London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202016578)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016578

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

1 September 2022 2022

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 about:
1. Leaks.
2. Lifts.
3. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The original lease dated 2007 was assigned to the resident in 2013. The resident is a shared owner leaseholder. The resident’s property is flat within a block that houses elderly and vulnerable residents, possibly including general needs tenants. The resident’s vulnerabilities are not known. The building has a set of lifts which are acknowledged by the landlord to be near the end of their lifespan (at age 14 out of 15 lifespan during the timeframe of this complaint).
The landlord is responsible for maintaining and keeping in good repair the structure and exterior of the homes as well as common entrance ways, halls, stairways, lifts, passageways and other communal areas, fixtures and fittings for water, gas, heating and sanitation. Key components affected by wear, tear and age will be replaced through a planned programme of work. The landlord is responsible for repairs and maintenance within communal areas, and if work exceeds a cost of £250 per home then it will carry out consultation (in line with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985).
The service standards for repairs are 24 hours for emergency repairs, or 4 hours for out of hours emergency repairs (to make safe). The landlord will complete follow up or other routine repairs within the earliest mutually convenient appointment. The landlord is expected to carry out carry out repairs within a reasonable timeframe, as per the repair policy.
The landlord will consider offering compensation to put things right following a service failure when an apology alone is not sufficient and in recognition of the impact of service loss or failure on a resident. For failures such as failing to respond to a query within 10 working days or failure to respond to a complaint within published timescales, it will make a payment of £10. For missed appointments without 24 hours’ notice it will pay £20. It may also refund insurance payments for leaseholders as a gesture of goodwill. The landlord’s policy sets out that it will partly or fully offset compensation payment or service charge refund against any debt owed by the resident, including rent arrears.
The complaint policy states that stage one complaints are to be responded to within 10 working days and stage two complaints within 20 working days.

Summary of events

There have been reports recorded by the landlord about the lifts not working or getting stuck on various occasions since December 2020. Records indicate that repairs were carried out at the time.
The resident complained in February 2021 about the ‘poor quality works’ that were being carried out to the lift and the number of issues that residents experienced (12 incidents since January 2021). The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint of 10 February 2021 on 11 February 2021 and set out a response timescale of 10 working days.
The landlord arranged a temporary fix of the reported issues until further assessments could be carried out and subsequently updated the resident about an external survey (25 February 2021).
A lift engineer was in communication with the resident about work orders it had raised and about the general status of the lifts; it was explained to the resident that the lift would be recommended for review the following financial year but this could be brought forward depending on issues experienced and it set out a prospective timeline for potential works. In conversation with the landlord, the resident asked for signs to be put up in the lift to show who to call in case of issues.
On 15 March 2021 a leak was reported in the communal cupboard from the flat above. The residents had enquired into this themselves with each other and they could not see a visible leak. The landlord raised a request for this to be investigated but then the job was cancelled.
On 18 March 2021 the landlord noted reports that the leak in the communal cupboard had continued and the ceiling was being warped and collapsing. It raised make safe works to the ceiling. The fire alarm was also recorded as being affected due to the water; make safe works were raised. The two sets of records show that this job was cancelled and completed.
The landlord confirmed that the lift had signs showing who to call in a breakdown installed (12 March 2021) however the resident disputed this (15 March 2021), so the landlord chased this up internally (9 April 2021).
The resident told the landlord of hazards in the building due to the leak, such as slipping from water sodden carpets, plaster boards in disrepair and mould growing on one of the ceilings. The resident said that she cleaned up some of the water as an out of hours operative did not attend (18 – 22 March 2021). On 18 March 2021 the landlord noted that the resident complained about the communal leak, damp and mould, and silverfish all in the communal area. The landlord considered its options in respect of raising an inspection and which appropriately qualified expert it should schedule to attend, based on uncertainty about the leak cause (24 March 2021).
In March 2021 leaks continued to be reported to the landlord and works to repair the damage from the leak were raised. On 19 March 2021 a work order was raised for a plumber to attend and on 22 March 2021 the landlord raised an inspection.
On 25 March 2021 the residents reported the leak again to the landlord. This was reported again on 29 March 2021 (‘uncontainable leak’).
On 26 March 2021 the resident reported to the landlord that the lift was working, however, there were still issues such as the control panel being secured by tape.
In April 2021 the resident requested for her complaint to be escalated (8 April 2021). The resident queried the service charges and insurance which residents had been charged for despite the lack of apparent services/lack of appropriate inspections. The landlord said that the insurance fee of £10 per year was a cost it charged itself, rather than charged for inspections (19 April 2021).
On 21 April 2021 the resident and a group of other residents wrote to the landlord about the lift doors, buttons and loose parts, people being trapped, and late lift inspections. The residents also detailed concerns about health and safety due to leaks, mould and damp in the communal areas, and also reported leak damage to the plasterboard and carpets in the communal areas. This was communicated across two letters which had both been signed by multiple residents.
It is unclear if the landlord progressed the group complaint. After the resident chased the landlord about her complaints on 23 April 2021 it acknowledged her personal complaint (26 April 2021) and agreed a response by 10 May 2021 about the lift and leaks.
The records show that further reports about the leak were raised and recorded by the landlord throughout April 2021. The landlord had carried out enquiries to find the source of the leak but this remained unclear.
Throughout April 2021 multiple reports about the lift were also raised (such as not being called from the ground floor/ both lifts in the property broken down). The individual repairs to the lift were addressed each time, but repairs continued to be reported. Residents experienced being trapped and fire services were called on occasions to release them.
On 29 April 2021 the landlord decided that a surveyor investigation was required following a visit to the property by a contractor. The landlord noted the contractor’s reports that the riser cupboards on the 2nd and 3rd floor were damp, had dripping water, and some of the cupboards had damp with wet floor and damage being caused to the door frame of one of the residents’ flats.
On 4 May 2021 the landlord requested a technician to attend to complete reports on both lifts. The landlord considered the lifts to be to be ‘problematic’ and ‘requiring solutions for residents to reliably use them’. The replacement of the lifts was considered not to be viable at the time.
A survey was subsequently carried out of the lifts by an engineer (7 May 2021). It identified a number of faults. It listed that modernisations were required (install new control panel and associated equipment, car and landing door overhaul, pushes, and indicators). This was required in the next 12 months. The general condition of equipment was noted as being poor.
On 5 May 2021 the Ombudsman prompted the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint. The landlord called and then wrote to the resident, on the same day. It apologised for not escalating the complaint in March and for not following the correct procedure. It understood the complaint to be about the leak and handling of the stage one complaint. It set out a new response deadline of 3 June 2021.
The resident’s MP also contacted the landlord (6 May 2021). They explained that:
1. It contacted the landlord on 7 April 201 about the water leak which had caused damage throughout the building. This was reported as a health and safety issue due to the vulnerable residents.
2. The landlord said that the leak was inspected on 16 April 2021 and then fixed on 29 March 2021 (19 April 2021). However, there was still residual water seeping through. Residents did not feel this had dried out.
3. There were mushrooms growing in cupboards.
4. There were historic issues with damp and mould and the resident had been advised to leave the flat by Environmental Health due to the impact on her lungs. There were heightened concerns about respiratory health due to Covid-19.
5. The residents were aggrieved as they were not receiving services which they were paying for and they experienced delays and poor communications about repairs.
On 10 May 2021 the landlord issued a stage one response and said that:
1. Lifts were subject to monthly maintenance inspections in the event of breakdowns and the mechanical and electrical system operated as designed. If there was a risk of injury then they would be shut off and remedial works actioned.
2. Following recent lift failures, it was working with the lift contractor who tested and passed the lifts with no additional works required. The next inspection was for 13 May 2021 and all previous works were carried out.
3. The lift inspection and remedial repairs teams were merging which would improve their function.
4. The lifts were 14 years old and industry average was 15 years, the lifts were scheduled for refurbishment for 2022/23 financial year. It would not be able to bring this forward due to other prioritised projects and it explained that priorities are based on risk (such as likelihood of total failure).
5. The lifts were safe. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience to residents.
6. The landlord was continuing its enquiries into the water ingress caused to the communal areas (floors 1, 2 and 3). It would provide an update by the end of the week.
On 13 May 2021 the Ombudsman emailed the landlord to state that the resident’s complaints remained unresolved and highlight the Complaint Handling Code and requested the landlord respond to the resident within 10 working days.
On 17 May 2021 the landlord contacted the resident and apologised for the handling of the complaint and confusion caused by this. The resident’s complaints about the lift and the leak were processed separately at stage two having been initially investigated together at stage one.
On 25 May 2021 the landlord sent the resident an acknowledgment of the complaint about the lift and explained that it would escalate this to stage two, with a response scheduled for 8 June 2021.
On 26 May 2021 the landlord received reports about silverfish on the 2nd and 3rd floor carpets with the communal areas and within some flats. It requested an inspection, according to its repair records.
On 1 June 2021 the resident reported an incident where the lift had become stuck and residents were trapped inside. The resident contacted a mobile number of the engineer and she disputed that the alarm in the lift was working (the engineer considered that it was as they spoke to trapped residents through it).
On 3 June 2021 the landlord issued its stage two final response to the leak related complaint.
1. The resident complained on 18 March 2021 about a communal leak, damp and mould in the communal area and silverfish in the communal carpet. She sought for repairs to be completed and an apology for the service.
2. The landlord outlined the repair history of the property in relation to the reports of leaks.
3. A leak was reported on 11 December 2020 and repaired on 12 December 2020.
4. A containable leak was reported on 12 January 2021 for flat 21 and a communal cupboard by flat 15, this was attended on 25 January 2021 and found to be coming from flat 31. This was confirmed by a plumber on 12 March 2021.
5. On 15 March 2021 a repair was raised as there was a report of a leak on the third floor next to flat 19. The landlord attended on 17 and 18 March 2021 and confirmed that the repair had been completed by the relevant leaseholder on 1 April 2021 (flat 29).
6. On 18 March 2021 the landlord raised a repair due to the ceiling near flat 19 and 20 warping from an active leak outside the cupboard of flat 15. The landlord found that the leak was from flat 31 who would be responsible for the repairs. The landlord arranged a wet vacuum for 19 March 2021.
7. On 25 March 2021 a subcontractor investigated the leaks and found that some parts of the communal areas had dried but there was a suspected leak from flat 28.
8. On 27 March 2021 there were emergency works for a collapsed ceiling; the carpenter established that the leak was from a communal cupboard on the third floor next to flat 28.
9. On 29 March 2021 flat 28 was investigated for leaks; a toilet repair was carried out on 3 April 2021 and the leak had stopped.
10. On 26 April 2021 the landlord raised an order to investigate leaks in one of the communal areas; no leaks were found.
11. On 28 April 2021 a plumber attended following work being raised the same day to investigate a leak in the riser cupboards on the second floor which had dripping water and damp. Some other areas were reported to be drying.
12. On 29 April 2021 the landlord raised post work checks for the flat 28 toilet repair and on 11 May 2021 the area was found to be free from leaks.
13. On 12 May 2021 the landlord raised investigative work to flat 30 and this was attended on 21 May 2021. No leaks were found.
14. On 24 May 2021 the landlord raised works and plumbers attended on the same day to identify a leak going into a cupboard. A leak was found in flat 23; the plumbers carried out work and tested to ensure the leak had been fixed. They found a further leak in the communal area which was traced to flat 28; further works were carried out and no additional leaks were found.
15. On 26 May 2021 the resident reported that pipes in the communal riser were wet to touch; the landlord was told by its maintenance team that they could take a while to dry and that they would monitor this.
16. Works were scheduled for 9 June 2021 to make good the damaged walls and ceilings in the communal area and 21 July 2021 (possibly sooner) to replace damaged parts of the riser cupboards.
17. An order was raised with a damp specialist to inspect and clean.
18. It apologised for not addressing the resident’s report of silver fish in the communal areas and within individual flats; it raised a pest contractor to attend (3 June 2021).
19. It apologised for the lack of communication in the stage one investigation and failure to escalate the complaint when requested.
20. It also offered £120 compensation which it broke down as £20 for failure to escalate the complaint on 22 March 2022 and £100 for time and effort in chasing the complaint.
21. It also said that it would not charge residents for the communal repairs including making good from recent leaks, damp and pest control for silverfish.
22. It said that damage caused within individual flats would be the leaseholder responsibility but if there were significant issues then to let it know.
23. The caretaker would provide better communication to the property manager regarding concerns about leaks.
On 23 June 2021 the landlord issued its stage two final response to the lift related complaint.
1. Following the resident’s complaint of 10 February 2021 and 26 April 2021 about the lifts, the landlord issued a stage one response on 5 May 2021.
2. The resident remained dissatisfied and sought for the issues with the lift to be resolved and compensation for the failure of services.
3. The cost of repairs were added to the service charges for 2019/20 and it gave a copy of this. This included regular servicing appointments completed as statutory requirement for lifts and any repairs during the period. The landlord went on to explain the costs of the lift maintenance and how leaseholders were charged.
4. Lift insurance was £10 per year.
5. As per the stage one complaint findings:
  1. The lifts were safe and their systems have operated as designed. If there was a risk of injury they would be shut off immediately and repaired.
  2. Monthly maintenance inspections were carried out in the event of breakdowns.
  3. Following recent failures it was working with the lift and lift regulation contractors to ensure safety was met.
  4. It carried out supplementary tests which had been identified by the lift regulation contractors and the lifts have passed with no additional works required.
  5. The next lift regulation inspection was booked for May 2021. All previous works were carried out.
  6. The landlord explained the changes in the administration of the teams to ensure improved communication and services.
  7. The lifts were at year 14 of the industry average 15 year lifespan and though worn aesthetically they were safe and were scheduled for refurbishment for 2022/23.
6. Following a visit on 13 May 2021 the landlord’s own engineer, the current lift contractor and a senior technician attended and reported further works were required. These were completed.
7. There was a new communication portal set up with the independent engineer to improve communication and record keeping, following a previous report about the engineer not having access to certain documents needed on site.
8. The lift contractor was scheduled to attend service checks every month and the third party independent engineer was scheduled to carry out inspections every 6 months.
9. The landlord set out its actions in respect of resolving the complaint:
  1. The resident requested service charges for missed testing and lack of safety. The landlord said the service was covered under the insurance which was paid (£10 annually) and this would be refunded for 2019/20 and 2020/21.
  2. The resident requested service charges for the fact that the lifts should have been withdrawn from service and they were paying for endless call outs and repairs. The landlord said that all repairs were standard repairs to maintain lifts and that they were serviceable and therefore did not need to be withdrawn.
  3. The landlord directed residents to contact the complaint team directly in respect of reports of individual entrapments, in response to the resident’s reports of stress from being trapped from 2018 – 2020.
  4. Lifts were inspected monthly to confirm compliance with all safety regulations in line with its policy and procedures.
  5. Compensation was awarded as:

(1) £150 for time and effort

(2) £50 for the delay in the stage two response

(3) £20 for the complaint handling

(4) £80 for inconvenience

(5) £20 refund of insurance for two years for the lifts for all residents

The landlord apologised to the resident for the experience she had with the lift repairs and explained that it would offset the resident’s arrears and send the remaining compensation by cheque.

On 17 August 2021 it was reported to the landlord that the lift was stuck again and on 1 November 2021 the resident told the Ombudsman that the leak was ongoing and there was water damage to the second floor.

Assessment and findings

Leaks

The leaks in the block have been ongoing from March 2021 – June 2021. The resident reported that this had recurred in November 2021. The leaks were reported in the cupboards in communal areas and found to be within individual leaseholder flats, such as from a toilet repair in one flat and then from another repair in another flat.
The landlord carried out several inspections to identify the causes of leaks and it arranged repairs to these, as per the repair records. Although this was reasonable, it is possible that there may be a wider issue with the plumbing or associated elements of the building because of the high number of similar reports within a short period of time. It is evident that the individual repairs which the landlord carried out have not resolved the problem, as the leaks persisted.
The landlord referred to inspections in its records and considered engaging in expert opinion to investigate the leaks, however, the expert’s inspection has not been evidenced.
The landlord arranged remedial works for the damp and mould and make safe repairs for items such as the collapsed ceiling. It also agreed not to charge residents for the repairs in the communal areas. These elements of its response were reasonable.
There were many reports of leaks occurring in the building within a short space of time, and although the landlord arranged for individual repairs/investigations with plumbers, it would have been reasonable for it to explore the options to investigate if there was a wider repair or plumbing issue which could be causing the frequent and persistent reports. Therefore, there has been service failure.
It remains unclear whether there have been any repairs identified relating to the riser pipework structures as the inspections have not all been evidenced and the riser cupboards on various floors were often where the leaks were found. An order has been made to carry out an inspection to identify and address any such repairs.

Lifts

The landlord took reasonable steps in its responses to the resident’s report of the lift repair: it repaired the lift on a make safe and routine repair basis each time that issues were reported and it directed its engineer to discuss the status of the lift with the resident from an early point in the complaint journey. This was reasonable because it managed the resident’s expectations and set out the prospective refurbishment plans in the year to come.
Following the resident’s new reports of issues in April 2021 the landlord took reasonable steps to arrange an inspection by an engineer (April 2021). This was carried out on 7 May 2021 and identified a list of items which needed modernising within 12 months. The inspection corroborated the earlier reports about the condition of the lift (poor condition and reaching the end of the average industry lifespan). The landlord’s records indicate that the lift refurbishment work was not scheduled for that financial year and the landlord explained to the resident its position on the lift and how it would maintain its operation. It set out the standards to maintain the safety of the lift (regularly scheduled inspections).
The landlord’s general position was reasonable as it provided the resident with details of how it would manage the overall operation of the lifts until these could be refurbished.
There were outstanding items however, such as the resident’s concern about the control panel and signs in the lift, and her report that the alarm was not working (this was disputed by the operatives at the time who said that the alarm was working). It is unclear if these were addressed following the closure of the complaint; a recommendation has been made in respect of this.
The landlord awarded £230 compensation comprised of £150 for time and effort and £80 for inconvenience. In addition, it refunded of the insurance cost for the lift (£20 for two years). This was resolution focused and reasonable as it recognised the impact caused by the ongoing nature of the lift repairs. The refund of the insurance was in line with the discretion which the landlord has under its compensation policy and therefore appropriate. It was also reasonable for the landlord to detail the steps which residents who had become trapped in the lift could take (ie to contact the landlord directly).
Overall, the landlord did not dispute the resident’s concerns about the repairs and took steps each time to address this. It arranged an inspection which identified outstanding action and a timescale for this to be completed, and it explained to the resident what it would be doing in the meantime to reassure her about the safety of the lifts. It also offered compensation that was fair and proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident. A recommendation has been made in respect of the resident’s outstanding concerns regarding repindividual items in the lift and for an update on the status of the refurbishment work.

Complaint handling

The resident raised her formal complaints in February, March and April 2021 and the landlord issued a joint stage one response in May 2021 followed by separate stage two responses in June 2021. The delays in the complaint handling have not been in line with the landlord’s published timescales and were therefore not appropriate. The resident experienced time and trouble as a result.
However, the landlord offered reasonable redress in recognition of the inappropriate complaint handling which the resident had experienced. The landlord offered compensation which it broke down to reflect the detriment which the resident experienced, such as time and effort for chasing the complaint, failure by the landlord to escalate the complaint, lack of communication, and delays. It also offered an apology.
Overall the landlord’s redress was reasonable as it reflected the dispute resolution principles of putting things right. The landlord offered a total of £190 for the complaint handling, which it presented as:
1. £120 for the handling of the leak complaint (£100 for time and effort for chasing the complaint, and £20 for failure to escalate the complaint).
2. £70 for the handling of the lift complaint (£50 for the delay in the stage two response and £20 for the complaint handling).

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the leaks.
In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the lifts.
In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in respect of the complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord took reasonable steps initially to respond to the individual reports about leaks. It carried out inspections and then undertook repairs on the basis of these. However, it has failed to evidence that it satisfied itself as to whether there has been a wider issue with the plumbing or associated elements, given the high number of reports of leaks within the short space of time. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to investigate this.
It has not been disputed by the landlord that the lifts are reaching the end of their lifespan and the resident was told of the prospective plans to refurbish them. The landlord offered reasonable redress in recognition of the time and trouble which the resident experienced and it evidenced its investigation and plan of action into the lift repairs.
The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint within a reasonable timescale. The landlord took reasonable steps by way of redress for the acknowledged failures in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to carry out an inspection in relation to the resident’s recent reports of leaks, including an inspection of the riser structures and pipework, to identify and address any repairs.
Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £75 for the distress and inconvenience as a result of its highlighted failures in respect of the leaks.

Recommendations

Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is recommended to write to the resident to:
1. Confirm the current action plan for the lift refurbishment works.
2. Confirm an action plan for interim repairs, including an update on:
  1. The resident’s request for signs in the lift to show appropriate contact details in case of breakdown.
  2. The resident’s report about the broken lift alarm.
  3. The resident’s report about the control panel.
Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is recommended to send out a block letter with clear details of how to report issues with the lift.
Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is recommended to update the resident to confirm that the fire alarms which were affected by the leak/ceiling repairs have been repaired and tested.
Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is recommended to pay the resident its offers of redress agreed under the complaint process, if it has not done so already.