London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202323505)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323505

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

30 October 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
1. A rodent infestation in her building.
2. A defective front entry door to the building and faulty intercom system
3. Damage to the roof of the building.
4. Issues regarding the communal bins.
5. Issues regarding grounds maintenance
6. Concerns about staff conduct.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of a shared-ownership property. The landlord is the freeholder. The property is a 2 bed first floor flat in a block. The resident has health needs including chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia and Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (EDS) which affect her mobility.
The landlord replaced the front door to the resident’s block in 2020. The landlord had received reports that the door was not closing properly from August 2020. The resident reported this to the landlord on 29 September 2022, 16 and 18 October 2022. There were also problems with the intercom system to the block. These issues had led to security concerns, with uninvited visitors entering the block and causing nuisance.
In July 2022 there was a storm that caused damage to the roof of the block. Scaffolding was erected in November 2022 and the landlord scheduled repairs for February 2023. The repairs were completed in June 2023.
In October 2022, the resident reported that there were rats in the walls and loft area in the building. The landlord arranged for pest control to attend on 7 and 29 December 2022 to bait the property.
Between January and November 2023, the resident made 4 different complaints to the landlord about:
1. The ongoing rodent infestation, the conduct of its contractors and the landlord’s failure to address this appropriately. The resident had to pay for pest control to fumigate her loft space after a decaying rat carcass caused a fly infestation in the property.
2. Delays to repairs to the roof.
3. Delays to repairs to the front door and intercom.
4. Staff conduct and communication.
5. Its failure to arrange with the council to remove the surplus communal bins that were not being used, and that they were paying for.
6. its failure to provide a grounds maintenance service in 2023 and requesting a refund in her service charge for this.
The landlord responded to these complaints, providing an update on the proposed plan to resolve the issues, and offering redress as follows:
1. An apology for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its service failures.
2. It would pay the resident £300 to reimburse her for the costs she had incurred in dealing with the rat issue in her flat.
3. Costs of £680 for external proofing and roof space baiting and proofing would not be passed to residents through the service charge.
4. £65 would be refunded in the service charge for 2022/2023 for bin charges.
5. It offered additional compensation as follows:

(1) £100 compensation for loss of communal garden space.

(2) £140 for complaint handling failures

(3) £80 for distress and inconvenience

(4) £140 for her time and effort

The resident wrote to the landlord on 17 November 2023 to express her dissatisfaction with its offer of redress. The landlord responded on 24 November 2023 with an update with an increased offer of compensation as follows:
1. £720 which comprised of £60 per month for 12 months for the resident’s distress and inconvenience caused by the rat infestation.
2. A refund in the service charge of £220 had been given to leaseholders for non-attendance of the grounds maintenance team for the period 2022-2023.
3. a further refund for grounds maintenance would be available in September 2024.
4. All leaseholders would also receive £170.80 compensation for the lack of grounds maintenance.
Following a request from the resident in December 2023, the landlord agreed to escalate the resident’s complaints to stage 2 and address them in one response.
In February 2024 the landlord agreed to refund leaseholders a £100 management fee for all back-office input.
On 7 March 2024, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said that:
1. It apologised for the delay in the response and that this was due to an increased volume of work.
2. It apologised for the impact the rodent infestation and the intercom system had on the resident’s health and wellbeing. It directed her to its insurers for help with making a personal injury claim.
3. It apologised for the delays in staff communication. It said there had been some changes in the team and it had since appointed a new staff member to the block.
4. It apologised for the distress the infestation had caused her.
5. Works to proof the drains and some of the exterior parts of the building were pending. Contractors were due to inspect the resident’s loft space, and they would attend and replace any contaminated insulation in the loft space thereafter. It apologised for the distress this had caused the resident.
6. The landlord was exploring the cost for a new front entrance door, and this may require a section 20 consultation. It had installed a new intercom system in January 2024. It would address any new reported issues with the intercom as a priority.
7. It completed the roof repairs on 9 June 2023, and it would not charge residents for the added costs for the period the scaffold was erected.
8. It was in contact with the council to reduce the number of bins provided.
9. The grounds maintenance contract was ending in April 2024, and it would arrange a meeting with the new contractors around this time.
10. It would include any refund for residents not being able to use their garden during the summer months in the finalised service charge in September 2024.
11. It awarded further compensation of £1500 which included:
  1. £980 for the resident’s distress and inconvenience
  2. £200 for her time and effort
  3. £320 for the delay in its stage 2 response

Post internal complaints procedure.

Pest contractors attended again on the following dates:
1. On 14 and 19 March to complete proofing work to the exterior of the building and bait the loft space of the resident’s flat and the neighbouring flat.
2. On 26 March and 11 April 2024 to inspect baiting points and found that no further bait was taken.
3. It cleared and reinsulated the loft space on 15 April 2024.
4. On 2 May 2024, pest contractors inspected the loft space and found no further issues.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 20 June 2024 about the replacement of the building front door and entrance as part of its s20 consultation. Following further discussion with leaseholders between June and October 2024, the landlord confirmed in October 2024 that it would meet the cost of replacing the front entrance door.
On 21 August 2024, the landlord wrote to the leaseholders to update them that it was working with contractors to obtain a quote for laying new turf in the communal garden. In October 2024, the landlord confirmed that it was finalising the plans with the grounds contractors and would inform them of them and when they had a date for the works to start. The resident was unhappy with the amount of time it had taken to resolve the issues and referred her complaint to this Service for investigation.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
1. Be fair.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.

This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is fair and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure found.

Scope of the investigation

The resident has raised several new issues with the landlord which do not relate to the complaint under investigation. These include the cleaning of communal areas in the block, the standard of workmanship with tree pruning in the garden and the grounds to the block, replacement of a broken plug in the communal area, window cleaning, the repair of the back door to the building, clearing of guttering, broken fencing and querying costs included with the service charge accounts.
In the interests of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if needed.
The resident has also said that the ongoing stress of the issues raised in her complaint have had a detrimental effect on her mental health. While this Service is an alternative to the courts, we are unable to find legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Neither can we calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. Should the resident wish to pursue this aspect of her complaint, she should obtain independent legal advice or raise this with her landlord’s insurers.
The resident had also raised in her complaint that the delays in roof repairs put the affected occupants at risk of leaks, damp and mould and caused a security risk to the occupiers of the flats outside which it had erected the scaffolding. She also said that she was unhappy that the scaffolding was in place for an extended period and that this cost would be covered by the leaseholders in the block through the service charge. While the Ombudsman can investigate how the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint about the added costs of the scaffolding, the scaffolding and the area of roof damaged did not affect the resident’s flat we cannot consider the impact on other occupiers. This is because paragraph 42.n. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters which do not cause a significant adverse effect to the complainant.
Prior to this investigation, the Ombudsman had published a special report in relation to the landlord, under paragraph 49 of the Scheme. The investigation reviewed 103 complaints referred to the Ombudsman over a six-month period up to June 2023. It found common points of failure and made recommendations for improvement. The investigation resulted in a special report which we published in July 2023 and is available on our website (housing-ombudsman.org.uk). The landlord has provided the Ombudsman with its improvement plan and the Ombudsman is monitoring its progress in making the changes that are needed.
Some of the events in this case took place over the same period as that investigation, and some of the findings of the Ombudsman’s special report are relevant to this case. While reference has been made to these findings in this report, the Ombudsman has not made any orders or recommendations that would duplicate those included in the Ombudsman’s special report.
This investigation is based on the landlord’s response to the resident’s formal complaint, which is broadly reflected in the above timeline. While the resident has since raised further complaints with the landlord, they will not be considered as part of this investigation. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a rodent infestation in the building

Landlords must consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Pest infestations, including rodent infestations, fall within the scope of HHSRS. Pests create a risk of cross contamination and infection, carry disease, and can infect food and surfaces.
The Ombudsman’s guidance on pest control says that landlord should not place the onus on the resident to resolve the problem. Landlords should investigate the root cause fully before deciding who is responsible. The Ombudsman acknowledges that it can take multiple attempts to resolve a pest infestation, therefore it is key to keep the resident updated during this time and be clear with communication and timescales to manage expectations.
The landlord’s repairs policy covers pest infestations. It says that it will deal with all pests in its managed communal areas, internal and external, and where the resident is vulnerable, in line with its vulnerable residents policy. The policy defines a vulnerable resident as someone with any condition or circumstance that places them at risk in their home, puts them at risk of being unable to follow the conditions of their tenancy or lease and affects their ability to access its services.
Its repairs policy says that it aims to complete routine repairs in 25 calendar days. It will address emergency repairs in 24 hours.
There were delays in arranging for pest contractors to attend the property. The resident first reported this on 24 October 2022, and contractors did not attend until 7 December 2022. This was 22 days outside of its target response timescales. In the absence of an explanation, this delay was unreasonable. Following the resident’s complaint the landlord took appropriate action to arrange 4 further pest control appointments in February and March 2023 to bait and block entry points in flats and communal areas.
Following inspections in March 2023, contractors had recommended that the loft space to the building be proofed and baited and rodent access points through damaged air bricks to the exterior of the property be blocked. However, this did not happen until December 2023 and January 2024 which was an extensive delay for which the landlord has not provided an explanation. Further while the landlord arranged to block rodent access points to the front of the building, it delayed in proofing the air bricks to the exterior of the building until March 2024. This was unreasonable.
The resident reported in July 2023 that the grounds contractors had not attended since summer 2022, and the grass had grown very high. While it is unknown whether this was a contributory factor in the rat infestation, the landlord should have been aware that an overgrown garden can often harbour rat nests, and it should have taken prompt action to clear the garden to reduce this risk. This did not happen until October 2023.
Between January and May 2024, the landlord arranged for contractors to undertake baiting and inspect traps at regular intervals, it also reinsulated the resident’s roof space after it had checked that there was no re-infestation and the baits were untouched. It completed a drain survey and installed rat blockers.
The landlord did take steps to address the rat infestation, and it was right to consider resources by reviewing the efficacy of treatments and prevention measures before considering other steps it needed to take. Nonetheless, the process which should have taken several months from start to finish, took over 18 months in total which was unreasonable. This was a theme within Ombudsman’s ‘Special Report,’ which described the landlord as “slow to respond to hazards” and said that “residents suffered excessive and unexplained delays, sometimes over a period of years.”
The resident experienced significant detriment during this period. She said that she could not sleep at night with the sound of rats above her ceiling and in the walls. She said she was embarrassed to have visitors because of the obvious presence of rats in the building. On 2 separate occasions, she discovered decaying carcasses of dead rats in her loft space, causing a fly infestation and a foul odour. She said that the ongoing stress had an impact on her mental health.
In its complaint response, the landlord did acknowledge service failure in these delays and offered the resident compensation of £300 to reimburse her for her costs, £720 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the rat infestation and an assurance that the landlord would not recover the costs of treatment from the resident’s service charge.
An additional amount of £1050 was offered at stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints procedure for the resident’s distress and inconvenience, time and effort due to the matters raised in the resident’s stage 1 complaint about the faulty door, rat infestation, roof repairs, communal bins and staff conduct. The landlord has not outlined how this amount had been apportioned between each complaint heading. The Ombudsman has therefore attributed £210 to each aspect of the complaint. In total therefore, the landlord has offered the resident £990 for her distress and inconvenience, time and trouble and £300 to reimburse her for actual financial loss. It has also agreed to meet the costs of pest treatment itself.
The resident should be aware that the Ombudsman’s consideration of redress is not to award ‘damages’ in the way that a court or insurance company might but to ensure an amount is awarded that proportionately recognises a likely level of distress and inconvenience experienced by a resident, due to any identified service failures on a landlord’s part. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress is as relevant as the original mistake or service failure.
Following the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the landlord’s offer of redress was within the range of remedies for a failure of this type. Accordingly, the Ombudsman finds that its offer of redress resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
The resident has said that she believes that there has been a further infestation of rats at the address since she had referred her complaint to this Service for investigation. A recommendation has therefore been included with this report that the landlord liaise with the resident regarding this issue. Should the resident remain dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, she may wish to raise a new complaint.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a defective front entry door to the building and faulty intercom system

A landlord must consult leaseholders if it wants to complete major works funded by the service charge. These requirements are set out in section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the process outlined in associated secondary legislation. The process has three stages and can take 11 weeks to complete.
In her complaint of January 2023, the resident said that the landlord had sent 3 contractors previously to repair the door, but the repairs had been unsuccessful, and the door would not close properly. The door was presenting a security risk, and uninvited visitors were entering the property and causing nuisance. Poor record management led to a failure to diagnose the cause of the issue at the first attempt with conflicting views from different contractors leading to a confused picture over what the landlord needed to do to resolve the issue.
The resident said that there were 2 issues with the door: the faulty intercom system and the door itself which would not close properly. She believed that the front entrance door, fitted in 2020, was never fit for purpose.
There is no evidence that the landlord considered how to approach the door repair in a planned way. Instead, it looked at each issue in isolation which meant that the door repair was left unresolved for an extended period. This was a theme in the Ombudsman’s Special Report which said that “the landlord showed a narrow, fragmented approach to repairs – only dealing with what was presented at the time, rather than looking at the overall picture to resolve issues and stop them happening again.”
There were significant delays in the steps taken to inspect and replace the intercom system. Orders for surveys were delayed, raised orders were closed in error. While the landlord was required to consult with leaseholders following s20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, and the process can be lengthy, in this instance the consultation process was delayed and there was a second consultation process at the leaseholders’ request as the first had not been undertaken correctly. There were problems getting orders signed-off and staff chased different teams for a response. There was no tracking of repair progress when they extended beyond target timescales for response, and no effective structure or clear escalation process for decision-making, contributing to further delays.
While the landlord completed repairs pending the replacement of the systems, they were a short-term solution. When contractors fitted the new intercom system January 2024, the resident reported problems with it a short while thereafter.
The landlord raised an order to survey the front door in December 2023, almost 12 months after the resident had raised a complaint about this. Its contractors confirmed that the door “must be replaced with a secure door.” It was necessary for the landlord to undertake a further s20 process, but it delayed this until June 2024. It was only in October 2024 that the landlord confirmed that it would meet the cost of the replacement door in full. To date, the landlord has not told the resident when it will replace the door.
Here the case again reflected the themes of the Ombudsman’s ‘Special Report’ which described how “at times the resident would know more about the progress of the repair than the landlord, such was the poor communication and record keeping with contractors” and that “the same repairs were raised on multiple occasions, often closing an issue as resolved only to reopen it when the resident got back in touch to say that the issue was not resolved”.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of repairs to, and the replacement of, the door was lacking. There was a lack of accountability. The landlord did not take ownership of the works, and it was only once the resident raised this as a complaint that the door repair was progressed. However, it was poorly planned and co-ordinated and almost 2 years after the resident had raised her complaint, the landlord is yet to resolve the issue satisfactorily.
In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged the poor service the resident had received and offered an apology. It was positive that the landlord recognised its repeat failures and awarded the resident further compensation.
The resident has experienced detriment because of the landlord’s delays in replacing the door. She has described how she felt anxious because the door was insecure. She was concerned about security. and she spent a significant amount of time and effort chasing this with the landlord. It is not clear from the evidence that this was a factor that the landlord considered. Furthermore, the issue is still outstanding 7 months after the landlord completed its internal complaints process.
As noted earlier in this report, in the absence of information about how the award has been apportioned, the Ombudsman assigns £40 of the £130 offered at stage 1 in relation to the faulty door and £210 of the £1050 offered at stage 2. This Service considers that the total amount of £250 awarded is not proportionate to the detriment experienced by the resident. The Ombudsman therefore finds maladministration and orders the landlord to pay the resident an added £350 in compensation. This award is reflective of the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for financial redress where there has been a failure that has had a significant impact on the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage to the roof of the building.

A storm in July 2023 caused the damage to the roof of the building. This was an insured risk under the building insurance policy, and the landlord would have raised these works as an insurance claim.
Works under an insurance claim can extend beyond the timescales outlined in the landlord’s repairs policy. However, the landlord should ensure that it consults with its insurers and communicates updates to leaseholders regularly, so that it can reassure them that matters are in hand.
In its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses, the landlord told the resident that leaseholders would not pay for the costs of scaffolding and roof repairs as these would be covered by the insurance claim. The resident has since informed this Service that the amended service charge accounts for 2023-2024 have included an amount for roof repairs. As this does not form part of the resident’s complaint, this will not be considered further as part of the investigation. However, a recommendation has been included with this report, that the landlord provide clarification to the resident about this issue. Should the resident take issue with the landlord’s response, she should raise a new complaint.
The landlord has not provided evidence that it communicated with the resident about the delays to the works over this time. It did not manage expectations or provide assurances that the matter was in hand. The resident spent time and effort in following this up with the landlord.
As above, the Ombudsman has apportioned £210 of the £1050 awarded by the landlord at stage 2 as compensation for the roof repairs. This amount, in addition to the landlord’s agreement to waive the fee of £65 for the refuse collection for this period, puts things right for the resident. It is also reflective of the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for a failure that has had an adverse effect on the resident. The Ombudsman therefore makes a finding of reasonable redress regarding this aspect of the complaint.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of issues regarding the communal bins

The resident raised in her complaint of January 2023 that she had been asking for some time for it to remove several of the wheelie bins that leaseholders did not use or that were broken. She said that they were being charged for this Service that they did not need. Despite assurances in the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 20 February 2023 that it would liaise with the Council to remove the extra bins, this was not resolved promptly. There was no further progress until it was picked up by another staff member in January 2024 who arranged for the council to remove excess bins and replace broken bins.
While the landlord appropriately removed the amount of £65 from the resident’s service charge for this, it did not address the issue for 11 months, which was unreasonable. As with earlier in this report, the Ombudsman apportions £210 of the £1050 compensation offered at stage 2 of its complaints procedure to this aspect of the complaint in recognition of the resident’s distress, inconvenience, time and trouble. The Ombudsman considers that the amount offered in compensation by the landlord is reasonable and resolves this aspect of the complaint satisfactorily.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.

The resident expressed dissatisfaction in relation to the conduct of the landlord’s staff. She said that the landlord did not return her emails and telephone calls, and she did not receive updates about the issues she had raised. In investigating a complaint about staff conduct, the Ombudsman will not form a view on whether the actions of individual staff members themselves were right. Instead, it is this Service’s role to decide whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the complaint, and took proportionate action based on the information available to it.
For staff conduct complaints, landlords should investigate the reports. It should explain to the resident what its investigation entails and what actions, if any, it intended to take as a result. The landlord’s complaints policy explains that while it would not divulge, for reasons for confidentiality, the outcome of those investigations, it would explain what its investigation involved.
There was a high turnover off staff during the period of the complaint. It is clear from the records that some staff members did spend considerable time trying to progress the issues raised with them by the resident, however decision making about works, renewal and resources were often delayed due to ineffective escalation processes and barriers with information sharing.
The landlord did receive a high volume of contact from the resident and other leaseholders in the block about the same issues over this time. The landlord says that it will respond to correspondence from residents within 5 working days and it did not always meet these targets. This was also another theme in the Ombudsman’s special report which said that the landlord did not keep residents informed of the progress of their repairs leading them to chase and complaint about issues.
While the Ombudsman accepts that a high volume of correspondence in relation to a particular issue can affect service delivery, the landlord could have responded to this, in line with its complaints policy, by putting in place a formal agreement for contact through “agreed and appropriate routes”. This would have better managed the resident’s expectations.
In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged that the communication from some staff fell below the standards it would expect. It confirmed that it had spoken with the staff members involved and it had appointed a new member of staff to the block. It met with the resident and her neighbours and agreed to prepare an action plan, which it would update at regular intervals to let residents know how matters were progressing. It apologised to the resident and awarded £100 refund of its management fee. It also offered £40 at stage 1 of its complaint response for her time and effort. As above, the Ombudsman has also apportioned £210 of its stage 2 award of £1050 for distress, inconvenience, time and effort to this aspect of the complaint.
This Service is satisfied that the landlord investigated the complaint about staff and looked to put things right by offering an apology and appointing a new member of staff. It also looked to improve communication through its action plan. The Ombudsman considers that the redress offered by the is reasonable and resolves this aspect of the complaint satisfactorily.
The resident has said that, since referring her complaint to this Service, she continues to raise issues about the landlord’s response times to correspondence. Should the resident remain dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, she may wish to raise a new complaint.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of issues around grounds maintenance

The resident first raised the matter of grounds maintenance with the landlord in a complaint dated July 2023, however it did not take steps to clear the overgrown garden until after the resident had referred the matter to her MP in September 2023. In correspondence with the resident the landlord agreed to arrange a tree survey and to meet with the contractor. While the landlord had conceded that the contractor’s performance was poor, it had said that the contract was up for renew in the next financial year and it would liaise with the new contractor in advance of the contract’s commencement.
This was an inadequate response. At the time of the resident’s complaint, there were 8 months left on the contract. No evidence has been provided that the landlord took further steps to monitor the performance of the existing contractors or make other provision for grounds maintenance. From the landlord and the resident’s correspondence, there was no further progress until October 2024 when the landlord confirmed that the ongoing grounds works had been costed and approved. In the absence of an explanation from the landlord about this delay, this Service concludes that it was unreasonable.
In its complaints response refunded the residents £220 for service charge costs in relation to grounds maintenance for the period 2022-2023 and £100 to the resident not being able to use the garden. It would provide a further refund for the period 2023-2024 at the year accounting end. It also said that all residents would receive £170.80 in compensation for the lack of grounds maintenance and use of the communal garden. Further, the Ombudsman has apportioned £40 of the £130 compensation offered by the landlord at stage 2 of its complaints process for the resident’s distress and inconvenience, time and effort because of its failure to address the grounds maintenance issue promptly.
In this instance, the landlord put things right reimbursing the resident for the service charges for the period when it had not received a grounds maintenance service. It also offered compensation in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there has been a failure that has had an adverse effect on the resident. Accordingly, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s offer of redress is reasonable and resolves this aspect of the complaint satisfactorily.

The landlord’s complaints handling

The landlord’s complaints policy outlines a two-stage complaints process. It will provide stage 1 complaint responses within 10 working days of receipt and provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days of an escalation request. It will keep residents updated if it cannot fulfil its obligations within the published timescales.
In correspondence with the resident, the landlord has said that changes in the landlord’s complaint handling processes introduced by the Ombudsman have resulted in a higher volume of complaints leading to a backlog, which has meant the landlord has not been able to meet its published response timescales. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) requires that basic standards of good complaint handling be adhered to, and the landlord should have sufficient resource in place to meet the Code and its timescales.
The Code says that landlords should provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days of a request to escalate, with a 10-working day extension permissible if needed. This is reflected in the landlord’s own complaints policy. While the Ombudsman acknowledges the resourcing issues in its complaint handling team which the landlord described, this does not remove its obligation to provide residents with a timely response to their complaint in line with the Code.
The resident made 4 complaints between January and November 2023, and although the landlord agreed to escalate all the complaints, a stage 2 response was not forthcoming until March 2023, 14 months after the resident’s first complaint. This was unsatisfactory. This delay not only resulted in the resident waiting a significant amount of time for a decision on her complaint, but also denied the resident her right to bring her complaint to this Service for investigation earlier.
This Service also notes that there was a lack of clarity in the landlord’s complaint responses as to which aspects of the complaint it upheld and how the landlord has apportioned compensation.
While the landlord had apologised for these delays and awarded the resident in total the amount of £460 in compensation, the landlord has not committed, in its complaint responses, to reducing response times or shown how it is working towards this outcome.
This Service therefore finds maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling, however further compensation has not been awarded. This is because this Service has made a wider order under paragraph 54.f. of the Scheme in case 202223386 about the landlord’s delays in its complaints handling. The Ombudsman is in discussion with the landlord in relation to this matter. The Ombudsman has therefore not included any orders or recommendations in this report that would duplicate those included in the wider order or in the special investigation report.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in its response to the resident’s reports of a rodent infestation in the building, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to the investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports about a defective front entry door to the building and faulty intercom system.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in response to the resident’s reports about damage to the roof of the building, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in its response to the resident’s reports of issues regarding the communal bins, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to the investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, in its response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to the investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of issues around grounds maintenance, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident prior to the investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaints handling.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to:
1. Pay the resident £600 in compensation for the resident’s distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble for the faulty door which comprises of:
  1. £250 previously awarded by the landlord, if not already paid to the resident.
  2. £350 additional compensation.
2. If it has not done so already, pay the resident £460 in compensation for the resident’s distress, inconvenience, time and trouble offered to the resident at stage 1 and stage 2 of its complaints procedure because of its complaint handling failings.
3. Confirm with the Ombudsman when this payment has been made.
Within 5 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should write to the resident setting out when the front door will be replaced. A copy of the letter should be provided to the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the resident the amount of £1690 that it offered the resident in compensation as part of its internal complaints procedure.
The landlord should provide an explanation to the resident about an amount that it has included in the end of year accounts for roof repairs.
The landlord should contact the resident about her recent reports of a reinfestation of rats in the building and arrange a further pest control inspection.