Leeds City Council (201914171)

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201914171

Leeds City Council

28 January 2021

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 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:

a. The landlord’s handling of leak repairs and the time it took to carry out remedial works to subsequent damage to the property.

b. The support provided by the landlord to the resident and his partner during the decant period for the remedial works.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The property is a three-bedroom house and the resident is a tenant of the landlord.
3. The temporary accommodation offered by the landlord was a one-bedroom bungalow.
4. The resident reported that his partner had a suspected stroke in the beginning of 2020. The resident was away from the property for a week as he was accompanying his partner in hospital due to communication issues.

Summary of events

5. Upon the resident’s return to the property on 13 January 2020, he outlined that he found the property flooded due to a leak caused by a broken pipe in the bathroom. The resident contacted the landlord on the same day, and it sent a plumber to carry out repairs. The plumber could not identify the issue and left. As he could still hear water dripping, the resident investigated the matter further and found a pipe with a screw through it. At that moment in time, one of the landlord’s contractors was at the premises and they asked the plumber to return. The plumber then came back and replaced the broken pipe.
6. The landlord recorded that it subsequently assessed the damage to the property from 14 January 2020 and a decant was agreed. The resident stayed with a family member outside of the local area between 13 and 21 January 2020. Taking into account the resident’s partner’s health issues, the landlord offered temporary accommodation in the local area and arranged for an occupational therapist to assess the decant, to ensure that this was suitable for his partner’s needs.
7. The landlord’s records showed that the occupational therapist deemed the temporary property suitable for the resident and his partner but just for a short amount of time. The resident advised that he agreed to this decant property because he was not given any alternatives. As most of the resident’s belongings had been damaged in the flood, the landlord provided white goods and carpeted the decant property on 20 January 2020. The white goods supplier was supposed to install the gas cooker but they advised a different team would do this. On 24 January 2020, the landlord arranged an appointment for the gas cooker to be installed by its contractor. This led to further delays and the resident reported that he could not cook for approximately one week.
8. Additionally, at the resident’s request, the landlord agreed to assist with moving furniture and adjusting the temporary property’s shower entrance, to ensure better access for the resident’s partner.
9. This Service was not made aware of any other events that took place between 21 January 2020, when the resident moved into the temporary accommodation, and 6 February 2020. Following contact from the resident, this Service issued a letter to the landlord on 6 February 2020, to ask it to provide the resident with a response to the complaint he had raised.
10. The landlord issued a stage one complaint response on 19 February 2020. This Service was not provided with a copy of the initial complaint; however, in its initial response, the landlord confirmed that the following matters were raised:

a. The level of support the resident received from the landlord during the decant.

b. A lack of appliances and furniture in the temporary accommodation.

c. The landlord’s handling of the remedial works required at the property and amount of time it took to complete these.

d. The resident’s concerns regarding damp in the property, the replacement of the goods damaged in the flood, completing a compensation form and that works were delayed due to lack of staff.

11. At this stage, the resident’s complaint was not upheld by the landlord as the actions taken were considered to be reasonable by it. The landlord acknowledged that moving into temporary accommodation could be stressful and it confirmed the following:

a. Following its discussion with the resident on 18 February 2020, the resident advised he was happy with the speed in which the landlord found the temporary accommodation.

b. The landlord kept to its promise to fit carpets and make minor alterations in the temporary accommodation, provide appliances and assist with moving furniture.

c. The landlord advised it was unable to provide a specific timeframe as to when the works would be completed to the property at that time; however, it reassured the resident that he would be kept informed as things progressed and that he would be able to choose the type of flooring fitted.

d. The landlord confirmed that the appliances provided for the temporary accommodation would be moved to the resident’s property once the remedial works were completed. Additionally, the landlord committed to clean the property before the resident moved back in and advised that it could not assist with the completion of compensation forms.

12. The resident contacted the landlord on 28 February 2020 to request for his complaint to be escalated to the final stage of its complaints procedure on the following grounds:

a. The resident disagreed that the temporary accommodation was suitable for his partner’s needs. The resident reiterated that he only accepted the decant property as it was the only option he had.

b. The resident advised he had to move his possessions from the property in order for works to begin; however, he did not receive any assistance from the landlord with this. Furthermore, the resident could not store all his belongings in the temporary accommodation provided as this was considerably smaller.

c. The resident also expressed his dissatisfaction with having to use bedding as curtains, the lack of a functional cooker for a week, and the fact that one of the landlord’s staff reportedly proposed that he moved his mattress and sleep on the floor and that he obtain a wooden ramp himself to allow his partner to get into the bathroom.

13. The landlord issued its final stage complaint response on 23 March 2020 and maintained its position that all necessary action was taken. Moreover, the landlord informed the resident that, on certain occasions, it had gone over its service levels (e.g. installing the gas cooker) to ensure that he and his partner were comfortable in the temporary accommodation. The landlord advised it did not provide soft furnishings such as curtains during decants.
14. Additionally, the landlord advised that its operative initially offered to move the resident’s bed to the temporary accommodation. The resident refused this according to the landlord on the basis that the bed was fitted. The landlord then offered to provide the resident with a bed; however, while this was arranged, the resident contacted the landlord to advise that this was no longer necessary as the medical equipment team were providing a hospital bed and that its offer to move his mattress over was not required as he could fit this in his car.
15. On 29 March 2020, the resident emailed this Service to advise that he was still waiting for a response from the landlord regarding his complaint. The resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the service provided by the landlord and advised that he wanted compensation for the possessions damaged in the flood, the inconvenience caused, and rent and council tax for the time he was in temporary accommodation.
16. On 1 April 2020, the landlord advised that most of the repair works had been carried out but that it was unable to fit the flooring as its supplier closed down due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The landlord confirmed that it had informed the resident of this.
17. On 4 April 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord to advise that he was unhappy with its final stage complaint response and that he wished to escalate the matter further. The resident also expressed his dissatisfaction with the fact that his partner was unable to access the shower in the temporary accommodation for two weeks and with the dehumidifiers fitted to the original property (the resident felt that these were installed poorly and that this led to further damage to the property). The resident advised that this situation had impacted his partner’s health and recovery.
18. Between 18 and 22 May 2020, the landlord liaised with its contractors regarding the flooring due to be fitted in the resident’s property. It was confirmed that the flooring was to be fitted before 5 June 2020 and the resident was informed of this. The landlord acknowledged there were other outstanding works and confirmed that it would re-seal the worktops and carry out some electrical repairs, in the resident’s property, by 5 June 2020. The landlord also advised that there would be a delay with completing the painting of the property as some of its contractors were still on furlough. The landlord committed to keeping the resident updated on this matter and that it would complete the remaining works in the following weeks.
19. It was previously mentioned by the resident that he had made a liability claim to the landlord for damage to his belongings from the leak at the property, although no submission date was confirmed. A response to this claim was issued on 3 June 2020. The claim was denied on the basis that the incident was unexpected and that the landlord had taken all necessary action once this was reported.
20. On 5 June 2020, it was confirmed that the replacement of the flooring in the resident’s property had been completed.
21. Taking into account that the resident’s liability claim was denied and the fact that he did not have contents insurance, the landlord advised that it had decided to fit new flooring, paint the lounge area, install a new kitchen along with new tiles and worktops and bring the white goods provided for the temporary accommodation to the resident’s property, as a goodwill gesture. This Service was not made aware of the exact dates that these works were carried out; however, it was confirmed that the resident moved back into the property on 19 July 2020.
22. On 21 July 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord to inform it that the roof was leaking into the kitchen again and that he was unable to reach anyone to discuss this. The landlord responded to him about this leak from 22 July 2020 onwards and it later confirmed that this was due to a blockage in the bathroom and was not related to the initial leak which was caused by a burst pipe.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs and the time it took to carry out remedial works

23. In its repairs and maintenance handbook the landlord commits to attend the property within three hours and carry out an emergency repair within 24 hours if the issue is classed as urgent. Based on the information brought to this Service, the landlord’s response to the resident’s initial report of 13 January 2020 was timely and in line with its handbook. While it was not confirmed whether the landlord attended the property within three hours, it has been confirmed that the landlord attended on the same day to assess the situation. Additionally, the emergency repair to the property’s broken bathroom pipe was carried out on the same day as well.
24. As a result of the landlord’s initial assessment from 14 January 2020, it was agreed with the resident that he would move into temporary accommodation to allow remedial works to be carried out to the property. It is noted that the landlord’s contractor could not commence works immediately as the resident’s belongings were still in the property, which was in line with the landlord’s repairs and maintenance handbook’s requirement for them to take care of his belongings during their works.
25. In its repairs and maintenance handbook the landlord divides the repairs carried out into two main categories:

a. Responsive repairs – these are works that are usually completed in one visit and the response times can vary between 24 hours to 20 working days.

b. Batched repairs – these are non-urgent works that may require a pre-inspection, for additional time to be allowed for materials to be obtained and for multiple visits to be completed. The response time given for this type of repair is 60 days.

26. In respect of the above, it is noted that the landlord was to carry out a combination of responsive and batched repairs at the property. Also, it has been taken into account that, while the property was unoccupied from 14 January 2020, the resident’s belongings were still there which may have prevented the landlord from carrying out the necessary works. Considering these circumstances, it was reasonable for the landlord to slightly delay certain works.
27. Despite not all of the resident’s belongings being removed from the property before the works commenced, the landlord managed to carry out most repairs apart from flooring, worktop and electrical repairs by 1 April 2020 before the Covid-19 pandemic restrictions were imposed. Once the restrictions eased and suppliers started operating again, the landlord resumed works on the resident’s property that were completed by 5 June 2020.
28. This Service appreciates that in this instance the landlord did not act in line with its repairs and maintenance handbook’s 60-day timescale for batched repairs; however, this was due to reasons outside of its control. Also, the landlord was transparent with the resident regarding the reasons why the outstanding works were delayed and it kept to the above amended timeframes that it provided to him.
29. Based on the information brought to this Service, the landlord was reasonable and effective in identifying and carrying out necessary works and improvements. We have noted the resident’s belief in his complaint to us that the above issues stemmed from a previous leak repair at the property that it carried out poorly. However, it was confirmed by the landlord in its response to the resident’s liability claim on 3 June 2020 that the incident and repairs in question were carried out approximately one year before the current issues in January and February 2019. Taking into account the amount of time that passed between the two incidents and the lack of subsequent reports of further leaks at the property until 13 January 2020, there is no evidence that the two incidents were related.

Support provided by the landlord during the decant

30. The resident has complained to this Service that he considers that a lack of support provided by the landlord during the decant period for the property’s remedial works, including in relation to the condition and suitability of the decant property, exacerbated his partner’s medical conditions and affected his partner’s health and recovery from these. However, these matters are outside the scope of this investigation because the determination of liability for damages to health is an outcome that is not within our authority to provide as we lack the power or expertise to do so in the way that a court or insurer might, focusing instead on the landlord’s compliance with its temporary decant procedures.
31. In its temporary decant procedures, the landlord commits to assisting the resident with the moving process by booking removals, carpet uplifts and storage with the removal contractors, provide packing supplies and a “packing advice” leaflet. In this instance, it is evident that the landlord did not act entirely in line with its temporary decant procedures as the resident’s possessions remained in the original property and the resident indicated that he was “living out of black bags”.
32. The landlord did comply with its temporary decant procedures in terms of ensuring that white goods were delivered and connected, and carpets fitted in the temporary accommodation on 20 January 2020. The landlord was not at fault that the supplier refused to connect the gas cooker. The landlord acted reasonably on 24 January 2020 in booking an appointment for one of its contractors to install the gas cooker, although it appears that this was not done in a timely manner as the resident reported that this meant that he was left without an essential amenity for one week.
33. The resident advised he was unhappy with using bedding instead of curtains; however, as previously stated by it to him in its final stage complaint response of 23 March 2020, the landlord is not responsible for providing soft furnishings as there is no requirement for it to do so under its temporary decant procedures.
34. It is noted that the resident also expressed his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s staff’s reported suggestions to place his mattress on the floor and sleep there and to try and adjust the shower entry with a wooden ramp himself. In this instance its final stage complaint response confirmed that the landlord initially suggested that it move the resident’s bed from his property to the temporary accommodation. However, the resident reportedly advised that this would not be an option as it was a fitted bed. The landlord then proposed to assist with moving the resident’s mattress while it was also trying to source a bed.
35. The resident reportedly refused this and advised that he could transport the mattress with his car and then informed the landlord he no longer needed the bed as he had obtained a hospital one. Also, despite the landlord’s reported suggestion for the resident to alter the shower entry himself, it booked an appointment for the entry to be lowered. Taking this into consideration, the landlord made a reasonable effort to ensure that it provided the resident with the necessary items.
36. Based on the information brought to this Service, the landlord tried to ensure that the resident received appropriate support during the decant period. However, it failed to meet its responsibilities under its temporary decant procedures in the following areas:

a. Ensuring appliances are installed on the move in day.

b. Assisting the resident with booking the removal service and storage.

Compensation

37. The resident requested compensation from the landlord for the following:

a. possessions damaged in the flood from the leak at the property

b. rent and council tax paid during the decant period

c. distress and inconvenience caused.

38. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that “You are responsible for your personal property and the decoration of the interior of your home and it is your responsibility to take out insurance to protect them.” Taking this into consideration, along with the fact that there is no evidence that the incident was the landlord’s fault, the landlord was reasonable in not providing monetary compensation to the resident to cover the possessions damaged in the flood.
39. Moreover, the landlord exceeded its obligations by taking into account that the resident did not have contents insurance and agreeing to replace the kitchen and flooring, painting the whole lounge area and moving the white goods provided for the temporary accommodation into the resident’s original property. It is also noted that the landlord offered the above as a goodwill gesture, not as an admission of fault.
40. The landlord’s temporary decant procedures state that “Where a tenant is temporarily decanted, they will still legally be a secure tenant of their principal home. The rent will be paid for the principal home by the tenants and no charge will be made for the decant property.” In respect to the resident’s request for reimbursement for the rent paid during the decant period, the landlord therefore acted in line with its temporary decant procedures by charging the resident for the amount set for the principal home.
41. With regard to the resident’s request for a reimbursement for his council tax, complaints concerning council tax fall properly within the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s and not this Service’s jurisdiction to consider. It is nevertheless of concern that, despite the landlord providing him with the above additional works and white goods as a goodwill gesture, it did not consider exercising the discretion available to it on a case-by-case basis to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to him and his partner by its above failures to comply with its temporary decant procedures with financial compensation. It has therefore been ordered to do so below.

Determination (decision)

42. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme:

a. There was service failure by the landlord in respect of the support provided by it to the resident and his partner during the decant period.

b. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of leak repairs and the time it took to carry out remedial works.

Reasons

43. The landlord carried out the remedial works necessary. In regard to the time taken by the landlord to complete the works, this Service took the delays into consideration but it these were outside of the landlord’s control.
44. With regard to the support provided by the landlord to the resident during the decant period, it could have taken further steps to assist the resident in line with its temporary decant procedures.

Orders

45. The landlord is to provide the resident with an apology letter and compensation of £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the level of support provided by the landlord during the decant period.
46. The compensation has been calculated based on the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance and is to be paid in full to the resident within four weeks of this determination.

Recommendations

47. The landlord should review this case and ensure that its staff receives further training on its temporary decant procedures, to ensure that future delays are avoided and the necessary actions are taken in a time effective manner.
48. The landlord should also review and improve its record keeping in relation to responsive and batched repairs to ensure all communications and interactions are documented.
49. The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders and to confirm whether it will follow the above recommendations.
50. The Ombudsman accepts that, because of the present restrictions due to the corona virus pandemic, the timing of the above actions will depend on what is reasonable in the light of Government guidance regarding the health of the resident and of the landlord’s staff.