Leeds City Council (202319704)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319704

Leeds City Council

26 February 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 concerns about:
1. his housing banding.
2. the events surrounding the viewing and sign up of his flat.
3. his utility registration.
4. reported repairs.
5. reports of damp and mould in his bathroom.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. He has lived in his 1 bedroom flat since 17 February 2023.
In March 2023 the resident told the landlord that:
1. the water pressure was low in the flat.
2. his bedroom wall needed to be plastered.
3. he did not have heating or hot water because it did not register him with the utility company when he moved into the property.
In mid-April 2023 the resident chased the landlord for an update on his repairs and his utility registration. The landlord contacted the utility company and raised the reported repairs.
On 26 April 2023 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. He said:
1. the landlord’s officers forgot the keys to the property when he viewed it which was unprofessional. When he signed up for the property the officer left his passport on a “public” printer. He said that the officer should have GDPR training as this “was a data breach” which caused him distress.
2. the landlord did not register him with the utility company as it should have. This meant that he did not have heating and hot water since February 2023. He had contacted the landlord several times about the issue. However, it did not resolve the matter until 20 April 2023.
3. his reported March repairs went outstanding. He was unable to shower. He was also unable to move into the property and use his bedroom because the condition of walls affected his mental health.
4. there was damp and mould in the bathroom because it “lacked adequate ventilation”.
On 11 May 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said:
1. the printer the officer used was not used by the general public. There would not have been any risk that someone would have picked up the passport. It had asked the officer to ensure that they check the printer after use in the future to ensure the error did not happen again.
2. it had registered the resident with the utility company on the day of the sign up. It was unable to explain why it was not successful at that time.
3. it was unable to install any type of ventilation in the bathroom due to the structure of the building and position of his flat within it.
4. it had raised a repair for the low water pressure and the bedroom wall on the 20 April 2023. The bedroom walls repairs did not stop the resident from moving into the property.
On 7 June 2023 the resident escalated his complaint. He said:
1. he was able to walk past the printer, therefore it was accessible to the public. He said leaving the passport in the printer was inappropriate and a data breach.
2. the landlord did not respond to his concerns that the officer did not have the keys to the property when he went to view it.
3. he told the landlord on several occasions that he was not registered with the utility company and therefore did not have hot water or heating. He said the landlord should have chased the utility company when he had reported the issue to it.
4. the landlord should consider some other adjustments like a dehumidifier to prevent the damp occurring in the bathroom if it could not be ventilated.
On 5 July 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said:
1. although it was only for a few minutes, it should not have left the resident’s passport unattended. It apologised for the error and said that all staff had taken mandatory GDPR training since the incident.
2. it apologised for the delay in the viewing taking place. The delay was caused because there was a misunderstanding between the attending officers as to who had the keys. However, when they met with the resident, they realised they had forgotten them.
3. there should have been more urgency in relation to looking into the utility registration, given that the resident did not have hot water and heating. It should have been dealt with sooner.
4. it apologised that it told the resident that there was nothing that it could do in relation to his bathroom. The error would be raised with the team that provided that advice. It said that the issue should have been picked up during the void process and apologised for the inconvenience. It had arranged for the fan and vent to be restored in the bathroom. The damp areas would be stain blocked and repainted.
The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman because he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated. After careful consideration, the resident’s complaint about how the landlord responded to his concerns about his housing banding fall outside of our jurisdiction.
The resident complained that the local authority should have placed him in band A when he applied for housing as he was a care leaver. The resident’s concerns are noted. However, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) considers complaints about housing allocations under the Housing Act 1996 Part 6. This includes applications for re-housing that meet the reasonable preference criteria (dealt with by the local housing authority or any other body acting on its behalf, which could include a housing association), and covers assessment of such applications including banding decisions.
Consequently, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s housing application banding is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction under paragraph 42(j)of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme that states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body. The resident has the option of submitting his complaint to the LGSCO for its consideration.

Scope of the investigation

The resident has explained that the landlord’s handling of his repairs affected his health. This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim. We have, however, considered whether any action or inaction by the landlord has been the cause of avoidable distress and inconvenience to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s viewing/sign up.

In his complaints, the resident raised concerns that an officer had left his passport in a public printer for several minutes before she realised and retrieved it. He explained that this was a breach of data protection which had caused him distress. He asked that the officer be placed on General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) training. Within its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged the failing and the potential risk that had been caused by the housing officer’s actions. It apologised and stated that all staff had received mandatory GDPR training since the incident occurred. Given the circumstances the landlord’s apology was proportionate. It also demonstrated that it had acted on the resident’s request to put matters right, and learnt from the complaint, by confirming that all staff had received GDPR training since the incident. We are therefore satisfied that the landlord took appropriate action in response to the concerns that were raised by the resident.
The resident also expressed concern that the officers who conducted the viewing arrived without the keys to the property. He said that this was unprofessional. In response the landlord apologised for the mistake. It said that the error occurred because both officers believed that the other had the keys for the property. It is acknowledged that the resident was unhappy with the circumstances, and it caused him to question the professionalism of landlord staff. The evidence and explanation offered by the landlord suggests that this was a matter of human error. There is no evidence to suggest that there is a failing in the landlord’s systems or processes which resulted in officers attending without the keys to the property. We are therefore satisfied that the landlord’s response was appropriate, and its apology was a proportionate remedy. Therefore, we have found reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s viewing and sign up.

Utility registration

The evidence available shows that the resident told the landlord on 21 March 2023 that it had not completed his utility registration. He explained because of this, he did not have any hot water or heating. The landlord has stated that it was its responsibility to ensure that it registered the resident accordingly. There is no evidence that it responded to the resident or looked into the matter. This was unreasonable.
Subsequently the resident had to chase the landlord again on 17 April 2023. This caused him further distress and inconvenience that could reasonably have been avoided had the landlord responded to the resident’s initial concerns.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said that it had registered the resident on the day of his sign up. It said that it had seen the registration email it had sent to the utility company. While this may be the case, we do not have a copy of the email to corroborate the landlord’s account. Therefore, it has not demonstrated to the Ombudsman that its response was based on accurate information and that it registered the resident as it stated that it had.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that it should have dealt with the matter sooner. That was appropriate. However, its failure to timely investigate the resident’s concerns caused an avoidable delay in resolving the matter. This meant the resident continued to go without hot water and heating. As the resident was caused inconvenience as a result of the landlord’s failure to act, it would have been reasonable for it to have offered the resident financial compensation. This would have demonstrated that it had taken reasonable steps to put matters right.
Given the highlighted failures, we have found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s utility registration.

The resident’s reported repairs

The landlord’s repairs handbook states that it will carry out routine repairs within 20 working days.
The resident reported low water pressure to the landlord on 16 March 2023. The landlord stated that it logged the repair on 22 March 2023. The landlord’s comments are noted, however, this is not evident from the repair logs that it has provided to this Service. Nonetheless, following the resident’s report, it should have made reasonable steps to inspect and resolve the repair by 20 April 2023. This would have been in line with its 20 working days as per its published timescales. There is no evidence that it did, this meant that the resident’s repairs remained unresolved. That is a failing.
Subsequently, the resident had to report the repair again on 20 April 2023. This caused him time and trouble. The landlord’s logs show that it raised the repair the same day.
The landlord attended on 12 June 2023. This was approximately 58 days after the resident had first reported the repair. This was a significant departure from its published response timescales of 20 working days. While the full reason for the delay is unclear, that there was one is a failing. The resident explained that the low water pressure was affecting his ability to shower and to carry out his domestic chores. Therefore, the landlord’s delayed response caused the resident distress and inconvenience. This could have been reasonably mitigated if it acted on the resident’s initial report as per its policy. The landlord failed to address the delay in its complaint responses. Not doing so meant that it missed an opportunity to put matters right.
The resident reported that his bedroom wall needed to be plastered on the same day that he reported the low water pressure. Again, there is no record that the landlord raised a repair at this time. It was not until the resident reported it again in April 2023, that the landlord raised an order for it to be looked into. This was unreasonable.
In his complaint, the resident stated that he was unable to use the bedroom because the walls needed be plastered. In response, the landlord stated that the property was a lettable standard. It said that the repairs would not have prevented the resident from moving in. Given the resident’s concerns, it would have been reasonable for it to have explained how the repairs did not prevent him from using the room. For example, whether they were aesthetic in nature.
It is unclear whether the resident’s reported repairs have been resolved. Therefore, we have made an order for the landlord to contact him to ensure there are no outstanding issues.
Overall, the landlord failed to act on the resident’s reported repairs within its published timescales. This meant that the resident had to chase it for an update which caused him distress and inconvenience. Meanwhile the repairs went unresolved. We have seen no evidence that the delays on behalf of the landlord were unavoidable or that it took any steps to mitigate the inconvenience caused to the resident. For that reason, we have found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported repairs.
We have found that the landlord failed to record or appropriately log the resident’s report of repairs in March 2023. This is indicative of a record keeping issue, or poor record keeping practices.
In May 2023 we published our Spotlight on knowledge and information management. The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in the Spotlight report. We therefore encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report.

Damp and mould in the bathroom

Both the Decent Home Standards and the Homes ‘Fit for Human Habitation’ Act 2018 state landlords must make sure that their homes are free from ‘serious’ hazards. Hazards arise from faults or deficiencies that could cause harm and include the presence of damp and mould growth.
In his April 2023 complaint, the resident reported that he had damp and mould in his bathroom because the room lacked adequate ventilation. In response the landlord told him that it was unable to install ventilation because of the structure of the building and the position of his flat within it. The landlord’s response was inappropriate. Our October 2021 damp and mould spotlight report stated that landlords should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould. Given that the resident raised a potential hazard, it should have investigated the matter to ascertain what action it could take to resolve the issue. That it did not meant that it failed to act on its legal obligations to ensure the flat was free from hazards and the issue went unresolved. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience as he continued to live with damp and mould in his bathroom.
Following the resident’s escalated complaint, the landlord inspected his bathroom on 12 June 2023 and found that the extractor fan had been covered by tiles. This was approximately 2 months after the resident had reported that the bathroom lacked ventilation. This could reasonably have been established sooner had the landlord engaged with the resident’s concerns in the first instance.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord appropriately apologised for wrongfully stating that it could not do anything about the lack of ventilation in the resident’s bathroom. It said that it had fedback the error to the team that provided that incorrect information. That was appropriate.
The landlord also acknowledged that it should have identified that the bathroom lacked appropriate ventilation when it was void. That the landlord was transparent with this failing was positive. However, this failure and its subsequent failing to meaningfully investigate the resident’s concerns of damp and mould caused the resident avoidable distress and inconvenience that could reasonably have been avoided. Therefore, it would have been reasonable for it to have offered the resident financial compensation. This would have demonstrated that it had taken reasonable steps to put matters right. Given the failings highlighted, we have found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in his home.
We encourage landlords to self-assess against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight reports following publication. In October 2021 we published our Spotlight on Damp and Mould. The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in the Spotlight report. We therefore encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.j of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about his housing banding is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress because we are satisfied that the landlord took action to put matters right in its handling of the resident’s viewing and sign up.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. utility registration.
2. reported repairs.
3. reports of damp and mould in his bathroom.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. apologise to the resident for the failings highlighted by this investigation.
2. pay the resident £700 compensation, which is comprised of:
  1. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s utility registration.
  2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reported repairs.
  3. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in his bathroom.
contact the resident to ascertain whether he has any current outstanding concerns about the repairs in this report.
remind staff of the importance of investigating damp and mould reports appropriately. In particular ensuring concerns about ventilation are appropriated investigated and resolved in line with its legal obligations. It should also ensure that staff are identifying and rectifying such issues as part of its voids process.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord should consider the findings and recommendations of our:
1. Damp and mould spotlight report.
2. Knowledge and information management spotlight report.