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

Leeds City Council (202204673)

Back to Top

 

A picture containing font, text, graphics, logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204673

Leeds City Council

28 June 2023

 

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 is about the landlord’s:
    1. response to concerns about the standard of workmanship following repairs to kitchen and living room floor;
    2. response to the resident’s reports of issues with the side path;
    3. handling of repairs to the garden fence; and
    4. response to the resident’s concerns about discrimination and equality.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority and the tenancy commenced in April 2007. The property is a two-bedroom house and the resident advises his wife (a joint tenant) is disabled and that he has a mental health worker.
  2. In September 2019, the resident initiated a legal disrepair claim against the landlord. As part of the claim, the kitchen and living room flooring were repaired using epoxy floor coating, and repairs were carried out to the concrete side path. These works were undertaken around March 2021 as part of the agreed schedule of works of the disrepair settlement.
  3. On 1 November 2021, the resident raised a formal complaint about an issue with the side path; he stated that it was becoming dangerous as it was holding water and wished for it to be repaired. The resident raised a repair request on 1 October 2021 and chased the landlord on 22 and 25 November 2021 expressing dissatisfaction that the repair had not yet been done.
  4. After visiting the property on 5 January 2022, the landlord raised a new repair on 9 March 2022 for the surface to be tarmacked to help improve drainage. The work was undertaken on 3 March 2022 and post inspected on 11 March 2022. During this post inspection, the resident raised concerns that a section of the path approximately 2m2 in area, beyond the extension to the property, had not been tarmacked. The landlord raised a works order for this to be carried out, but later cancelled it.
  5. It appears that the landlord did not issue a stage one response; it issued its stage two response on 22 March 2022. The landlord stated that, as the non-tarmacked area was outside of the structure and exterior of the property, repairs to it do not fall within its responsibilities; it had therefore cancelled the works order. The landlord arranged for the tarmac contractor to contact the resident to enable him to discuss any concerns. It offered the resident an apology that a works order had been raised in error, along with £100 compensation in respect of its late response to the complaint.
  6. On 6 June 2022, the resident made a separate complaint about the back garden fence. The resident stated a panel was lost around February 2022 due to high winds and that although he had reported the repair on 7 March 2022, he had since received no contact from the landlord in respect of this issue. On 8 June 2022 the resident contacted this Service advising he considered that there were outstanding repairs in relation to the kitchen and living room flooring arising from poor workmanship in 2021, and in relation to the side path and the back garden fence.
  7. On 27 June 2022, the landlord provided a stage one response in respect of the back garden fence complaint. It said it had booked an appointment for 13 July 2022 to inspect the fence and it also reiterated the information given in its stage two response of 22 March 2022 in relation to the path. Dissatisfied with the stage one response, the resident escalated his complaint around 1 July 2022 and advised this Service of an additional complaint point, namely that he felt he and his wife had been discriminated against and had received unfavourable treatment. The landlord confirmed to this Service that it would consider the additional complaint point at stage two.
  8. On 4 August 2022, the landlord issued its final response. It said:
    1. it had updated its fencing policy in 2019 and that fencing no longer falls under the landlord’s core repair responsibility, but the landlord may consider discretionary repairs in situations such as where a resident is unable to carry out the work due to age or disability. It noted that the resident had reported he had been able to secure the fence, and therefore the repair was not covered under the terms of its fencing policy.
    2. it apologised that a works order had incorrectly been raised for a concrete area of approximately 2m2 to be removed and replaced with tarmac, as it considered that this area did not pose a hazard.
    3. regarding the kitchen and living room floor, this issue had previously been settled as part of the disrepair claim and it suggested the resident contact his solicitor if he was dissatisfied with the quality of the workmanship.
    4. regarding the resident’s assertion that the landlord had discriminated against him and his wife, it was satisfied it had not seen any evidence of discrimination.
    5. it offered £100 goodwill payment for its miscommunication in relation to the path and fence repairs, and provided referral rights to this Service.
  9. As a resolution to his complaint, the resident wants the landlord to carry out remedial works to the kitchen and living room floor, side path, and fence.

Jurisdiction

  1. The resident had made a legal disrepair claim against the landlord in 2019 in respect of the kitchen and living room flooring and the side path, and these issues were dealt with in 2021. The resident has made a complaint to this Service about the kitchen and living room flooring, in addition to his complaints about the side path and the back garden fence.
  2. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

Kitchen and living room flooring

  1. Paragraph 41 (c) of the Scheme states, “The Ombudsman cannot consider a complaint which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concerns matters that are the subject of court proceedings or were the subject of court proceedings where a judgment on the merits was given”.
  2. This Service has been made aware of the legal disrepair claim made by the resident in 2019 which included repairs to the kitchen and living room flooring.   These repairs were undertaken in 2021 as part of the agreed schedule of works of the disrepair settlement, and the resident was awarded a compensation payment of £2,500. The landlord has advised that its works were post inspected and deemed to be to an acceptable standard and also that there are no outstanding orders for repairs to the kitchen or living room. It advised the resident to contact the solicitor who handled his disrepair claim should he be unhappy with the quality of the work completed as part of the claim.
  3. After carefully considering all the evidence, the complaint regarding the landlord’s response to concerns about the standard of workmanship of the kitchen and living room floor repairs is, in accordance with paragraph 41 (c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  4. As such, the Ombudsman will not be commenting on whether the works were or were not completed to a suitable standard within this investigation. It was appropriate for the landlord to refer the resident back to his solicitor given that the works arose following legal proceedings.

Side path

  1. Whilst the side path was included in the disrepair claim, and a concrete repair was undertaken, this Service has seen evidence that the resident raised an issue with the quality of works within the same year. It would have been appropriate for the resident to liaise with the solicitor who handled his disrepair claim; however, the Ombudsman notes that the landlord tarmacked the side path in response to the resident’s concerns regarding the drainage.
  2. After the side path was tarmacked, the resident raised dissatisfaction regarding an area of approximately 2m2 at the end of the path which was not included in the tarmacking work. This Service will treat this issue as a separate request for works, and we will look into the landlord’s actions and how it communicated with the resident.
  3. Similar to the above, however, any issues with the quality of the side path that initially formed part of the disrepair claim would need to be pursued via the resident’s solicitor.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of issues with the side path

  1. Under the tenancy, the landlord has an obligation to attend a repair after being notified, carry out the work (if appropriate) in a timely manner and keep the resident informed throughout.
  2. In line with its repair policy, the landlord has an obligation to keep the main structure and outside of the home in good repair. Batched repairs are non-urgent repairs and items of replacement that may require a pre-inspection, need time to order, and/or need time for materials to be manufactured. Batched repairs include repairs to paths or steps and are to be completed within 60 days.
  3. The Ombudsman recognises the side path was concreted as part of the disrepair claim around March 2021. The landlord subsequently inspected and raised a work order to tarmac the path, which it carried out on 11 March 2022. The resident believed the tarmac would include the small area of approximately 2m2, but it did not; although the landlord initially raised a works order to tarmac the small area, it later cancelled the order because it did not consider the area to be hazardous and also because it was not obliged to repair a path that extends beyond the property.
  4. The Ombudsman recognises the cancellation of the works order caused frustration for the resident and it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for this and offer compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience. From the evidence available to this Service, the non-tarmacked area of the path is located beyond the property and the Ombudsman considers the landlord’s response appropriate. The Ombudsman notes the resident’s comment that this area has a tendency to retain some water and that he has slipped in the past. This is unfortunate and this Service is sorry to hear of any injury sustained. It was appropriate that the landlord signposted the resident to approach his solicitor in relation to a potential claim for personal injury.
  5. The Ombudsman is mindful that the resident has advised his wife is disabled and this Service has given due consideration to how some water in the untarmacked area could impact the resident’s use of the property. Whilst the Ombudsman does not doubt the area can become slippery when wet, in the same way that a street pavement can become slippery when wet, given the size of the area in relation to the overall path size, the landlord’s finding that this did not pose a significant hazard is reasonable.
  6. The landlord referred to this repair request as not meeting the landlord’s core service provisions. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman considers that it was appropriate that the landlord did not tarmac the area, as the small non-tarmacked area did not pose a hazard and did not impact the resident’s use of the path, garden or property. The Ombudsman considers the landlord’s apology and its offer of compensation adequately reflected the level of detriment to the resident given its miscommunication in raising a works order and then cancelling it. As such, there was an offer of reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of an issue with a small area at the far end of the side path.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the garden fence

  1. Under the tenancy, the landlord has an obligation to attend a repair after being notified, carry out the work (if appropriate) in a timely manner and keep the resident informed throughout.  In line with its repair policy, batched repairs also include minor repairs to fences and gates and are to be completed within 60 days.
  2. The landlord updated its fencing policy in February 2019 and its decision on fencing would accordingly be made in line with the updated policy. The landlord stated that fencing does not fall under its core repair responsibility and it is a tenant’s responsibility to provide, repair and maintain or replace fencing. However, the landlord may undertake discretionary fence repairs in consideration of individual circumstances such as tenants who are unable to carry out the work due to age or disability and have no family or friends who can do the work on their behalf.
  3. The Ombudsman is aware that the resident advised the landlord that the repairs service had previously attended a fence repair after the fencing policy was updated, and has seen evidence that the landlord carried out a fence repair in December 2020. It is unclear why the landlord undertook work on the fence in 2020; however, this investigation will examine only the events in relation to the June 2022 complaint.
  4. The Ombudsman has seen evidence that a request for a fence repair was made on 4 April and 27 April 2022. The landlord’s operative attended the property within around three months of the request being made but did not complete a repair. Whilst this was outside its timescales, this Service notes an earlier appointment was cancelled by the resident and the landlord’s approach to the inspection of the fence was appropriate.
  5. The Ombudsman notes that although the landlord is aware of the resident’s wife’s vulnerability, there is no evidence that the resident has made the landlord aware of his own vulnerability and hence that he may meet the landlord’s discretionary fence repairs criteria. Given that the resident appears to have informed the landlord that he had been able to secure the fence, it was not unreasonable for the landlord to take the view that the fence repair was not covered under the discretionary terms of its updated fence policy.
  6. Overall, the total amount of compensation offered in its stage two response was satisfactory. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests that compensation up to £100 should be considered where there has been service failure which has caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord’s offer was in accordance with this Service’s guidance and, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, proportionately reflected the level of detriment caused by any miscommunication in relation to the fence repair. The landlord’s offer of redress was satisfactory as regards putting matters right.

The landlord’s response to concerns about discrimination and equality

  1. With respect to the resident’s concerns about discrimination and equality, this Service cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place in a legal sense in terms of alleged breaches of the Equality Act, as this is better suited to a court to decide. This Service can, however, look at whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s allegations of misconduct by its staff, including whether there is any evidence that the resident was treated less favourably than others in the same situation.
  2. The resident has advised this service that he has a mental health worker, and that his wife has a disability. The Ombudsman has seen evidence that, prior to the landlord’s stage two response, it had noted on its repair records that the resident was vulnerable. However, as the tenancy is held jointly by the resident and his wife, and the landlord has advised that it has no notes on its internal system stating that the resident himself has vulnerabilities, it is likely that the note on the repair records referred to the resident’s wife.
  3. In its stage two response, the landlord sought to gain clarity on the resident’s vulnerability and has noted that it was unable to establish whether or not the resident wished to have a vulnerability note in respect of himself placed on his tenancy records. It was appropriate for the landlord to provide the resident with information about adaptations and Adult Social Care service contact details should he wish to contact them, and the Ombudsman deems this good practice.
  4. This Service has considered the evidence and the approach taken by the landlord, but cannot see that the landlord treated the resident less favourably than it would have treated others in a similar situation. In the absence of evidence, the Ombudsman is therefore unable to conclude that the landlord should have arrived at another conclusion, on reviewing the resident’s suggestion at stage two. Its response to the concerns about discrimination and equality were dealt with satisfactorily.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 41 (c) of the Scheme, the complaint regarding the landlord’s response to concerns about the standard of workmanship following the kitchen and living room floor repairs falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Scheme, there was an offer of reasonable redress prior to the Ombudsman’s intervention that satisfactorily resolved the complaint with respect to the landlord’s:
    1. response to the resident’s reports of issues with the side path; and
    2. handling of repairs to the garden fence.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to concerns about discrimination and equality.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider carrying out the resident’s fence repair if it establishes that both tenants of the property meet the criteria in its policy relating to discretionary fence repairs, namely that each tenant is unable to carry out the work due to age or disability and there is no family member or friend who can do the work on their behalf.
  2. The landlord should update its records with the most up to date vulnerabilities that residents have and ensure that its records across all its systems are updated in respect of each resident who is a tenant. This will enable the landlord to correctly apply its own policies to a tenancy where one or more of the tenants has requested that they be treated as vulnerable.