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

Leeds City Council (202009385)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009385

Leeds City Council

30 March 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 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 the landlord’s handling of repairs required to fix a leak in the resident’s property.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident was a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority, between May 2004 and November 2020. The resident submitted a Right to Buy (RTB) application on 23 October 2019 and the purchase of the property was completed on 29 November 2020. The property is a three-bedroom house.
  2. The landlord’s repair logs state that it received a report regarding “Air lock/water hammer” issues with the pipework in the resident’s property on 24 April 2020. This report was classified as “Non Essential” and was not attended to at the time due to a reduced service from the landlord during the Covid-19 pandemic.
  3. The repair logs further state that on 7 June 2020 a report of a water leak coming through a bedroom ceiling was made. This report was classified as “Code Red – Essential Repair”. The log notes that the report was attended to and resolved on 7 June 2020.
  4. On 22 July 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord and requested to raise a formal complaint. The resident accepted that the repair reported on 24 April 2020 could not go ahead due to Covid-19, but highlighted her concerns about “banging pipes”, which she believed was linked to the water leak from the boiler reported on 7 June 2020. She noted that she was told at the time of the repair that the two issues were unlikely to be linked, but that she remained concerned that the issues were linked, and that if another major water leak occurred after the RTB had been completed, she would be left with repair costs.
  5. The landlord sent a stage one complaint response to the resident on 27 July 2020. It confirmed that a plumber was due to attend the property on 27 July 2020 to investigate the reported noise from the pipework. The landlord explained that the noise was very likely the result of air getting into the pipework and that if that was the case, the plumber would be able to resolve it during the visit. The landlord also confirmed that a work order to check the boiler pressure had been raised, and that it would be in contact to book an appointment date.
  6. The landlord explained that water hammering issues (air in the pipes) are commonly caused by worn washers within the pipework, air pockets within the pipework, loose pipework moved by water pressure, or newly fitted appliances. The landlord noted that the plumber would investigate the cause of the noise during his visit, and that the gas engineer who would inspect the boiler pressure would also investigate any possible link.
  7. On 6 August 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord and disputed the stage one response. She noted that she was still experiencing issues with noises from the pipework, and raised several other pipes and plumbing related issues.
  8. The landlord replied to the resident on 7 August 2020. It explained that it had escalated the complaint to stage two. On 11 August 2020 a technical officer and gas engineer from the landlord visited the property to undertake an inspection. On 17 August 2020 the landlord sent the resident its stage two complaint response.
  9. In its response the landlord confirmed the work it agreed to undertake following the inspection on 11 August 2020. It informed her that it had raised work orders to:
    1. Renew two water-damaged base units in the kitchen.
    2. Inspect the electric shower.
    3. Inspect the toilet
    4. Renew the stop tap to assist with the issues of water pressure and a slow draining sink.
  10. The landlord noted that it had responded to all reports made by the resident, visited the property, and raised work orders, which was “over and above the normal level of service once a right to buy application [had] been submitted.”
  11. The landlord apologised to the resident for any inconvenience or stress she may have experienced due to some repair timescales not being met during the Covid-19 pandemic and lockdowns. It explained that she had exhausted its internal complaint process, and advised her on the steps to take to bring her complaint to this Service should she remain dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

  1. Section 5 of the landlord’s guide to RTB describes the step-by-step process involved in a RTB application. Step 7 of the process is described as follows:

“Step 7 – Repairs to your home after you’ve applied to buy your property but before you’ve completed the purchase.

During the period after you’ve applied to buy your home but before you’ve bought it, the [landlord] will not carry out any improvements to your home and will not undertake any repairs to your home other than those that are necessary under the council’s duty as landlord.”

  1. It is not disputed that all the repairs considered in this complaint occurred within the period described in step 7 of the RTB application process. Pages 20 and 21 of the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy describes the categories the landlord uses to prioritise repairs and, in part, states as follows:

Emergency: Urgent action is required to prevent a serious risk to health and safety, major damage to the structure of the property or results in the property being insecure. We will Attend within three hours, complete an emergency repair within 24 hours.

Priority: Repairs which seriously affect your comfort or cause damage to the property. We will carry out repair within three or seven working days (depending on repair type).

General: Other repairs that need to be done to your home. We will carry out the repair within 20 working days.

  1. During the Covid-19 pandemic the landlord operated a reduced service which meant that some non-emergency repairs would not be completed within its published timescales.
  2. The landlord correctly followed its repairs policy in categorising the resident’s reports of noises from the pipework as a routine repair, and the resident’s report of a water leak as an emergency repair.
  3. When the resident raised a complaint and informed the landlord of her concerns that the two issues may be linked, the landlord acted appropriately by raising work orders for a plumber to inspect the pipework and a gas engineer to inspect the boiler in order to determine if there were any links.
  4. Following the resident’s escalation request, the landlord arranged a further inspection of the property. This inspection recommended follow-on work, and in the stage two response the landlord informed the resident of the work orders it had raised to complete this work.
  5. The landlord showed good practice, after being informed of the resident’s concerns, by explaining the possible sources of the noise from the pipework and arranging an inspection to ensure that there was no link between the noise and the leak from boiler.
  6. The landlord arranged further work following the escalation of the complaint. It was appropriate for the landlord to replace the kitchen units as they had been damaged by the leak and therefore its responsibility to resolve. However, it was under no obligation to undertake any additional (i.e. non-emergency or priority) work as that would now be the responsibility of the resident, as per the landlord’s guide to RTB.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs required to fix a leak in the resident’s property. 

Reasons

  1. The landlord acted appropriately in responding to the resident’s concerns that the two repairs were linked. It arranged three separate inspections of the property, raised worked orders recommended by the inspections, and undertook additional work that it was not obligated to complete under the terms of the RTB scheme as a goodwill gesture to the resident.