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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202309085)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309085

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

27 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. Repairs to the resident’s floors.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. She lives in a 4-bedroomed house (the property). The landlord did not have vulnerabilities recorded for the resident, but it was aware that 2 children in the household had health conditions.
  2. The resident reported to the landlord, on 4 November 2022, that the floor had dropped in one bedroom, leaving a gap between the floor and the skirting board. It attended on 16 November 2022 and filled the gap with silicone sealant.
  3. On 21 December 2022 the resident reported that the floors in 2 further bedrooms had dropped. The records indicate that the landlord attended in January 2023 and identified that “it was a very large job to rectify”. On 29 March 2023, the resident said she was unable to confirm a date for the repair as she could not move furniture by herself. She said her housing officer told her an extra operative could be sent to assist with moving furniture. The landlord’s internal records showed that it would not do this. It attended the resident’s property on 4 May 2022 and the job report from this stated that “The job cannot be executed.”
  4. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint with the landlord on 9 May 2023. She said she was unhappy that its contractors had refused to move furniture to allow the floor repair to be completed. The resident said that she was disabled, and the other members of the household had health issues which prevented them from helping to move the furniture.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident later on 9 May 2023. It said that it was the resident’s responsibility to remove furniture ahead of repair work. The landlord said it was not insured to move the resident’s possessions and suggested asking members of the household to help do this.
  6. The resident corresponded with the landlord on 10 May 2023. It said it could move “smaller pieces” of furniture if the resident signed a disclaimer. The landlord made an appointment for 15 June 2023 to inspect the floor. The resident questioned the usefulness of this, saying the floor had been inspected twice before. She escalated her complaint to the final stage of the landlord’s process, which the landlord acknowledged that day. It said that it may take between 20 and 100 days for it to issue its final complaint response.
  7. The landlord issued its final response to the resident on 16 August 2023. It said that it could consider helping the resident with moving the furniture as a “one off”. The landlord noted that she had cancelled the appointment for 15 June 2023 and asked her to arrange a new appointment for the work.
  8. On 14 September 2023, the landlord raised an inspection for the property. It completed this on 2 October 2023 and recorded that a further inspection by a surveyor was required. On 14 October 2023 the resident told us that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the floor repairs, and it had given her conflicting information about whether it would help move furniture.
  9. The resident told us on 19 November 2024 that the landlord offered her £500 in March 2024 as a gesture of goodwill for its handling of the floor repairs. She confirmed that it said it would contact her in April 2024 about the floor repairs, however, it has not responded to her since.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s floors

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that its responsible for repairs to the structure of the property. The policy also confirms that it will aim to complete routine, non-emergency repairs in 25 calendar days.
  2. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 sets out that a resident is obliged to provide access for the landlord of the property to carry out repairs.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy also recognises that sometimes residents are not able to meet their responsibilities. In these cases, it says it “is committed to working with residents to find pragmatic and effective solutions”. It goes on to say that its vulnerable residents policy identifies residents are vulnerable when they are “at risk of being unable to comply with their tenancy requirements”.
  4. The landlord’s records showed that it did not have any pre-existing vulnerabilities recorded for this resident. During her contact with it about the floor repairs, it missed opportunities to identify hers and her family’s vulnerabilities and look at ways it could make reasonable adjustments to assist with the repairs.
  5. When the resident said, on 29 March 2023, that she was unable to move furniture herself, there was no evidence of the landlord asking why. There was also no evidence that it confirmed it would not be able to assist with the furniture, to manage her expectations. As the resident was unable to move her furniture to allow a repair to be completed, this put her at risk of being unable to comply with her tenancy requirement to provide access for repairs. The landlord should have taken the opportunity to implement its vulnerable residents policy. It is not acceptable for landlords to leave properties in need of repair because a resident says they are unable to move furniture.
  6. The landlord’s failure to ask why the resident was unable to move her furniture led to an avoidable delay. It failed to work with the resident to find a pragmatic and effective solution to moving her furniture. This led to it being unable to do the repair when it attended on 4 May 2023, leading to frustration for the resident and prompting her complaint.
  7. When the resident made her stage 1 complaint on 9 May 2023, she explicitly stated that she was disabled, and the other occupants of the property had vulnerabilities. There was no evidence that the landlord paid due to regard to this when considering her complaint. It should have asked her for more information on the vulnerabilities so it could assess what support she may need and update its records accordingly. This was evidenced by its failure to acknowledge her household’s vulnerabilities in its response.
  8. The landlord eventually acknowledged the resident’s household’s vulnerabilities in its final complaint response on 16 August 2023. It suggested that it could move her furniture as a “one off” in light of her circumstances, which was appropriate and in line with its policies, although it should have agreed this much sooner.
  9. However, the landlord should have been more proactive by directly contacting the resident to arrange an appointment to minimise the subsequent delay. Considering that the floors dropped in multiple upstairs rooms, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to prioritise assessing the structural causes and whether any hazards were present. It also did not address the resident’s concern that she had been given conflicting information by its housing officer and its repairs team on whether it would assist with moving furniture.
  10. While the landlord accepted responsibility for moving the furniture and completing the floor repair in its final response, it then subsequently delayed in carrying the work. When the resident raised the repair again on 14 September 2023, the landlord inspected the property on 2 October 2023 and found that further investigation by a surveyor was required. It then failed to follow through with this and the resident confirmed to us that the repair remains outstanding. This failure to follow-through with repairs was unacceptable. It can undermine the landlord-tenant relationship and cause distress and frustration for the resident.
  11. The landlord paid £500 compensation to the resident in March 2024 to recognise its failures in the handling of the floor repair. This amount was broadly in accordance with the level of compensation which the Ombudsman would award for the failings identified. Our remedies guidance, which is available to view on our website, provides for awards of compensation between £100 and £600 where there have been failings by a landlord which had an adverse effect on a resident over a significant period, but which may not have been permanent.
  12. While the landlord’s offer of compensation was in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance, this does not represent reasonable redress to the resident for its failings. The repair remains outstanding, and there is no evidence that the landlord is making efforts to progress the work. Furthermore, it was unreasonable that it took an excessive period to recognise its failures and offer compensation. The landlord also did not demonstrate any learning from the complaint, such as why it did not try to identify the resident’s vulnerabilities, nor why there was an absence of effective communication to manage the resident’s expectations.
  13. Therefore, the landlord’s handling of the floor repair amounts to service failure. The Ombudsman understands that the resident has already received £500 compensation from the landlord, and it will be ordered to provide evidence to us of this. It must also pay an additional £200 compensation to her for its failure to progress the repair the period from March 2024 onwards. The landlord must also carry out a surveyor’s inspection of the property, provide its findings from this to the resident, and complete the repairs identified from the inspection.
  14. The Ombudsman will recommend that the landlord review the wording of its repairs policy. This says that “For routine day to day repairs, we will aim to complete the repair in an average of 25 calendar days.” This wording is unclear as it provides no context for how it calculates this ‘average’. It is also not definitive on how long a routine repair should take, which can lead to uncertainty and frustration for residents. It is the Ombudsman’s established view (in line with industry best practice) that routine repairs should be carried out within 28 days or 1 calendar month. The landlord should consider this approach when reviewing the wording in its repairs policy.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy provides for a 2-stage complaints procedure. At stage 1 of this, it should provide its response within 10 working days and at the final stage it should respond within 20 working days. These timeframes mirror those set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which all landlords which are members of our scheme are required to comply with.
  2. The Code that was in force at the time of the complaint stated “Handling a complaint should include an assessment of what evidence is needed to fully consider the issues, consideration of what outcome would resolve the matter for the resident and urgent actions identified and acted upon.”
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident within a day of receiving the complaint and its response failed to address her vulnerabilities. This indicated that it did not thoroughly consider the issues raised within the resident’s complaint, such as her household vulnerabilities.
  4. When the resident escalated her complaint to the final stage of the landlord’s process, she was told that the response time for its final complaint response could be over 100 days. This was an unreasonably long period and was not compliant with the Code or the landlord’s complaints policy. The Code states that any extension to the normal timeframe for a complaint response should not exceed 10 further working days without good reason, and this reason should be clearly explained to the resident.
  5. The landlord said that the excessive response time for its final response was due to “a backlog”. This does not constitute a good reason in itself. A landlord would be expected to have procedures in place to manage its workload effectively.
  6. When it is unable to meet its normal response timeframe, the landlord should update the resident regularly on the progress of their complaint and provide an updated date for its response. The landlord updated the resident on only one occasion during the 70 days it took to respond at the final stage. This was after 25 working days had already passed and was a standard email which repeated that it would take 20 to 100 days to provide a final response.
  7. The landlord’s handling of the complaint amounts to maladministration. It did not consider the resident’s complaint fully at stage 1, at the final stage it took an excessive period to respond, and it managed her expectations poorly. To recognise the inconvenience the resident experienced by this significant delay, it should pay her compensation of £100. This award is in line with our remedies guidance, as mentioned above.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Service failure by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the resident’s floors.
    2. Maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman to confirm it has complied with the following orders:
    1. Provide evidence that it paid £500 compensation to the resident in March 2024 for its handling of the floor repairs.
    2. Pay the resident £200 compensation for its failure to complete the floor repairs since March 2024.
    3. Pay the resident £100 compensation for its complaint handling failure.
    4. Complete a surveyor’s inspection of the property. The landlord should share the findings of the surveyor’s inspection with the resident and the Ombudsman in writing. This should include details of any repairs to be carried out and estimated timescales for each repair. Any repairs identified on this inspection should then be completed in line with the timeframes in its repairs policy.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should review the wording of its repairs policy to make it clear to residents how long they can expect a repair to take. These timescales should be in line with industry best practice that routine repairs should be carried out within no more than 28 days.