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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202321355)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202321355

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

25 November 2024


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 handling of:
    1. Major repairs to the floor.
    2. The formal complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is the assured tenant of the property, which is a ground floor studio flat in a converted house with suspended timber floorboards. The landlord is a housing association. The resident has a mental health condition, and the landlord has recorded this.
  2. On 22 January 2021 the resident reported a repair to the landlord. Its record does not state the nature of the repair, but the resident says she reported her floorboards were not level. She told it on 9 March 2021, when chasing up other repairs, that she had been unable to put up a wardrobe she had bought due to the floorboard issue. She sought help from an advocacy service, which emailed the landlord on 14 September 2021 to report a “bumpy” and unlevel floor. They also asked to make a complaint but there is no evidence the landlord replied.
  3. The resident reported the issue again on 5 January 2022. The landlord raised a repair for the floorboards and said she had reported that she was not able to place a wardrobe on them. It marked the repair completed the following day. She called it to chase the repairs on 24 March 2022. Its note says it told her it had 5,000 repairs for major works outstanding, and it would let her know when it was her “turn”. She called it again on 27 May 2022 and said she wanted to make a complaint. Its call note says it told her “we are not able to speed this up or chase this up. We do not raise complaints”.
  4. On 13 June 2022 the resident called the landlord again and it raised a stage 1 complaint, which was about:
    1. Her floor having needed to be repaired for 3 years.
    2. She had not been able to build or use her wardrobe and had had to have her clothes and possessions all over her floor. She had a studio flat and not much space.
    3. The situation was negatively affecting her mental health.
  5. The landlord’s notes say it tried to call the resident back that day to acknowledge the complaint. On 14 June 2022 it raised a new repair to a contractor for the floorboards. It also provided its stage 1 response in which it said it had raised the repair and the contractor would contact her, or she could call them, to book an appointment. It also said how she could escalate the complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
  6. The following day the resident emailed the landlord and asked to escalate her complaint. She said she had been living with her clothes on the floor since she moved in, there was no sense of urgency to repair the floor, and it had affected her quality of life and mental health. She said she only had the one room as her living room and bedroom and had not been able to invite guests.
  7. On 12 July 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to chase an acknowledgement of, or response to, her stage 2 complaint. It replied, apologised, said it had not received her email, and acknowledged her escalated complaint.
  8. The resident called the landlord on 17 July 2022 to chase the repairs. It confirmed it had approved the quote and called the contractor for an update. It told her they should call her the following week. It emailed her on 19 August 2022 to reply to her request to be ‘decanted’, or temporarily moved, during the repairs. It said it did not do this for flooring repairs unless there was a health and safety concern. It advised her to move all her possessions to the other side of the room for the repairs.
  9. On 7 September 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to chase for a response to her stage 2 complaint. She also said she wanted to add that she disagreed with its decision not to decant her. She said she would need to remove all her possessions from her one room for the floor repairs. She would also need to move out, as she did not have another room to stay in as it was a studio flat. She said she would need to pay for the removals and storage, and to replace her carpet after the repairs which was unfair. She called it again on 20 September 2022 to chase for a response.
  10. The repairs were marked completed on 7 October 2022. Between 18 October 2022 and 13 September 2023, the resident called the landlord 4 times to chase her stage 2 response. On 13 September 2023 in an internal email, it said she had told it she had reported the floor during the COVID-19 lockdown and had been told it was not urgent so would not be repaired. She said she had to store her wardrobe in the communal hallway and when she tried to put it up, after the floor was repaired, she discovered it was damaged. She had not been able to return or sell it.
  11. On 19 September 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 response in which it:
    1. Apologised for its delay in response, which it said was due to a backlog in complaints. It offered £150 compensation for this.
    2. Accepted it had taken 4 months to complete the repair from when the resident raised her complaint.
    3. Said its stage 1 response had not taken into account or recognised the effects the situation had had on her mental health, or the inconvenience caused. It offered £120 compensation for distress and inconvenience.
    4. Recognised that she had kept in contact with it and had had to chase it and offered £50 compensation for her time and trouble.
    5. Offered total compensation of £320 and said how she could contact this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
  12. The resident emailed the landlord the same day to say that she did not accept its final response. She said she had been reporting her floor since 22 January 2021 and provided evidence she had obtained from her data subject access request to the landlord. She also said she wanted to be compensated for her wardrobes. It replied on 25 September 2023 and advised her to make an insurance claim to its insurers. It also told her she had completed its complaints process and that she could contact the Ombudsman.
  13. The resident has told this Service that the repairs to her floorboards took 3 days, and she had to find alternative accommodation herself. After several complaints she said the landlord did reimburse her moving costs but she had to pay for her own flooring after her carpet was ripped up and thrown away.

 

 

 

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of major repairs to the floor

  1. Under the tenancy agreement, and its repairs policy, the landlord is responsible for the structure of the property including its floorboards. This is in line with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The tenancy agreement says that rotting timber flooring is an emergency or urgent repair. Its repairs policy, in use at the time, says it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours. It will complete routine repairs “at the earliest mutually convenient appointment”. However, for vulnerable residents it will adjust its service standards where a delay would put them at risk due to their condition.
  2. The resident says she reported her floorboards in January 2021. There is evidence the landlord was aware of the issue from at least 9 March 2021, but it failed to raise a repair in breach of its repairing obligations. It again failed to act when it was contacted by the resident’s advocate on 14 September 2021. The resident has said she was told her repair would not be completed due to the COVID-19 lockdown. The landlord has not provided evidence to confirm or deny if this was the case, but almost all restrictions were lifted by the government on 19 July 2021.
  3. When the landlord raised a repair, on 5 January 2022, it is not clear whether it inspected the property as an emergency, but it closed the repair the following day. It did not keep the resident updated which led to her having to chase it for information. Its responses were unhelpful, uncaring, and did not show it wanted to put things right. In addition, despite its repairs policy stating it would take into account the resident’s vulnerabilities, it failed to do so. It took her stage 1 complaint for it to raise a new repair which was a failing. It also failed to keep the resident updated following its stage 1 response, which meant she had to chase it for updates.
  4. On an unknown date the resident asked to be decanted for the repairs and the landlord refused this. Although it said it was not its standard procedure for floor repairs, it failed to consider the circumstances of the case or exercise any discretion. It knew the property was a studio flat, comprising of one living and sleeping room, a bathroom and kitchen. She had explained the situation regarding her lack of storage and need to clear the area so the carpet could be taken up and repairs completed. It was obvious that she did not have an alternative room to store her possessions in, or occupy, during the repairs. It also knew she had a mental health condition, and she had told it she was suffering due to the situation. The landlord should have offered a temporary decant to alternative accommodation and having not done so was a significant failing. It also failed to offer to move or store the resident’s possessions during the repairs.
  5. While it did complete the floorboard and joist repairs, it took over 9 months to do this from 5 January 2022, and over a year and a half since it had clear notice of the repairs. This was an unacceptable delay, in breach of its repairs policy and any notion of a reasonable timeframe. Within its stage 2 response, it accepted there had been a delay and offered £170 compensation for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble.
  6. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  7. Accountability starts at the point the matter is reported not at the point a complaint is made. The landlord failed to initially raise the repair and showed no sense of urgency to complete it. It failed to consider the potential seriousness of the repair to suspended floorboards, in the only room the resident had to live, sleep in, and store her possessions. It failed to consider her mental health, provide updates without being chased, or act in an empathetic manner. Its offer of compensation did not represent its serious failings or demonstrate the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles.
  8. There was severe maladministration which caused substantial distress, inconvenience, frustration, time and trouble for the resident. To reflect this an order has been made that the landlord pay £2,090 compensation, which is reflective of approximately 30% of the rent due for the period 9 March 2021 until 7 October 2022, during which the resident did not have full use and enjoyment of the property.

The landlord’s handling of the formal complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy, in use at the time, defined a complaint as per paragraph 1.2 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in use at the time. Despite this, it failed to raise a complaint when the resident’s advocate asked it to, which is allowed under its policy. It also failed to do so when she asked it to on 27 May 2022, in breach of paragraph 1.7 of the Code.
  2. When the landlord raised a stage 1 complaint for the resident it acknowledged and responded within its policy timeframe and in compliance with the Code. However, its response failed to address the complaint and breached paragraphs 5.5 and 5.8 of the Code. Its lack of detail, or empathy, caused the resident to immediately ask for an escalation.
  3. The landlord failed to acknowledge the stage 2 complaint until the resident chased it 19 working days later, well outside of its 2-working day policy timeframe. Although it did acknowledge the escalation, it failed to provide a stage 2 response until 19 September 2023. This was 321 working days after she requested escalation, and despite her chasing it 7 times over that period. This was an inexcusable delay in breach of its policy and paragraph 5.13 of the Code. It also had failed to ask for any extensions of time which was a further failing.
  4. Within its stage 2 response the landlord apologised for the delay and offered £150 compensation. Considering the initial failures to raise complaints, inadequacy of its stage 1 response, and its extreme delay in its stage 2 response there was severe maladministration. To reflect the extended period of inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident an order has been made that the landlord pay £350 compensation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Major repairs to the floor.
    2. The formal complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident, from the chief executive, for the severe maladministration detailed in this report.
    2. Pay directly to the resident additional compensation of £2,440 made up of:
      1. £2,090 for the distress, inconvenience, frustration, time and trouble caused to the resident by its failings in handling the major floor repairs.
      2. £350 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident but its complaint handling failings.
    3. Reimburse the resident for the cost of buying, and having fitted, her floor covering provided she can provide proof of invoice or payment for this.
    4. Confirm compliance with these orders to this Service.

Paragraph 49 investigation

  1. The Ombudsman completed a special investigation report in July 2023 into the landlord using its systemic powers under paragraph 49 of the Scheme. It found the landlord responsible for a series of significant systemic failings impacting residents. These included “residents not being kept informed of the progress of repairs”, and further complaint handling failings which are mirrored in this report. The Ombudsman required the landlord to make changes including improvements to its complaint handling. As the events of the current complaint took place before and during the time of that investigation, no orders or recommendations have been made in addition to those made within the special report.