its complaints policy says it defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord.
It was only after contact from us, on 9 October 2023, that the landlord raised a formal complaint and acknowledged this the next day. This was 24 working days after the resident first asked to make a complaint, which was over the 5 working day committed timescale to acknowledge a complaint, set out in its complaints policy. This amounts to maladministration.
We have made an order for the landlord to deliver training to all front line staff on how to identify a complaint, even when the word “complaint” is not used. We will consider this order complied with, if the landlord can show training of this nature has been delivered in the last 12 months.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response 15 working days after the complaint was raised via us. This was over the 10 working day committed response time, set out in its complaints policy. However, it did tell the resident about the extended deadline on 19 October 2023, which was reasonable. Despite this, due to the delay in raising the complaint, the overall response time was 38 working days. This was nearly 6 weeks longer than the committed response time, set out in its complaints policy, and amounts to maladministration.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint in 2 working days, on 3 November 2023. This was in line with the target timescale of 5 working days, set out in its complaints policy. It sent the stage 2 response in 6 working days, which was in line with the 20 working day committed response time, set out in its complaints policy.
Overall, the complaint journey was delayed. While the landlord acknowledged an historic complaint handling failure from 2021 and offered redress, it failed to do so for the more recent complaint handling failures. This amounts to maladministration and was disappointing for the resident.
We have made orders for the landlord to apologise to the resident for the complaint handling failures in 2023, and pay him £150 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for a failure which adversely affected the resident and the landlord has not acknowledged this or made any attempt to put things right.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a replacement gas fire.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
  1. Reports of damp.
  2. Formal complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
1. Paid the resident £850 compensation, made up of:
  1. £150 for its handling of his request for a replacement gas fire (inclusive of the £50 already offered, if not done so).
  2. £550 for its handling of his reports of damp (inclusive of the £50 already offered, if not done so).
  3. £150 for its complaint handling.
2. Contacted the resident to discuss his concerns about it completing current and future repairs in the property, with a view to arranging an inspection to identify any repairs needed. This contact should be made by a member of staff not previously involved in the case and any subsequent works agreed should be carried out by a contractor that has not previously done works in the property. The resident can choose to not engage with the landlord, and if he does, the lack of action would not be considered a failure by the landlord.
3. Apologised to the resident for its complaint handling failures in 2023.
Within 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has delivered training to all front line staff on how to identify a complaint, even when the word “complaint” is not used. We will consider this order complied with, if the landlord can show training of this nature has been delivered in the last 12 months.