Leeds City Council (202324820)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202324820
Leeds City Council
20 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 queries about a kitchen replacement and associated repairs.
- The resident’s reports of damp and mould.
- The resident’s concerns regarding allegations made by a staff member that she was abusive.
- The resident’s concerns related to the landlord’s record keeping.
Background
- The resident is a secure tenant of the property which is a 2–bedroom house. The resident has severe epilepsy and short term memory loss following a brain injury.
- The resident raised a formal complaint with her landlord on 7 June 2023. The complaint was related to the landlord refusing her request for a new shower, the landlord not paying for a new boiler, and not receiving a timeframe for her new kitchen. The resident said the landlord told her she was on the waiting list for a new kitchen 3 years prior to her complaint. She said despite several assurances from the landlord, it had not provided any further information as to when the work would start. The resident said that her technical officer had conducted visits to her home but when she tried to get an update following those visits, the landlord told her it had no record of them.
- The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 5 July 2023. It said in relation to the shower, it had received approval to fit a new shower bar and limescale reducer. It said it raised the job on 5 July 2023. The landlord confirmed that the boiler was working correctly and the issue was around the water temperature for the shower. It said fitting the new shower bar and limescale reducer would assist with that, but a new boiler was not necessary.
- The landlord confirmed that it had visited the resident several times and that there were orders and reports on the system in relation to the visits. It referred to a visit on 23 May 2023. It said the technical officer who attended stated that she was abusive to them when they explained that they had not identified any repairs in her home. It confirmed that her kitchen was “discontinued” but in very good condition. The landlord said the resident did not require a new kitchen but it had made a planned works referral to have the kitchen considered in the future. It said it could not confirm any dates at that time. The landlord said it did not uphold the complaint.
- The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 21 July 2023. She confirmed that the landlord had completed the work to her shower. The resident said she was disappointed with the landlord’s response to her other complaints, which included the following:
- She said the landlord’s response showed it could evidence the visit from her technical officer but she queried other visits and why the landlord had not documented those. She asked why she was previously told by the landlord that there was no record of any visits.
- The resident said that on a visit dated 18 October 2022, the technical officer identified several jobs which were not followed up. The resident said that on the same visit in October 2022 the technical officer confirmed there was a problem with damp and it would be resolved by February 2023. She said the deadline passed with no work completed and she had to chase it. She said the landlord then treated the damp and mould but it remained a problem. She said the same jobs were identified again on the visit dated 23 May 2023.
- She strongly disputed that she had been abusive on the visit dated 23 May 2023. She said the technical officer had a bad attitude, did not listen to her, and was talking over her. She said she felt disrespected and could feel the warning signs of a seizure. She said this led to her asking them to leave as they were adding to her stress. The resident said she could not see how the landlord could view that interaction as abusive on her part.
- The resident said the landlord told her she required a new kitchen before the COVID-19 pandemic started. She said the current issues with it were that it smelled, had insects, mould, moisture in the skirting boards, and the cupboard doors were breaking. She said she was concerned about the health implications of damp and mould. She said the smells could trigger her seizures.
- The resident said her health was at risk due to the ongoing stress from the situation. She said she felt the landlord had disregarded her health and wellbeing needs. She said she would like the landlord to complete the jobs in her home.
- The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 1 August 2023. It did not uphold the complaint and stated the following:
- It reviewed the dates provided by the resident in which she said the landlord visited her property. The landlord confirmed that 2 of the dates were no access visits. It said there was no record of the other 2 dates and the technical officer had confirmed that they did not conduct any visits on those dates.
- It said at the inspection on 18 October 2022, the technical officer confirmed they would raise orders for the other issues she had raised. It said the technical officer did not raise any further issues as orders for the front door and shower had already been raised. The landlord said the damp and mould team visited on 2 February 2023 due to mould affecting her skirting in the kitchen and cold spots, condensation, and lack of ventilation. It said the work was completed by 1 March 2023.
- The landlord referred to the visit in which the resident disputed that she was abusive. It confirmed 2 other officers were present, and that it was documented that she asked the technical officer to leave. It said that she opened the door into the officer and struck their knee.
- It confirmed that its records show that her kitchen was installed in 1995 and scheduled for renewal in 2025. It said it referred the kitchen to planned works in October 2022 and it correctly advised her that it could take 3 years before the works would begin. It said it would continue to offer repairs until the kitchen was renewed. It advised her to direct any queries regarding the replacement to its planned works department.
- It said the resident was not clear regarding what repairs were outstanding and its records showed all repairs as completed. It said it would have called her to get clarification but it noted that stressful situations could trigger her seizures. It said its records show that multiple visits had taken place to inspect her property which all concluded that there was no rising or penetrative damp in her home. The landlord said condensation had caused the mould growth in the resident’s home. It said this was a result of her not heating and ventilating the property sufficiently.
- The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She felt there had not been a satisfactory response regarding the technical officer’s attitude towards her. She said the landlord had given inaccurate and inconsistent information regarding the visits and planned works for her kitchen. She denied the allegations that she had been abusive and felt the allegation only appeared once she had made a complaint. She said she was still having issues with damp and mould. The resident felt the information about heating her home and leaving windows open was unreasonable due to the cost of living crisis.
Assessment and findings
Scope of the investigation
- The resident has referred to her health and how the landlord’s handling of the repairs could have had an impact on this. It is beyond the remit of the Ombudsman to determine whether there would have been a direct link between the actions or lack of action by the landlord and any subsequent impact on the resident’s health. Although we cannot assess the impact of the landlord’s actions on the resident’s health, consideration has been given to any likely distress and inconvenience which the resident may have experienced as a result of the situation.
- The resident has reported that the kitchen replacement was first raised in 2020. The Ombudsman does not dispute this, however, paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the landlord within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. As such, the Ombudsman finds it reasonable to investigate the complaint from the earliest relevant records provided by the landlord in February 2022 until the landlord’s stage 2 response.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries regarding a kitchen replacement and associated repairs
- The landlord’s repairs policy states that it delivers improvements, such as kitchen replacements, through its planned programmes of work set out in its annual investment plan. It states that it will inform residents if their home is included on one of those programmes.
- For the purposes of this report, it should be acknowledged that kitchen installations are likely to deteriorate over a prolonged period. The Ombudsman notes that while lifespan would be an indicator of whether a new kitchen may be due, the decision to offer a replacement is also dependent on the condition of the kitchen. The Decent Homes Standard offers further guidance on what landlord’s should consider to deliver and maintain decent homes.
- It is not the role of the Ombudsman to decide whether a kitchen requires replacement. Rather, it is to determine whether the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of problems with the kitchen in a reasonable manner.
- An entry in the landlord’s records dated 22 February 2022 stated that a “surveyor was out pre-pandemic and advised a request was put in for a complete new kitchen. After speaking to planned works, property is not on the list. Advised to get a surveyor back out to see if kitchen is in such disrepair and warrants a new kitchen”.
- It is unclear from the records what had prompted the landlord to make the entry. The Ombudsman assumes that this was contact from the resident. There was no further information regarding the correspondence pre-pandemic and why it was not on the list. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to arrange to visit the property and assess the kitchen following this.
- The landlord’s records show that it attempted a visit on 28 February 2022 and there was no access. The records do not show whether this visit was pre-arranged with the resident and whether the landlord left a calling card. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have evidenced that it attempted to contact the resident following the no access. This likely led to delays in inspecting the kitchen and considering whether it was in a reasonable state of repair.
- The next record on 5 October 2022 stated that “no referral has been made for this property so no update to give to tenant. I will reassign to repairs to see if the referral has been missed by mistake”. The landlord then arranged an inspection for 18 October 2022, 8 months after it initially stated that it would inspect the kitchen.
- The inspection notes said that the kitchen was “discontinued” but in very good condition. It said the resident was informed that it would refer the kitchen to the planned works scheme but it could take up to 36 months. The notes also said that the resident raised other issues and that it would raise orders for those issues. The records do not indicate what the other issues were or what orders were raised, if any. The landlord’s record keeping will be addressed later in the report.
- The Ombudsman finds that while initially delayed, the landlord’s response regarding the kitchen replacement was reasonable and managed the resident’s expectations. While the Ombudsman can appreciate the resident’s frustration at not having a kitchen replacement sooner, the landlord appropriately explained the timeframes within its complaint responses. It also explained that it would continue to offer repairs until it renewed the kitchen.
- In her stage 2 escalation the resident outlined the issues she was having with her kitchen, this included smells in and around the sink, insects, broken doors, and mould. She said she was concerned about the implications on her health. As already established, it was appropriate for the landlord to continue to address any repairs until the kitchen was renewed. The landlord’s stage 2 response stated that the resident was not clear regarding what repairs were outstanding. The Ombudsman finds the resident made it clear what was outstanding and it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided its position on each of the concerns raised. By not doing so, the landlord appeared dismissive to the residents concerns, and did not fully resolve the issues for the resident.
- While there were initial delays in inspecting and providing a position on the kitchen replacement, the landlord’s overall handling of the kitchen replacement was reasonable. However, the landlord’s response to the resident’s outstanding concerns were not sufficient nor considerate of the reported impact on her health. Therefore, the Ombudsman has found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the kitchen replacement and associated repairs.
- Orders will be made for the landlord to provide an update to the resident on the kitchen replacement and to contact the resident to discuss any outstanding concerns she may have in relation to the kitchen. The landlord should also pay the resident £100 in compensation for the lack of response to the outstanding concerns raised and the likely distress and inconvenience caused as a result.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould
- The landlord’s tenant handbook and damp and condensation leaflet advises residents to report damp if they believe it is causing a problem in their home, so it can investigate.
- In her stage 2 escalation, the resident stated that when the technical officer visited on 18 October 2022, they identified several jobs, including addressing the damp, which were not followed up. She said she was told the issues would be resolved by February 2023 but they were not. She said the damp and mould team did subsequently wash, treat, and paint the area but it remained a problem. The resident said the same jobs were identified again on 23 May 2023.
- As already identified, the records from the visit on 18 October 2022 do not provide clarity on what repairs were recorded and raised at the time of the visit. It states, “I asked the tenant if they had any other issues, they showed me them and I explained I will raise orders as required”. From the records provided, it does not appear that any orders were raised at the time.
- In its stage 2 response the landlord suggested the works were related to the doors and shower and that they had already been raised. The records show that further repairs were raised regarding the door and shower but this was not until 20 January 2023. The same record from 20 January 2023 also referred to repointing the exterior and damp in the property. It is unclear what prompted the landlord to raise those repairs at the time and whether these were the same issues raised in the October visit. The Ombudsman finds that the landlord’s response does not sufficiently evidence that it addressed all the residents concerns in a timely manner or in line with its repairs policy.
- A damp and mould survey which took place on 2 February 2023, further identified the repointing, as well as replacing the mould affected skirting board in the kitchen, and black mould on parts of the ceiling. It shows all works were completed by 15 March 2023. The landlord’s actions from 20 January 2023 onwards were reasonable. Although, due to the lack of records, it is difficult to determine whether the landlord should have acted sooner regarding the reports of damp and mould.
- On 23 May 2023 the landlord undertook a tenancy check in. It noted that the resident had reported damp and mould below the roof kitchen but said that it would not refer it to the damp and mould team. It said it provided advice to the resident in line with its training and processes. In an internal email dated 26 May 2023, the landlord confirmed that the damp meter did not indicate that there were signs of damp in the property.
- In its stage 2 response the landlord stated that it inspected the resident’s home on several occasions over the last year and it could not find any evidence to support there was rising or penetrative damp. It said the mould growth was caused by condensation which was due to not heating and ventilating the property sufficiently. It provided further information regarding how the resident could address this.
- The resident has stated that the information provided to heat the home properly and ventilate was very unreasonable in the cost of living crisis. While the Ombudsman can appreciate the difficulties with increased energy costs, the landlord’s response was fair and in line with its guidance. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord share or signpost the resident to any energy support information it may have to assist with her concerns.
- In summary, the landlord has evidenced from January 2023 onwards that it had responded to the resident’s reports and taken the appropriate action to address the resident’s concerns regarding damp and mould. However, it remains unclear whether the landlord should have addressed the reports of damp and mould sooner. The resident stated that she raised these issues in the visit in October 2022 and the landlord’s records should have been able to evidence whether this was the case, and it did not do so.
- The Ombudsman has therefore found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. The landlord should pay the resident £100 for its failure to evidence when the resident first reported damp and mould and the likely delays, time and trouble caused to the resident in raising the issues again.
The resident’s concerns regarding allegations made by a staff member that they were abusive
- When an allegation is made against a resident by a member of the landlord’s staff, the landlord would be expected to conduct a fair and objective investigation, take appropriate action where necessary, and record its findings.
- As part of this complaint, the resident was concerned about the accusation made by the landlord staff against her. The evidence shows that the landlord received a report made by a staff member on 26 May 2023. The staff member was advised to complete a “CH50” form which appears to be a form for reporting incidents against staff. The landlord has also provided evidence that it obtained 2 witness statements from the other staff members who were present at the visit. The reports appear to be in agreement with each other, in that the resident was upset with the staff member in question and when they were leaving, she pushed the door, which then hit the staff member’s knee.
- It was appropriate for the landlord to advise the staff member to complete the form and to obtain evidence from eyewitnesses. However, it would have been appropriate to provide the resident with an opportunity to respond to the accusations at the time. The landlord only made the resident aware of the allegation in its stage 1 response. The landlord has not provided any further information regarding the outcome of any investigation. Therefore, it is unclear what action the landlord took following receipt of the CH50 form, if any.
- By not informing the resident at the time, it is not surprising that the resident felt the accusation was made following her formal complaint. The stage 1 response was an opportunity to help resolve the issues raised by the resident and it is not clear why the landlord chose to inform the resident of the allegations in the stage 1 response. In its stage 2 response and following the resident’s dispute of the allegation, the landlord said, “I am sorry to learn that you dispute the claim that you were abusive, however, it has been documented that you asked [technical officer] to leave the property and that you opened the door into him which struck his knee”.
- While it is positive that the landlord appeared to take its staff member’s report seriously and followed some procedure to ensure witness evidence was obtained. The landlord has not evidenced that it conducted a fair and objective investigation or took reasonable action at the time. It did not inform the resident of the report made, provide her the opportunity to respond to the accusations, or relay its findings to her following any investigation.
- Overall, the Ombudsman cannot conclusively determine what happened or favour one account over the other. The Ombudsman also cannot conclude that the landlord acted reasonably in investigating the allegation. As such, the Ombudsman has found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding allegations made by a staff member that they were abusive.
- The landlord must pay the resident £100 for its failure to fully investigate the concerns regarding the alleged abuse and the likely distress and inconvenience caused as a result. The landlord must also provide its findings and position to the resident on the allegations which were made. This should take into account all the information provided from both the resident and its staff members.
The landlord’s record keeping
- A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, and investigations. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these. It has already been acknowledged that the records prior to and following the landlord’s visit on 18 October 2022 were not sufficient, which was a failing. This not only likely impacted the time taken to address the issues but also hindered the Ombudsman’s investigation into the complaints.
- In her formal complaint and complaint escalation, the resident referred to the landlord stating that it did not have any records of visits and asking why she was told this. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said she had been visited several times recently and referred to 2 specific visits which had taken place by her technical officer on 18 October 2022 and 23 May 2023.
- In her stage 2 escalation, the resident referred to other visits and queried whether they had been recorded. In its stage 2 response the landlord responded to the resident’s query regarding the visits in question. While it did not address the concern that it had previously told the resident that visits had not been recorded, its response should have reassured the resident that they were.
- To conclude, while the landlord made attempts to satisfy the resident’s queries regarding visits which she felt had not been recorded, it did not address the record keeping failures identified in this report. These failures likely led to delays in responding to the resident’s reports and not handling the reports in line with its repairs policy. Some of the records provided do not indicate when issues were first reported by the resident and therefore it was difficult to assess whether the landlord’s response was reasonable, in all the circumstances.
- As such, the Ombudsman has found service failure in the landlord’s record keeping. An order will be made for the landlord to review its record keeping processes, if it has not already done so.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of:
- The resident’s queries about a kitchen replacement and associated repairs.
- The resident’s reports of damp and mould.
- The resident’s concerns regarding allegations made by a staff member that she was abusive.
- The resident’s concerns related to the landlord’s record keeping
Orders and recommendations
Orders
- The landlord must apologise to the resident for the identified failures outlined in this report.
- The landlord must pay the resident a total of £300 in compensation which accounts for:
- £100 for the service failure in the landlord’s handling of the kitchen replacement.
- £100 for the service failure in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould.
- £100 for the service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding allegations made by a staff member that she was abusive.
- If it has not already done so, the landlord must update the resident on any planned works to her kitchen. This should be in line with its policy and the guidance set out in the Decent Home Standard.
- The landlord must liaise with the resident regarding any outstanding repair concerns she has. If any are reported, the landlord must confirm is position on each concern and what action it will take, where relevant. The landlord must ensure its actions are in line with its repairs policy and take into consideration any impact on the resident’s vulnerabilities.
- The landlord must provide its findings and position on the allegations made to the resident. This should take into account all the information provided from both the resident and its staff members, in line with its relevant policies and procedures.
- If it has not already done so, the landlord must consider the record keeping failures in this case and outline what it has done or will do ensure it does not repeat the same failures in future.
- The landlord must provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders within 6 weeks of the date of this determination.
Recommendations
- The landlord should share or signpost the resident to any energy support information it may have to assist with her concerns.