Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Leeds City Council (202111464)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111464

Leeds City Council

14 November 2022


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

  1. The complaint concerns how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a house. The landlord has stated that it had vulnerabilities flagged on its system for the resident for issues relating to mobility and breathing difficulties.
  2. The resident called the landlord on 23 March 2021 and requested to raise a complaint into how it had responded to her report of damp and mould at the property. She described the elements of the complaint as:
    1. She had moved a wardrobe in one of the bedrooms and found the wall behind it to be damp and mouldy
    2. She was concerned that the mould would have an effect on her existing health conditions.
    3. She had reported the issue to her housing officer, who described the matter as “not urgent”.
  3. In its complaint responses, the landlord:
    1. Confirmed that an inspection was arranged for 23 March 2021 which identified that the source of the leak was from the guttering, which was repaired on 30 March 2021. The plasterwork in the bedroom was then repaired on 21 April 2021.
    2. Apologised for the confusion caused by informing the resident that her complaint was closed at stage one of its complaints process. It explained that the complaints process had no effect on the repairs and that when the stage one response was given to her over the telephone on 1 April 2021, closing the complaint did not close the outstanding repair work. It also explained that the resident retained the right to request an escalation of the complaint to the next stage after the stage one response was given.
    3. Informed the resident that it was satisfied that the housing officer had acted appropriately and had contacted its repairs team when the resident had told them of her concerns about damp and mould.
  4. Following the conclusion of the complaints process, the resident contacted the landlord on 2 June 2021 to inform it that damp patches had returned. The landlord arranged an inspection on 3 June 2021 and it also arranged for its roofing contractor to inspect the roofs of both the resident’s and her neighbour’s property. It was determined that there was a second leak from a defective joint in the guttering. The landlord arranged to have scaffolding erected to repair the guttering and for a contractor to undertake a biowash of the bedroom wall. The contractor determined that the damage to the plaster was not caused by mould, but was the result of salt from the internal brickwork. The affected plasterwork was replaced and all work inside the resident’s property was confirmed as completed on 15 September 2021. The scaffolding was removed and all external work to the resident’s and neighbour’s property was marked as completed on 5 January 2022.
  5. In referring the case to this Service, the resident described the outstanding issues as the length of time it took the landlord to resolve the repairs, the poor level of communication she received from the landlord while the matter was outstanding, the effect the issue has had on her health, and the landlord’s decision to close the complaint at stage one of its internal process before the repair had been resolved.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

  1. Section 10.13 of the tenancy agreement sets out the landlord’s repair responsibilities. This, in part, states that the landlord is responsible for the maintenance of “the structure and exterior of the dwelling house (including drains, gutters, external pipes and external decoration)”.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy categorises its repair types as “Emergency” (attend within 24 hours), “Priority” (attend within three or seven working days), “General” (attend within 20 working days) and “Batched” (complete within 60 days). Emergency repairs are defined by the landlord as a repair that presents “a serious risk to health and safety, major damage to the structure of the property or results in the property being insecure”. Batched repairs are defined by the landlord as “non-urgent repairs and items of replacement that may require a pre-inspection; need time to order and/or manufacture materials”. Uncontrollable leaks are considered emergency repairs by the landlord, while the repair or unblocking of guttering and damp-proofing work are considered batched repairs.

Scope of investigation

  1. In her correspondence with the landlord and with this Service, the resident has described the adverse effect on her existing health conditions that the repair issue had caused. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, it is beyond the remit of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim through the landlord’s liability insurer or to court if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord.

How the landlord handled the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property

  1. Once it was informed by the resident of damp and mould in the property, the landlord had a duty to respond to the matter in line with the obligations set out in the tenancy agreement and its published policies and procedures. Overall, the landlord acted appropriately in response to the resident’s report of a leak. It raised an emergency repair to inspect the property to locate the leak. Internal correspondence shows that the landlord fast-tracked the inspection of the property as a priority repair rather than a general repair in light of the resident’s vulnerabilities which were recorded on its systems. The landlord also raised the follow-on work to repair the leak and re-plaster the bedroom as batched repairs in line with its repairs policy detailed above.
  2. When the resident informed the landlord in June 2021 that damp patches returned, the landlord raised a new emergency repair to investigate the matter. The landlord’s roofing contractor identified a second leak and the landlord arranged for scaffolding to be erected and the leak to be repaired as a batch repair. The landlord also arranged for a biowash of the bedroom wall to remove the mould, where it was discovered that the damage to the plaster had been caused by salt from the brickwork. A batched repair was then raised to re-plaster the affected wall as damp-proofing work was no longer required.
  3. The resident has stated her dissatisfaction with the length of time it took for the leaks to be repaired. It should be noted that it can take more than one attempt to resolve issues such as leaks as in some cases it can be difficult to identify the cause of the issue at the outset and in some case different repairs may need to be attempted before the matter is resolved. In this case, it did not become apparent that there were two separate leaks from the guttering until the first leak had been repaired. While the length of time it took to identify and repair the two leaks would have understandably been frustrating for the resident, the landlord has acted appropriately and on the advice of its qualified staff and contractors when deciding what work to undertake. It then raised work orders using the correct repair categories detailed above (emergency repairs when the leaks were first reported, priority repairs for the inspections and batched repairs to complete the recommended work) to resolve the issue.
  4. However, there was clearly a breakdown in communication between the resident and the landlord during the repair process. Following the resident’s report of further damp patches on the bedroom wall in June 2021, the resident wrote and called the landlord on numerous occasions requesting updates on the status of the work. The resident also wrote to a local councillor stating her concerns with how the repairs were being handled, which were then passed on to the landlord. An internal landlord email sent on 8 September 2021 noted the poor level of communication the resident had received and suggested arranging a meeting to discuss the outstanding issues.
  5.  The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (which is available on our website) suggests a payment of £100 to £600 for cases where the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. This includes distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment, loss of confidence, and delays in getting matters resolved. It would therefore be appropriate for the landlord to pay £100 compensation for its poor level of communication in not keeping the resident properly updated on the progress of the work, and a further £100 compensation for the time and trouble caused to the resident in having to chase the landlord for updates and seek the intervention of a local councillor in order to receive a response from the landlord.
  6. Moreover, following the receipt of the stage one complaint response (which was given to the resident verbally over the telephone), the resident was clearly confused as to the status of the complaint, the outstanding repairs and what options she had in progressing the complaint further. It is therefore recommended that the landlord review its relevant policies and procedures to ensure that complainants are given the correct information as to the next steps in its complaint process when a complaint response is given verbally.

 

 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of how it handled the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property. 

Orders

  1. For the service failure and reasons set out above, the landlord is ordered to pay to the resident £200. This payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this Service when payment has been made.

 Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord review its relevant policies and procedures to ensure that complainants are given the correct information as to the next steps in its complaint process when a complaint response is given verbally.