Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Leeds City Council (202014123)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014123

Leeds City Council

3 August 2021


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 concerns the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a blocked toilet.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. He has one toilet in his property.
  2. On 31 December 2020 the resident reported that his toilet was blocked. Contractors attended the same day. The landlord has explained that its contractor’s records state: “Rodded toilet, partial flow restored. Requires toilet removing for CCTV as there is no water going to man hole”, and that “notes in our system do show that the toilet was operational although not operating as it should do (it needed flushing several times).”
  3. The resident called the landlord on 11 January 2021. The landlord’s call notes show he asked when it would install a new toilet. The landlord said it had no record of ordering one, and made internal enquiries about his question. The resident called again on 12 January and reported a blocked toilet. Contractors attended the following day and resolved it. The repair records state “Jet cleaned from toilet using mini hose and rodded to external man hole to clear blockage, [drainage surveyors] stated that the public drains are at fault. Responsibility of [utility provider] water. No further faults”.
  4. The resident raised a formal complaint on 13 January 2021. He said his toilet had been blocked since 31 December 2020. He said when contractors attended on 31 December 2020, they said he needed a new toilet, but nobody had contacted him since. He said he had been offered (it is unclear who by) alternative toilet facilities, but this had not happened.
  5. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 21 January 2021. It said it would not have offered alternative toilet facilities as the resident’s toilet would flush, but not as well as it should have. It said it was unaware who made the offer, and apologised for the misinformation. It concluded by explaining how the resident could escalate his complaint if he remained dissatisfied.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint on 22 January 2021. He said “I’m not happy and it’s not enough. Apologies. For not using the toilet for over 24 hours because of your lies? And your apologies make it better?”.
  7. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 11 February 2021. It said that until the resident contacted it on 11 January, it thought the repair had been resolved. It said that there was miscommunication throughout the repair process which left the resident without a toilet for two weeks, and apologised. It offered him £100 compensation for the stress and inconvenience. It concluded by explaining how the resident could refer his complaint to this Service if he remained dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy says that it is responsible for repairing toilets. It will attend to, and complete emergency repairs (needed to prevent a serious risk to health and safety) within 24 hours. It will carry out priority repairs (ones which can seriously affect your comfort) within three working days. An example of a priority repair is plumbing or drainage faults. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that he is responsible for reporting repairs to the landlord.
  2. The resident was dissatisfied that the landlord did not fit a new toilet, or provide alternative facilities as he had expected. The landlord explained that it was unaware who or why he had been given that information. It apologised for the confusion, and offered £100 compensation for it. This was a reasonable response because, as explained by the landlord and supported by the repair records, after the first visit the toilet was operational, albeit not perfectly, and there are no records of the toilet needing replacement.
  3. However, the records for 31 December 2020 show that further work was needed, as the water flow was only partially restored, and “Requires toilet removing for CCTV as there is no water going to man hole”. This may explain why the resident believed the toilet was going to be replaced. Nonetheless, it is evident that further work was needed to properly restore the toilet, and there is no evidence of such work being arranged in the period immediately after the visit. The impact of this appears to be understandably frustrating for the resident, but otherwise limited, given that the toilet was working, and the timeframe was short.
  4. When the resident reported that the toilet was not working again on 12 January 2021 the landlord attended and resolved the matter the next day, within its emergency timeframe. A landlord is only expected to respond to repair matters after they have been reported by a tenant. As there had been no further reports of specific problems with the toilet between 31 December 2020 and 12 January 2021, the landlord’s response was reasonable. The second visit also appears to have resolved the underlying problem (or at least identified the cause as being outside the landlord’s control), and resolved any remaining work from the original visit. Taken together, the landlord’s repair actions and its response to the resident’s complaint were a suitable remedy.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the complainant prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

  1. The landlord attended to the reported repair issues in reasonable time frames, acknowledged that there had been some form of miscommunication, apologised for it, and offered reasonable compensation.