Leeds City Council (202315432)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315432

Leeds City Council

4 December 2024

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:

a. The installation of a new district heating system including:

The communication around the commencement of the work.
The landlord’s consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities.

b. The increased associated heating costs.

c. The reported damage to the resident’s property.

d. The resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy that commenced on 4 April 2016. The resident lives in a high-rise block of flats on the 9th floor. The resident told the landlord during the complaints process that he has epilepsy. The landlord’s systems did not record any vulnerabilities for the resident.
On or around 31 January 2023, the resident told the landlord he was unhappy with the level of noise during a fibre optic installation at the block. The landlord apologised for the noise and asked the resident to contact it if there were further disturbances.
The resident wrote to the landlord on or around 20 February 2023. He said that he had been having increased epileptic seizures and had been recently hospitalised for this. He said he was disappointed to return home to loud drilling. The landlord explained this was related to the new district heating system installation at the block. The resident explained that he worked night shifts which meant the work was disturbing his sleep and his ability to work. He asked the landlord to rehouse him while the work was taking place because he thought he may have long-term brain damage. He asked to escalate the matter further, and the landlord recorded a complaint.
The landlord emailed the resident on 21 February 2023. It said it understood the resident had queries about the works started in the block. It offered to meet with the resident to discuss the work and answer any questions he had. The resident declined this as he felt a meeting would not resolve the disruption of the work and the impact of them on his health conditions. He asked the landlord again to raise a complaint.
The landlord referred to its correspondence with the resident between 20 and 21 February 2023 as its stage 1 response. It noted that it had partially upheld the resident’s complaint and closed it. The resident chased the landlord for a complaint response on 29 March 2023. He said:

a. he felt discriminated against due to the lack of support with his “current situation” and the injuries he had incurred because of the landlord’s negligence.

b. the landlord had not provided a formal response in the timeframes it had given him.

c. customer services were refusing to answer his emails.

d. he wanted the landlord to investigate what had happened and to contact him.

The landlord responded and said there had been an overlap in his complaint being registered and investigated. It said it had closed the complaint investigation because the resident had declined assistance from the complaint handler when they offered to meet him. It agreed to escalate the resident’s complaint on 1 April 2023 because the resident had said:

a. the landlord had not progressed his complaint and closed the investigation prematurely.

b. the landlord had not responded to his concerns about the impact of the works on his health conditions and injuries sustained. He said he felt this was disability discrimination.

c. the landlord did not provide a way for him to claim against it for injuries and the costs incurred because he stayed in hotels to mitigate the impact on his health conditions.

d. the boiler had been removed before he was told about additional heating charges, which were not part of his normal electric bill.

e. contractors had damaged his property during the installation, and he wanted the landlord to pay the costs to repair this.

f. the contractors had used his electric to power their tools and radio whilst conducting the work.

On 5 April 2023, the landlord carried out planned works to update the district heating system in the resident’s block of flats. It replaced the electric storage heaters with air-source heat pumps. On the same day, the resident experienced a leak connected to the heating works. This was fixed by the landlord’s heating installer on 6 April 2023.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 24 April 2023. It said:

a. it had issued letters to all residents with information about the new heating installation and charges prior to the work commencing.

b. the standing charge paid for the metering and billing in the same way the resident would ordinarily pay for gas and electric. It hoped the more efficient heating system would outweigh any increase in the standing charges.

c. it had offered all residents incentive payments of at least £80 as an acceptance of any minor inconveniences experienced during the works and to make good any minor damage.

d. damage to the property should have been limited as it covered the previous storage heater locations with oversized radiators.

e. contractors had confirmed their power tools and radios were battery operated and charged in the site office. But if operatives had used the resident’s electric it apologised on behalf of the contractor who would also be willing to apologise in person.

The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman because:

a. he was seeking compensation and a written apology from the landlord because it failed to support him adequately with his health conditions when it conducted the work.

b. he wanted the old boiler, or a similar boiler reinstated because he felt he could not afford the additional associated costs of the system.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident explained during his complaint that he had suffered a potential brain injury and that he wanted the landlord to compensate him for this. He also said that he felt discriminated against based on his disability because the landlord had not considered the impact of the installation work on his health conditions.
While this Service is an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. We are also unable to make a legal judgment about whether the resident was a victim of disability discrimination. Further, we cannot calculate or award damages.
The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspect or the legal liability of the landlord relating to a discrimination case for the resident. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court through a personal injury or discrimination claim. However, we can consider whether the landlord acted reasonably and in line with its policies and procedures when responding to the resident’s concerns about the impact of the work on his health conditions.
The resident was dissatisfied with the level of increase in his heating bill, following the installation of the new district heating system. This is collected by the landlord through a service charge and makes up the gross rent stipulated in the resident’s tenancy agreement.
The resident’s concerns about the increases and the impact on his financial position are acknowledged. However, the Ombudsman is unable to decide on whether the resident’s service charges were correct and/or fair. The resident may have recourse through the First Tier Tribunal or the County Court to challenge the level of the service charges. While we cannot make decisions in relation to the level of service charge, we can assess whether the landlord acted reasonably when it increased the service charge in line with its policy and/or its contractual obligations.

The communication around the commencement of the work

The resident said that the landlord did not give him notice of the boiler installation work in the block. This meant he did not know when the work would begin, how long this would take, or how disruptive it could be. He said this left him unprepared to mitigate any disruption on his ability to sleep for work (as he worked night shifts) as well as any impact on his health conditions.
On 4 October 2022, the landlord sent a generic letter to all the residents living in the block. It explained that it would be installing an air source heat pump and a new heating and hot water system in each individual flat. The letter also explained:

a. how air source heat pumps work.

b. the old storage heaters would be removed, and the new system would be less expensive to use and more energy efficient.

c. the air source heat pumps would be housed in an external energy centre located on the grounds of the block.

d. it was holding ‘meet the team’ drop-in sessions for residents to look at the proposed images of the system, get further details of the work, and ask any questions.

The evidence shows the landlord wrote to all residents in the block 6 months before the installation to explain the purpose of the works. It also held a drop-in session for residents so they could ask questions and get further details about the work. The Ombudsman considers the landlord acted reasonably because it gave all residents notice about the installation and gave an opportunity for residents to get more information about the work.
While it would have been for the resident to decide whether to attend the drop-in session, it is unclear if at the session further information had been conveyed or whether this could have mitigated the resident’s complaint.
The evidence shows that on or around 31 January 2023, the resident reported noise disturbance to the landlord. However, the landlord has only provided its email response and did not provide the initial contact from the resident. This is an example of poor record-keeping. The landlord’s response was that the drilling was part of the new heating system installation. It is unclear from the evidence how long the drilling had been going on for. The landlord said the scheme’s project manager would contact the resident to discuss the work further. The project manager contacted the resident the next day and offered to visit him to discuss and answer any queries about what was happening in the block. This was an appropriate response.
The resident declined this. He said:

a. he did not have any queries about the work as he understood it needed to be completed.

b. he had concerns because he was working night shifts, and the work was interrupting his sleep leading to time spent in the hospital because of seizures.

c. he said he raised this over several months because the heating works were not the only work conducted recently in the block.

d. he did not see how a home visit and explaining the work would lessen the impact on him.

While the resident was entitled to decline the landlord’s offer to discuss the work further, the Ombudsman considers the landlord was proactively trying to resolve the resident’s concerns by arranging to meet with him. Further, there was no evidence provided to the Ombudsman that the resident had raised concerns about the upcoming heating installation prior to January 2023.
However, we have seen no evidence that between October 2022 and January 2023, the landlord provided information to the resident specifying the scope of the installation works, including a schedule of works or respective timescales. Given that the landlord started drilling for the system in January 2023, the resident ought to have been given notice of this before the work started. This was a failure to communicate its intention to start the work before it began drilling in January 2023. Providing the resident with notice of the start date would have allowed him to consider alternative arrangements for the duration of the disturbance. As such, the landlord not communicating its intention to start the work before it began was a failure.
On 14 March 2023 the landlord’s installation contractor completed a pre-works survey. The survey noted it explained the type of work, the timescales “approx. 2 to 3 days for completion” and the levels of disruption. The survey said, “due to the noise and dust created on day one we would strongly advise [the] tenant to be out for the larger part of the day wherever possible”. The survey did not note any vulnerabilities for the resident. It did however record that the resident worked night shifts and “needs notice [of the works]”. The form also recorded that it was unsure whether the resident would be staying in the property while the work took place. There is no evidence the resident contacted the landlord for further support during this time.
The post-completion survey indicates the landlord notified the resident that the work was due to commence on 5 April 2023 and last for 2-3 days. This was reasonable in the circumstances because the landlord explained the scope of the works, when they would commence, and how long they were likely to last. We are satisfied therefore that the landlord provided the resident with sufficient opportunity to prepare for the upcoming work, or to contact the landlord with any concerns he had.

The landlord’s consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities.

The resident made the following reports to the landlord about his vulnerabilities concerning the installation of the district heating system:

a. on 20 February 2023 the resident said he was having seizures and had been hospitalised. He indicated this was due to the former fibre optics works at the block. He went on to say the drilling for the new district heating system was concerning him because of the impact on his health conditions. He also asked to be rehoused while the work was being conducted.

b. on 21 February 2023 the resident said that he felt unsafe in his home because he could not sleep during the work because they were being conducted in the day when he would ordinarily sleep for work. He said the sleep disruption was impacting his health because he was living with epilepsy.

c. on 28 March 2023 the resident said that he felt discriminated against because the landlord had not supported him while it carried out works to the property.

Overall, the resident’s position is that he notified the landlord of his vulnerabilities on numerous occasions, and he felt the landlord did not offer him any support while the installation work was being undertaken.
When the landlord was communicating with the resident in February 2023, it said that the noise would only be short term. It also said the property was habitable, so it was unable to provide alternative accommodation. This was because the noise levels did not exceed the prescribed limits as the levels were measured on a similar site. It offered an apology for the noise and said it could visit him to discuss his concerns. The landlord also said it had measured the noise levels at a similar site. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on its previous assessment of the noise levels for a similar installation at a similar location.
It is acknowledged that the resident had expressed concerns about the significant impact of the works on his vulnerabilities. However, the landlord made its position clear that it was unable to offer alternative accommodation and the reasons why. It also offered to meet with the resident. While the resident was entitled to decline a meeting with the landlord, it is out of the landlord’s control if a resident does not want to engage further. This meant that the landlord did not have the opportunity in January 2023 to understand the impact of the work on the resident’s vulnerabilities so it could consider if it could take further steps to mitigate this. For example, by considering any adjustments it could make to the timings of the work. There is evidence of it making this adjustment after the complaint’s procedure had finished which is positive to note.
On 14 March 2023 the landlord’s installation contractor completed a pre-works survey. It is unclear from the evidence whether the form was completed together with the resident, in his presence or at a later time. However, the survey noted the resident worked night shifts. It also indicated the contractor was unsure if the resident would be staying at the property during the commencement of the work.
The form had a specific question concerning epilepsy, and this was not completed. The resident had already notified the landlord about his epilepsy and his concerns relating to the noise disruption in January 2023. As such, this information should reasonably have been relayed to the installation contractor. It is unclear why it was not. Furthermore, the advice of the contractors was that it recommended residents to be out of the property first on the day of work. There is no evidence the landlord acted on this further.
The resident had made the landlord aware of his epilepsy. However, there is no evidence it updated its records to reflect this. As per our spotlight report on Attitudes, respects and rights, it is good practice to record such information relating to a resident, so that it is considered throughout any repairs process. We cannot speculate as to whether recording this information on its system would have resulted in the landlord notifying the contractor of the resident’s epilepsy. However, that information about the resident’s epilepsy was not added to the landlord’s system was a record keeping failure.
Cumulatively, there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the installation of a new district heating system. This included the communication around the commencement of the work and the handling of the resident’s vulnerabilities because:

a. the landlord failed to maintain adequate records about the resident’s contact on 31 January 2023.

b. the landlord failed to communicate its intention to start the drilling works before they began in January 2023.

c. the landlord failed to update its records to reflect the resident’s vulnerabilities.

The Ombudsman has considered the Remedies Guidance and considers it appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £350 for its failures. This is to address the distress and inconvenience of the resident during this time.

The increased heating costs

The resident said that the landlord had not communicated the increase in the heating costs before it installed the new heating system.
On 22 February 2023, the landlord wrote to the residents in the block and explained that there would be a weekly service charge payable for the maintenance of the district heating scheme from 3 April 2023. It said the service charge would increase from £3.30 per week to £3.72 per week. It also said the energy costs would increase from 7.73p per kilowatt to 10p per kilowatt.
The evidence shows the landlord issued a notice to the resident about the increase to the charge 6 weeks before it installed the new district heating system. The landlord levies charges for the maintenance of the district communal heating system as part of the rent it charges. This is usual practice for landlords who own a block of flats with a district heating system.
The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the rent may be increased from time to time, and it will give at least 4 weeks’ notice in writing of any changes. As the landlord gave 6 weeks written notice, the landlord acted in line with its contractual obligations.
The resident told the Ombudsman that he had not agreed for the installation to be commissioned at his property. He said this was because he could not afford the increase in costs. This meant the landlord’s contractor had not been granted access by the resident to install the metering and billing equipment. There is no evidence the landlord was aware at this time that the resident was concerned about financial difficulties concerning this charge. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord contact the resident to gain an understanding of any financial difficulties he may have so it can support him further with advice and guidance.
It is also important to note that the resident’s standing charge pays for the metering and billing services. This is a charge levied by the energy provider and not the landlord. This is something that all occupiers will be subject to when in receipt of energy services to their homes.

Reported damage to the resident’s property

The resident explained during the complaints process that he wanted to claim for the costs he incurred because the contractors had damaged his property during the installation.
The landlord responded and said that it paid all residents in the block £80 as an acceptance of minor inconvenience during the works and to make good any minor damage. It also said that damage to the property would be limited because it replaced the previous storage heater locations with oversized radiators.
There is no evidence that the resident specifically set out the extent of the damage to his property to the landlord. There is also no evidence that the landlord asked the resident for this. The landlord is responsible for any damage or disrepair to the resident’s property and/or possessions that occur when making improvements. The landlord ought to have requested further information about any damage so that it could consider whether its initial offer of £80 was reasonable redress or whether it needed to take further action. The Ombudsman considers the landlord did not fully investigate the resident’s concerns and this amounts to service failure. The landlord will be ordered to re-assess the damage to the resident’s property.
The resident also explained that contractors used his electric for the power tools during the installation. The landlord said it had spoken with its contractors who said their power tools were battery operated and charged in the office. It also said that it was apologetic if this had happened, and the contractor would be willing to offer an apology in person. However there is no evidence provided by the landlord about the enquiries it made with its contractor. This was a failure in record-keeping which meant that the Ombudsman was unable to verify the landlord undertook a proportionate investigation into the resident’s reports.
The Ombudsman has considered the Remedies Guidance and considers it appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £50 for its failures. This is to address the distress and inconvenience of the resident because the landlord failed to fully investigate the reported damage to his property or to demonstrate its investigations with its contractor.

Complaint handling

The Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) states landlords must respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days of the date of acknowledging and logging the complaint. Landlords must also respond to escalation requests at stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaint policy aligns with the timeframes in the Code.
The landlord’s complaints policy also states: “Our response can be provided by letter, email, face to face or by telephone. Where a response is given by telephone or in person, we will offer to provide written confirmation of our discussion. As part of our response, we will also advise you how you can take your complaint to a further stage should you wish to do so.”
The Code also has the following provisions:

a. landlords must confirm the following in writing to the resident at the completion of stage 1 in clear, plain language:

the complaint stage.
the complaint definition.
the decision on the complaint.
the reasons for any decisions made.
the details of any remedy offered to put things right.
details of any outstanding actions.
details of how to escalate the matter to stage 2 if the individual is not satisfied with the response.

The resident raised a complaint on 20 February 2023. The landlord provided evidence of an internal proforma where it referred to verbal communications with the resident during February 2023 as its stage 1 response.
Although the landlord’s complaints policy allows for it to issue a stage 1 response verbally, this is incompatible with the Code. This is because the Code stipulates that stage 1 responses must be confirmed in writing. This was a significant failure because the landlord’s complaints policy must follow the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Framework. The landlord must review its complaints policy to ensure it is compliant with the Code and that it issues its complaint responses in writing to all residents.
The landlord went on to close the resident’s complaint at stage 1. There is no evidence it notified the resident of this or provided him with information about how he could escalate his complaint through its process or to this service. This was inappropriate. This was a further departure from the Code which sets out that landlords must provide this information as standard when issuing formal responses. This caused time and trouble for the resident who thought his complaint had not been investigated and went on to log a further identical complaint. The landlord’s practices confused the resident because he did not know the landlord had responded formally to his complaint at stage 1 or closed it down.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to make it easy for residents to complain as well as to provide them with their rights to access this service. The evidence shows this was not the case and the landlord’s policy and working practices prevented the resident from seeking recourse through its own complaints procedure and from the Ombudsman during this time. This was unacceptable and concerning to note because this may impact other residents seeking to raise a complaint with the landlord.
The Ombudsman has reviewed the landlord’s self-assessment of the Code which it published on its website in June 2024. This states that its complaint templates comply to ensure that detailed responses are provided to residents at stage 1 of the complaints process. Given the evidence relating to this complaint, the Ombudsman is not satisfied that the landlord’s working practices are Code compliant. We have therefore referred this to our Duty to Monitor team to review further.
On 8 February 2024, the Ombudsman issued the statutory Complaint Handling Code. This Code sets out the requirements landlords must meet when handling complaints in both policy and practice. The statutory Code applies from 1 April 2024.
The Ombudsman has a duty to monitor compliance with the Code. We will assess landlords using our Compliance Framework and act where there is evidence that the requirements set out in the Code are not being met. In this investigation, we found failures in complaint handling. We therefore order the landlord to consider the findings highlighted in this investigation when reviewing its policies and practices against the statutory Code.
The Ombudsman has taken the date the resident filed a further complaint as the date he escalated his complaint. This was on 29 March 2023. The landlord provided its stage 2 response in writing on 24 April 2023, which was 17 working days later. This was appropriate because it was compliant with the timescales set out in the Code.
It is noted that part of the resident’s escalation request included that the landlord had not responded to his concerns about the impact of the works on his health conditions and injuries sustained. The resident said he felt this was disability discrimination. The landlord did not respond to this element when it issued its stage 2 response. This was not compliant with the Code which states that landlords must answer all elements of a resident’s complaint. This was also a missed opportunity for the landlord to set out its final position and demonstrate it had fully considered the resident’s position. This caused distress for the resident because he felt the landlord had answered his complaint.
Overall, there was maladministration with this element of the complaint because the landlord did not act in accordance with the Code. The landlord failed to:

a. issue its stage 1 response in writing.

b. notify the resident it was closing his complaint and to provide information about how to escalate through the internal complaints process and to this service.

c. answer all elements of the resident’s complaint.

The Ombudsman has considered the Remedies Guidance and considers it appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £200 for its failures. This is to address the distress and inconvenience of the resident because the landlord failed to act in accordance with the Code.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the installation of a new district heating system including:
1. The communication around the commencement of the work.
2. The landlord’s consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the increased heating costs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the reported damage to the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this determination the landlord must:

a. write to the resident to apologise for the failures found in this report at paragraphs 33, 43, 44, and 58.

b. pay the resident £600 compensation comprising of:

£350 for the distress and inconvenience of its failures relating to the installation of the district heating system.
£50 for the distress and inconvenience of its failures relating to its handling of the resident’s claim regarding damaged property.
£200 for the distress and inconvenience of its complaint handling.

c. contact the resident to assess his claim relating to the damaged property relating to its improvement work.

d. arrange for complaint handling refresher training for relevant staff. This must include training about which situations it can close complaints and how to communicate this to residents.

e. provide evidence of compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman.

Within 56 days of the date of this determination and in accordance with paragraph 54.g. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is to provide the Ombudsman with a written review of the complaint handling in this case, conducted by a senior manager. This must include:

a. why the landlord closed the resident’s complaint without notifying him.

b. why the landlord did not progress the resident’s escalation request.

c. whether it has identified any similar failings in its complaint handling with housing complaints between September and November 2024. If applicable, it must detail its findings including what the failing was and how it intends to put things right.

d. any wider learning it has identified, how this will be implemented, and associated timescales.

e. provide evidence of compliance with this order to the Ombudsman.

Within 90 days of the date of this determination the landlord must:

a. review its complaints policy to ensure it complies with the requirements in the Code in paragraphs 6.9 and 6.19.

b. remind relevant staff members of these provisions whilst the complaints policy is being reviewed to reduce the risk of issuing formal responses non-compliantly.

c. provide evidence of compliance with this order to the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends the landlord:

a. contact the resident to assess any financial difficulties the resident has raised so it can support him further with advice and guidance.

b. provide the resident with further information about the new heating system and the associated costs compared to similar buildings on its old scheme with the view to gaining his consent to commission the installation at his property.

c. consider the use of standard wording templates for its complaint responses that includes signposting information for the Ombudsman and the requirements at paragraphs 6.9 and 6.19 of the Code.