Leeds City Council (202304704)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304704

Leeds City Council

27 May 2025

Our approach

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The Ombudsman must determine whether a complaint comes within their jurisdiction. The Ombudsman seeks to resolve disputes wherever possible but cannot investigate complaints that fall outside of this.

In deciding whether a complaint falls within their jurisdiction, the Ombudsman will carefully consider all the evidence provided by the parties and the circumstances of the case.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs in the property.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

When a resident brings a complaint to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why we cannot investigate.
After carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary of events

The resident is a secure tenant. She has lived at the property with her family since 2019. The property is a 4 bedroom house.
On 28 April 2023 the landlord received a complaint from the resident by telephone. She complained about a number of outstanding repair issues in the property, including to:
1. a leaking toilet.
2. a wet room extractor fan.
3. guttering.
4. window sills.
5. rotten floorboards downstairs.
She sent a follow up email on 6 May 2023 to further outline her concerns. She said the gutters were leaking and causing water to come through bedroom walls. She explained the ground below the floorboards was damp which had caused them to become damaged and rotten. She said that as a result of the outstanding repairs, particularly the damp, slugs kept getting into the property.
On 15 May 2023, the resident’s solicitor sent the landlord a pre-action protocol for housing conditions claims letter (‘the pre-action claim’). The letter said the resident had reported a number of “defects” and that the landlord had not carried out “adequate remedial work” to resolve these. The “defects” listed in the letter included the same repair issues as raised in the resident’s complaint on 28 April 2023, and also that the upstairs radiators were outdated and rusting.
On the same day that the pre-action claim was issued, 15 May 2023, the landlord rang the resident and spoke to her about the complaint she had submitted the previous month. It then issued its stage 1 response on 23 May 2023. It said:
1. it attended the property on 22 February 2023 to repair the toilet leak but nobody was at home. It cancelled the works order but did not follow its ‘no access’ process. It therefore upheld that part of the resident’s complaint.
2. it had since raised works orders for:
  1. repairing the toilet leak.
  2. clearing the gutters and testing them for leaks.
  3. checking the chimney stack was in repair.
  4. repairing window sills.
3. it had installed a new wet room extractor fan on 22 May 2023.
4. the local water company was investigating water under the resident’s property and neighbouring properties. This followed on from a historic leak that the water company had accepted responsibility for. Once the water company’s investigation was complete, the landlord would carry out any repairs it was responsible for.
On 19 July 2023, further to the pre-action claim, a technical officer of the landlord and a surveyor instructed by the resident’s solicitor carried out a joint inspection of the property. They both agreed that:
1. the landlord had repaired the toilet leak. There were no other leaks from the wet room waste pipes at the time of the inspection.
2. the new extractor fan installed by the landlord was in working order.
3. the landlord had repaired the guttering.
4. there was damp in the bedroom walls which was potentially due to an issue with the chimney stack. The landlord agreed to investigate this further.
5. the downstairs floorboards were not rotting. One floorboard was damaged due to it being repeatedly lifted. The landlord agreed to repair this.
6. the reason there was water pooling under the sub-floor of the property was due to inadequate drainage to the front elevation. The landlord agreed to carry out remedial work to resolve this.
7. there were no defects with the radiators.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 25 July 2023. Within her escalation request she raised concern that the wet room floor kept leaking through to the kitchen ceiling below, which was affecting electric light fittings. She believed the issue was with incorrectly fitted flooring in the wet room. She explained that she had 2 young children who she bathed in a portable baby bath as the wet room did not have a bath, only a shower. She said that as the children were getting older, the baby bath was getting too small. This meant that water was spilling out when she bathed them and was leaking through the wet room floor and into the ceiling below. She asked the landlord to consider installing a bath.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 21 August 2023. It outlined the relevant repairs history in the property and confirmed that it had completed repairs to the leaking toilet, extractor fan, guttering and window sills. It referred to the findings of the joint inspection that confirmed this. It said its repairs team would arrange the outstanding work as agreed at the joint inspection. It offered the resident a “goodwill payment” of £200 for the “stress and inconvenience” caused by its delay in completing some of the repairs.
In response to the resident’s concern about the leaking wet room floor and request for a bath, the landlord said:
1. it would not install a bath in the wet room while the existing shower remained in good condition.
2. if it carried out significant repair work to the wet room in the future, it would consider fitting a bath then.
3. it would inspect the wet room to check for leaks given the resident’s report of water leaking through the kitchen ceiling.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and referred the complaint to the Ombudsman for investigation. She told us she wanted the landlord to complete all the outstanding repairs and to install a bath.
Over the course of the next 17 months the landlord’s solicitor and resident’s solicitor continued to correspond in relation to the pre-action claim. The resident’s concerns about the wet room floor and request for a bath was incorporated into this. The landlord carried out the works agreed by the joint inspection as well as some additional works, including installing a bath. The claim was settled, without court proceedings having been issued, on 6 January 2025. As part of the settlement, both parties agreed the landlord would pay the resident £1,100 in damages.

Reasons

Paragraph 42.f of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in our opinion, concern matters where it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
The resident’s complaint in April 2023 was about outstanding repairs. While we understand from speaking with her that she had wider concerns, such as the landlord’s communications with her, these were not raised as part of her complaint. While we sympathise with her, we are unable to investigate any matters not raised as part of the formal complaint. If the resident remains concerned about this, she may raise a new complaint with the landlord accordingly. The resident may then refer the complaint to us if the complaint cannot be resolved to her satisfaction by the landlord.
The resident, through her solicitor, initiated a pre-action repairs claim alongside her complaint. Further to this claim, a joint inspection was carried out, negotiations took place between both parties’ solicitors, and the landlord addressed all the repair issues raised in the complaint. The landlord and resident then agreed an out of court settlement which included compensation for damages.
The settlement represents a legally binding contract between both parties. We cannot not direct the landlord to take further action in relation to the repairs or pay additional compensation, given both parties have agreed the matter is settled.
If the resident remains concerned that any of the repair issues have not been fully resolved, she may raise this with her solicitor. The solicitor can then advise her on next steps, which may include further pre-action correspondence or formal court proceedings. In other words, it would be more reasonable and effective for her to seek a remedy through courts or an alternative procedure as there are limitations on our investigation due to the settlement reached.
The resident is not prevented from raising further complaints with the landlord about repair issues. For example, if she believed damp had returned to the property or the wet room was leaking again, she should report this to the landlord. It should respond in line with its repairs policy and carry out any repairs for which it is responsible. If the resident was not satisfied with its response, she could raise a further complaint. If the complaint completed the landlord’s complaints process and she remained unhappy, she could refer the complaint to the Ombudsman. Provided it related to issues that arose after the settlement was agreed, we may be able to investigate.