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

Leeds City Council (202208004)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208004

Leeds City Council

13 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of reports of a leak, damp and mould.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. He lives in a flat within a complex of similar properties.
  2. According to the landlord’s repair records, the resident reported for the third time that a leak was coming through from the property above on 18 March 2021. The landlord has stated that it raised an emergency repair and attended the same day. The records show that the resident continued to report the issue, raising the issue for the fourth time on 10 April 2021, and the fifth on 8 June 2021. The resident complained about the ongoing leak and resulting damage to his bathroom on 17 June 2021.
  3. The landlord attended the neighbouring property above to investigate on 24 August 2021. It found that the shower was causing the leak. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint verbally on 21 October 2021. It explained that it had raised a repair to replace the neighbour’s faulty shower following its visit in August 2021. It assured the resident that it would repair the damage to his bathroom once the leak was resolved at the neighbouring property.
  4. The landlord undertook a pre-inspection of the neighbouring property on 30 November 2021. It inspected the damage to the resident’s property on 10 December 2021, finding damp and mould in addition to damaged plaster.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint on 6 January 2022, stating that the issue remained ongoing. He was dissatisfied that the landlord had not yet undertaken any works to either property. The landlord responded on 14 January 2022. It explained that as it had identified the source of the leak, it was confident that it could soon resolve the issue for the resident. It apologised for the delay, citing a backlog due to the Covid-19 pandemic as a partial reason.
  6. The landlord attended the neighbouring property on 1 March 2022 to replace the shower. However, it found that it needed an electrician to be in attendance, and did not complete any works. The landlord subsequently struggled to gain access to the neighbouring property. It undertook the bulk of the works on 7, 8 and 28 September 2022, and completed the works on 15 November 2022. The resident’s replastering was completed on 1 December 2022.
  7. In his complaint to this Service, the resident was unhappy with the delays to his repairs, and the condition his property was left in.

Assessment

Scope of investigation

  1. Under paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. The resident has mentioned issues with damp and mould that have affected his home in areas other than the bathroom. This issue was reported after he had completed the landlord’s complaint procedure, and would therefore need to be raised as a separate complaint if the resident considers it to be an ongoing issue. Damp and mould can be a serious problem. The resident should ensure that he reports any recurring issues, so that the landlord may deal with any underlying causes proactively.

The landlord’s handling of reports of a leak, damp and mould.

  1. Under the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining the structure and exterior of the house and the installations in the house for the supply of water, gas and electricity and for sanitation (including basins, sinks, baths and sanitary conveniences. The landlord is responsible for making good internal decorations that are affected during a repair.
  2. According to the landlord’s repair booklet the landlord will attend emergency repairs within three hours, and complete an emergency repair within 24 hours. Examples of an emergency include uncontainable leaks. The booklet states that priority repairs are defined as those which seriously affect the resident’s comfort or cause damage to the property. The landlord will carry out priority repairs within three working days. All other routine repairs will be carried out within 20 working days.
  3. In its complaint response, the landlord has focused on the resident’s reports of a leak from 18 March 2021, until the completion of the resident’s plastering on 1 December 2022. It is worth noting that the landlord’s repair records show that reports of the leak have been ongoing since 10 April 2020. The resident’s report in March 2021 was his third report of a leak coming from the property above. The landlord’s repair booklet states that they should be attending uncontainable leaks within 24 hours, and fixing priority repairs which cause damage to the property within three working days.
  4. The records show that the landlord initially responded appropriately to reports of the leaks, raising emergency repairs and attended within 24 hours of reports of the leaks on at least 18 March 2021, 10 April 2021, 25 June 2021 and 20 August 2021. However, although the landlord attended within timescales, it did not repair the leaks within the stipulated three working days (stated in the policies above). The leak was a reoccurring issue from at least March 2021 to September 2022 (with the resident’s remedial repairs resolved in December 2022). This means that the repairs to the leak were outstanding for at least a year and a half.
  5. A delay in repairs is not always considered a failure, particularly if the issue is complex. However, in-line with general customer service standards, the landlord would be expected to proactively manage the repair, and complete it as soon as practically possible. It would also be expected to update the resident and manage their expectations. In this case, the delays cannot be considered reasonable. From the evidence it is clear that the resident continually reported the leak throughout the years that it was present in his bathroom, with the repair records noting that it was his seventh report of a leak on 20 August 2021. Despite this, the landlord repeatedly failed to provide a meaningful repair to the substantive issue in the above flat. It also did not proactively keep the resident updated, meaning that he had to constantly chase for the repair to be completed. This was not appropriate and is a failing in the circumstances.
  6. The landlord has stated that the delay was partially caused by issues gaining access to the flat above the residents. This is accurate, as it can be seen from the repair reports that there were numerous appointments where access was not granted to the landlord between March 2021 and September 2022. However, under the tenancy agreement, residents must allow the landlord and its employees to enter their home at all reasonable hours to carry out maintenance, repairs or other works. If a resident repeatedly does not allow access, the landlord would be expected to take robust action in accordance with the terms of the tenancy agreement, which may include taking legal action, to gain the required access.
  7. The landlord should have been more proactive in gaining access to the neighbour’s home. This could have been by providing more convenient appointment times, or communicating with the neighbour the severity of the situation. Additionally, the repair records show that once access was refused, the repair was closed on several occasions. This was not appropriate, as this repair was impacting the resident below the neighbour, and needed to be actively managed by the landlord.
  8. Although the landlord has stated that access issues caused a delay, it made several errors when trying to resolve the neighbour’s repairs. The landlord noted as early as 11 May 2021 that the neighbour’s shower needed to be removed. However, six months later the works had not been completed. It inspected the neighbour’s bathroom again on 30 November 2021, again stating that the shower was causing the leak. The landlord attended the property on 1 March 2022, but failed to complete the works, as its surveyor had raised an incorrect repair order.
  9. The landlord attended again on 9 May 2022. It discovered that the leak was actually coming through the neighbour’s flooring, rather than the shower. It failed to complete the works, instead undertaking temporary measures and again raised a further work order. It attended again on 29 June 2022, but found that an electrician was needed. The landlord inspected the neighbour’s bathroom twice, and attended the property, but failed to undertake the works due to its own error on three occasions. This was not appropriate and is a failing in the circumstances.
  10. The resident reported that the leak had worsened on 30 June 2022. He continued to report the problem throughout July 2022. In August 2022, he reported that the plaster was falling from the ceiling. The landlord again delayed in completing the works, although it can be seen from the evidence that it was continuing to have access issues. It finally stopped the leak and completed the bulk of repairs on 7,8 and 28 September 2022. However, the resident had to chase for his remedial works to be completed after the leak was rectified. These were completed two months later on 1 December 2022, (almost two years after his report in March 2021). This was also not appropriate and is a further failing, as the landlord should have actively completed the works within 20 working days of finally stopping the leak.
  11. Under this Service’s complaint handling code (the code), the landlord would be expected to identify any errors in the service it provided, explain when they occurred, acknowledge the impact this had on the resident and to put things right. The landlord did not provide a written stage one response to the resident, so it is not possible to conclude that it adequately addressed its failures at that stage. In its stage two response in January 2022, the landlord set out a timeline of the repairs which did not correspond exactly with its repair records. It also stated that the resident first complained in October 2021, when he actually complained in June 2021. In-line with general good customer service, the landlord should provide factually accurate information in its responses.
  12. The landlord stated that the Covid-19 pandemic had impacted the repair causing delays. Although it is possible that this did add pressures to the landlord’s service, it is clear that the landlord made several errors in how it handled this repair (as set out above). The landlord failed to identify its mistakes, and it did not explain why they had occurred. The landlord assured the resident that it would manage the resident’s repairs through to completion. However, the resident’s full repairs would remain outstanding for the next 10 months. This is not appropriate, as the complaint handling code states that when offering a remedy (such as repairs), landlords should clearly set out what will happen and by when, in agreement with the resident where appropriate. Any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion.
  13. Although the landlord apologised, it did not offer any other form of redress to recognise the resident’s distress and frustration at having a leak above his bathroom for nearly two years. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that compensation should have been offered, to fully acknowledge the impact the outstanding repairs had on the resident, as well as his time and inconvenience spent chasing the repairs.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it will respond within 15 working days of receiving a complaint, at both stages of its procedure. If it cannot respond within this timeframe, the landlord will provide regular updates. It is worth noting that these timeframes are not in-line with those laid out in the Complaint Handling Code (the code).
  2. The resident submitted his complaint on 17 June 2021. The landlord responded verbally over four months later on 21 October 2021. This is not within the timescales laid out in the landlord’s policy, or in the code. The landlord also failed to provide a written response to the resident. Although its own complaint policy states that it may respond by letter, email, face to face or by telephone, this is not in line with the code which dictates that; at the completion of each stage of the complaints process the landlord should write to the resident advising them of the complaint stage, the outcome of the complaint, the reasons for any decisions made, the details of any remedy offered to put things right, details of any outstanding actions and the details of how to escalate the matter if dissatisfied.
  3. The resident escalated his complaint on 6 January 2022, with the landlord responding within the correct timescales on 14 January 2022.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports of a leak, damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £650 in recognition of its failure to handle his repairs appropriately.
    3. Pay the resident £150 in recognition of its poor complaint handling.
    4. Carry out a review of its complaints policy in light of the findings of this report and the requirements of this service’s Complaints Handling Code.
    5. Confirm that it has complied with the above orders.

Recommendation

  1. It is also recommended that the landlord monitor the damp issues within the resident’s home, to ensure they do not become a more serious problem.