North West Leicestershire District Council (202416498)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202416498

North West Leicestershire District Council

13 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 resident’s complaint is about:
1. The condition of the property when let to her and the landlord’s handling of the remedial works.
2. The landlord’s response to her request for it to install a shower.
3. The landlord’s handling of her complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. Her tenancy at the property began on 26 April 2024, when she transferred from another of the landlord’s properties. The property is a 3 bedroom semi detached house. The resident lives there with her 2 children. 1 of the children has autistic spectrum disorder.
The resident complained to the landlord on 3 May 2024. She expressed dissatisfaction with the condition of the property stating that:
1. The electrical fuse board was exposed and accessible to her children.
2. The boiler was old, did not work and needed replacing.
3. The radiators were full of dirt and grime.
4. There was water damage to the kitchen worktop and wall from a leak.
5. The property had an upstairs toilet with no wash hand basin nearby, which was unhygienic.
6. The front and back doors to the property were dirty.
7. An external window ledge on the upper floor was damaged.
8. The property did not have a shower and her son struggled with baths due to a sensory condition.
On 15 May 2024, the landlord visited the property to carry out an inspection. Following this, it agreed to:
1. Box in the fuse board.
2. Service and commission the boiler.
3. Deep clean the property, including the radiators and front and back doors.
4. Replace the upstairs toilet with a model which included an integrated wash hand basin.
5. Inspect and repair all external window ledges.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 17 May 2024. It said that:
1. Boxing in the consumer unit was not something its electrical contractor recommended.
2. It was aware the resident was in contact with its gas contractor regarding boiler repairs. It was due to renew the heating system as part of its 2024/25 ‘home improvement programme’.
3. It would arrange for a clean of the radiators and front and back doors. If the resident had already cleaned the doors, it would compensate her for this.
4. Its surveyor would review the wash hand basin situation. It would either provide a separate wash band basin or, if there was insufficient space, install a toilet with an integrated one.
5. It was in the process of renewing the damaged kitchen worktop.
6. It had raised a repair for the damaged window ledge.
7. It was offering her £150 compensation for the time and trouble caused by the outstanding repair issues.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process on 20 May 2024. She said the landlord had still not repaired the boiler, which had been out of service since her tenancy began. She said her and her children were currently staying with relatives as the property was uninhabitable. She accused the landlord of ‘rushing’ to let the property to her without cleaning it and completing all repairs. She said she felt the £150 compensation it had offered was insufficient.
On 24 May 2024, the landlord’s gas contractor completed repairs to the resident’s boiler and restored it to working order.
The resident emailed the landlord on 27 May 2024. She said she had identified further issues with 2 air vents and the stairs in the property and asked the landlord to address these as part of her complaint.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 23 July 2024. It:
1. Acknowledged that the cleanliness of the property was below its expectations, and further works had been required.
2. Said it had now completed the works identified by its inspection on 15 May 2024. It was satisfied this brought the property up to “an acceptable lettable standard”.
3. Confirmed that the heating system, including the radiators, would be replaced in the coming 12 months.
4. Offered her £250 compensation for the works that it had missed when the property was empty and her time and trouble.
5. Said it would apply a credit equivalent to 4 weeks rent to her rent account, due to the outstanding works delaying her moving into the property.
6. Explained it was undertaking a review of its lettable standard and empty homes procedure and her feedback would contribute to this.
On 5 September 2024, the resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman. She remained dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered by the landlord. She said she was still living with relatives and had been unable to move into the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord referred to a burglary which had taken place at the resident’s property on 25 June 2024, and allegedly involved employees of its contractor. The Ombudsman notes that on 8 September 2024, the resident submitted a separate complaint to the landlord about this incident. The landlord has provided this Service with a copy of its stage 1 response to this complaint, dated 12 September 2024.
As this burglary did not form part of the resident’s complaint of 3 May 2024, it will not be included in this investigation. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 1 response of 12 September 2024, she may wish to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process – after which she is able to refer that complaint to the Ombudsman for investigation.

Condition of property and handling of works

The landlord’s ‘empty homes lettable standard’ says that its “overarching requirement” is that all properties its lets are safe, clean and in good working order. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that it had failed to meet this requirement with the resident’s property.
As the landlord has accepted that the property failed to meet its lettable standard, this investigation will focus on its handling of the outstanding remedial works identified once the resident’s tenancy began.
The resident said that the boiler in the property was not working when her tenancy began on 26 April 2024. This is supported by the landlord’s repair records. These show that it raised a job to its gas contractor on 27 March 2024 as the boiler’s central heating pump had seized. There is no evidence that the contractor attended the property prior to the resident’s tenancy beginning. The landlord therefore was, or ought to have been, aware that the property did not have a functioning boiler at the point that it let it to the resident.
After the resident brought the matter to its attention, the landlord’s gas contractor attempted to attend the property on 1 May and 2 May 2024, however the resident advised she was unable to give it access on those dates. The contractor returned on 14 May 2024 and was unable to contact the resident or gain access, so left a calling card. The contractor eventually completed works and restored the boiler to working order on 24 May 2024. This represented a period of 4 weeks where the property had no working boiler and the resident was forced to stay with relatives.
The landlord’s repairs handbook says that it will attend to a “total loss of heating or hot water” within 1 working day between 1 November and 20 April, or 3 working days between 1 May and 31 October. Whilst the resident’s initial inability to grant access was beyond the landlord’s control, its contractor took a further 8 days before it attempted to attend on 14 May 2024. It was then another 9 days before it returned on 24 May 2024.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that the outstanding works had delayed the resident from occupying the property. It arranged a 4 week rent credit to her rent account. This reasonably represents the 4 week period in which the boiler was out of service. The Ombudsman notes that the resident felt unable to move into the property even after the landlord repaired the boiler. However, the works that remained outstanding at that point could not reasonably be said to make the property uninhabitable.
The landlord’s decant policy allows it to pay an “allowance in lieu of costs” where a resident stays with friends or family instead of being temporarily decanted by the landlord. This amount is set at £250. However, the landlord would not generally waive rent on the resident’s main property during a temporary decant. The 4 weeks rent, which the landlord credited to the residents account, amounted to £480.56, far exceeding the £250 allowance. It was reasonable for the landlord not to make payment of the allowance in light of this.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that the heating system was “nearing the end of its lifecycle”. It said it was due to be replaced as part of its 2024/25 ‘Home Improvement Programme’. The landlord reasonably explained that, due to the way the funding was drawn down for this, it had been unable to complete these works whilst the property was empty – which would have avoided future inconvenience for the resident.
The landlord visited the property on 15 May 2024 to inspect the other concerns raised by the resident. On 21 May 2024 it agreed to remedy all the issues raised by the resident in her complaint.
On 16 June 2024, the landlord replaced the damaged kitchen worktop. On 19 June 2024, it installed the new upstairs toilet with integrated wash hand basin, boxed in the consumer unit and carried out repairs to the stairs. On 28 July 2024, it had the property deep cleaned – the Ombudsman notes this was originally scheduled for 25 June 2024 but delayed due to the burglary incident. On 1 August 2024, the damaged external window ledges were replaced. The landlord’s repairs handbook says that it will carry out ‘scheduled works’ within 60 working days of them being reported. All these works were completed within 60 working days of the landlord’s inspection of the property.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident has said that damage to the kitchen wall caused by a leak is still outstanding, a recommendation is made regarding this below. The resident has also advised that the landlord has been unable to satisfactorily clean the radiators, meaning the issue will only be resolved when they are replaced as part of the heating system renewal.
Despite the landlord completing these works within the timeframes required by its policy, the fact remains that the resident was caused undue distress and inconvenience by the property being let to her in the condition it was. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord offered the resident £150 compensation for this. At stage 2, the landlord offered £250 compensation. It is unclear whether this was in addition to the £150 previously offered, or inclusive of it.
It is the Ombudsman’s view that a total of £400, in addition to the 4 weeks rent credit (which amounted to £480.56), represents reasonable redress for the landlord’s failings. This amount of £880.56 is within the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for instances of maladministration with a significant physical or emotional impact. Therefore, the Ombudsman makes a finding of reasonable redress, based on the assumption that the landlord’s stage 1 and 2 compensation offers represented 2 separate awards.

Request for shower

Within her complaint, the resident expressed dissatisfaction at the lack of a shower in the property. She said that her autistic child struggled taking baths due to a sensory issue. The landlord has not provided any record of the resident raising this matter prior to her complaint.
The resident signed her tenancy agreement to accept the property with the existing bathing provisions. There is no evidence that the landlord had agreed to install a shower, nor was it obliged to do so.
However, as the resident had requested a shower due to her child’s sensory issue, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to signpost her to occupational therapy (OT). OT would then be able to arrange an assessment of the property and make recommendations of any adaptations required to meet the child’s needs. The landlord failed do this, or to respond at all to the resident’s request for a shower, in its stage 1 complaint response.
The resident has told the Ombudsman that the landlord did signpost her to OT outside of its complaints process. This may be the reason the matter did not feature in either the resident’s request to escalate her complaint, or the landlord’s subsequent stage 2 response.
The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) says that “landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.” The landlord’s failure to address this element of complaint in its stage 1 response represents a service failure.

Complaint handling

At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord’s customer feedback policy said that at stage 2 it aimed to provide a written complaint response within 20 working days. The policy allows that “this process might sometimes take longer, and we will keep you informed of progress every ten working days until a full response can be given”.
The Code states that landlords must issue a stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days. It allows for landlords to extend this timeframe by up to a further 20 working days when dealing with a complex complaint. However, it says that reason for this must be clearly explained to the resident and an expected timescale for the response given.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process on 20 May 2024. 13 working days later, on 6 June 2024, the landlord emailed the resident to inform her that there would be a “slight delay” in its stage 2 response. It did not explain the reasons for this, or when it expected to provide its response other than “as soon as possible”.
The landlord has not provided any evidence that it contacted the resident between this date and 23 July 2024, when it eventually provided its stage 2 complaint response. This was not in keeping with its policy commitment to provide updates every 10 working days.
The landlord took a total of 46 working days to provide its stage 2 complaint response. This exceeds the maximum timeframe allowed under the Code. Within the stage 2 complaint response, the landlord failed to acknowledge or apologise for the delays in its response. Due to this, the Ombudsman makes a finding of service failure.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress for the resident’s complaint about the condition of the property and its handling of remedial works.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to install a shower.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 6 weeks of the date of this determination, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £125 compensation composed of:
1. £50 for the service failure in its handling of her request for it to install a shower.
2. £75 for the service failure in its handling of her complaint.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with this order to this Service.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that, if it has not done so already, the landlord pays the resident the £400 compensation offered in its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses. The finding of reasonable redress is contingent upon this.
The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord contacts the resident to:
1. Arrange to inspect the leak damage to her kitchen wall and provide its position on repairing this.
2. Provide a date within the 2024/25 financial year on which it plans to commence works to renew the heating system and radiators in the property, in keeping with the commitment made in its complaint responses.
The landlord should inform this Service of its intentions towards these recommendations.