London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202210464)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210464

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

28 March 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 resident’s reports of a leak.
The Ombudsman has also looked at the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident occupies a property under an assured tenancy that commenced on 15 March 2010. The property is situated within a listed building and is a first-floor flat with 1 bedroom. The household includes a dependent child, and the resident suffers from anxiety and depression.
The resident’s roof has a pitch, a central gulley, a central gulley and a drainpipe to the rear. The resident’s property also has overhanging trees. The resident reported that there was a leak coming through her living room ceiling lighting fixture on 15 March 2010. Between 15 March 2010 and 5 January 2024, the resident reported the same repair on 29 occasions.
Between 15 March 2010 and 5 January 2024, the landlord attended the property on several occasions. The landlord’s consistent approach was to:
1. Make safe the electrics.
2. Inspect the roof and clear the gutter.
3. Re-instate the electrics.
On 5 April 2023, the landlord’s contractor recommended that it replace the roof. The landlord told this service this occurred on 8 May 2023. On 21 September 2023, the resident reported her ceiling had collapsed. The landlord offered the resident temporary accommodation whilst it carried out investigations into the source of the leak and made safe the ceiling. On 7 December 2023, the landlord told the resident that it had reinstated her electrics, and it was safe to return to the property. The resident reported that the roof was leaking again 5 days later and again on 5 January 2024. The landlord provided the resident with an action plan on 10 January 2024 to:
1. Inspect the internal roof space.
2. Erect scaffolding.
3. Arrange an independent survey of the roof.
4. Complete the internal plastering work within 5 working days.
The resident raised the following complaints:
1. On 28 July 2021, the roof had been leaking since she moved in and there was no lasting repair (‘The first complaint’).
2. On 23 January 2023, operatives had attended her property to plaster the ceiling but had left a large hole. The operative refused to paint the ceiling. She also said there was plaster down her other walls (‘The second complaint’).
3. On 14 April 2023, there was a continuous leak that was filtering into her property through the electrics and her property had flooded on multiple occasions. The resident said that the leak was still occurring. The landlord merged this complaint with the first complaint.
In its stage 1 responses the landlord said:
1. To the first complaint, there was no permanent solution to the roof because of its design. However, it would raise a roof repair and clear the gutter.
2. To the second complaint, it could not investigate repairs dating further back than 12 months. The operative could only paint the area that was being worked on and if there was damage to her walls it could offer her a decorating voucher. However, if the resident provided pictures of the damage, it would consider any further action it might take.
The resident did not respond further to the second complaint, and this was closed by the landlord. However, she escalated her first complaint on 2 November 2021 because:
1. The leak remained unresolved.
2. She had never been told the roof design was an issue despite reporting the leak for a prolonged period.
3. She wanted to know if it was legal for the landlord to leave her property with this reoccurring issue and she was concerned her complaint was being closed.
4. The living room light had not been reinstated due to the risk of further leaks.
It is stage 2 response on 20 October 2022, the landlord said:
1. It explained why the roof had the potential for leaks in its initial response.
2. The roofing contractor had recommended the nearby trees being trimmed as a permanent solution or regular clearing of the gutters.
3. Upon attending the property, the roofing supervisor acknowledged that the leak was ongoing due to the property being situated in a listed building. The supervisor assured that contractors would be arranged to carry out necessary works for the property and expressed confidence in having the situation under control. It did not explain which works it proposed to undertake.
4. It offered the resident £370 for distress and inconvenience, time and trouble and its complaint handling.
The landlord “re-activated” the resident’s complaint on 21 September 2023. It also sent a further final response on 24 October 2023. The landlord said:
1. It would agree to look at the roof again and work towards a lasting solution. The landlord referred the surveyor and roofing contractor to oversee this, but the work did not occur.
2. When the resident re-contacted the landlord about the complaint, it had not re-opened the complaint but left the matter with its operatives to monitor the work. It said more should have been done and repairs monitored more closely which could have prevented the ceiling collapse. However, there would be a single point of contact for the repairs and the complaint going forward.
3. It had offered her 5 properties on a temporary basis, but the resident felt they were all unsuitable. It had since provided her with hotel accommodation whilst the leak was being investigated and it carried out the repairs. It said hotel accommodation would be available to her if was necessary to carry out the investigation and repairs.
4. It provided its insurance provider’s details so she could claim the loss of her belongings.
5. The roofing contractors had assessed the roof but could find no obvious source of the leak.
6. It offered £1,540 compensation which it offset against her rent account. This was for the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble and its complaint handling.
At the time of writing this report, the landlord is unaware of the root cause of the leak and the resident told this service the leak remains unresolved. The resident is seeking compensation and for the landlord to move her to permanent alternative accommodation.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are to:
1. Be fair.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.
This service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

Scope of investigation

The evidence presented to the Ombudsman shows that the resident reported the leak when she moved into the property in 2010. Therefore, this service has used its discretion to include evidence from this period as part of the investigation to look into the wider handling of this complaint.

Reports of a leak

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (‘the Act’) places a statutory obligation on landlords to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of properties. It is responsible for walls, roofs, drains, gutters and the fixtures and fittings for electricity. Once a resident notifies it of an issue, landlords are responsible for effecting lasting and effective repairs. Landlords should also ensure that it completes repairs promptly to avoid affecting the resident’s enjoyment and use of their property.
Section 9A of the Act created an implied obligation that a landlord must ensure a property is fit for habitation on the day of letting and throughout the tenancy as well as to uphold the resident’s quiet enjoyment of the property. A property will not be fit for human habitation where it is not reasonably suitable for occupation because of disrepair, damp or is affected by a prescribed hazard (s.10).
The Housing Act 2004 established the ‘Housing Health and Safety Rating System’ (HHSRS). The HHSRS outlines several hazards which would mean that a property does not meet the ‘decent home standard.’ This includes consideration of general lighting provisions in domestic premises and specifically highlights within section 23.18 that the presence of water near electrical installations is likely to affect the occurrence and severity of an outcome for severe harm. The Regulator of Social Housing enforces this expectation through its ‘home standard’ which all social landlords must adhere to.
The landlord categorises repairs as the following:
1. Emergency works where there is an immediate danger to the occupant or members of the public. The landlord will attend to these repairs within 24 hours.
2. Emergency works occurring out of hours. The landlord will attend to these repairs within 4 hours to make them safe and lower the immediate risk. Any follow-on repairs are then completed at the next mutually convenient appointment.
3. Routine day-to-day repairs. The landlord aims to complete these repairs in an average of 25 calendar days.
The evidence shows that the landlord was aware of the presence of a re-occurring leak which was affecting the electrics of the property before the commencement of the resident’s tenancy and as early as 2006. The Ombudsman would have expected, during the time the property was void, the landlord to have undertaken sufficient investigations to rectify what it had noted on its repair logs between 2006 to 2008 as an ‘ongoing’ and ‘long term’ problem. It is concerning to note that although the landlord was aware of both the leak and the subsequent danger posed to the electrics, it continued to let the property to the resident. This was a significant failure.
Between 15 March 2010 and 5 January 2024, the resident reported the leak on 29 occasions. The repair logs noted the issue as “ongoing.” The evidence shows that the works order for the leak was generally accompanied by further work orders for “faulty” and “tripping electrics.”
The Ombudsman finds it concerning that there was a consistently reported repair that posed a hazard to the electrics in the property over a prolonged period. This service would have expected the landlord to have identified this and mitigated the risk to the resident at the earliest opportunity.
Throughout this period the repair records show the landlord carried out the following actions:
1. Raised works to inspect the leak on 15 occasions between 27 August 2010 and 12 November 2021. The landlord’s records did not contain detailed reports of the assessments and/or findings of its inspections.
2. Arranged for the roofing contractor to assess the property on 6 occasions between 1 December 2021 and 24 April 2023. During these appointments, the contractors cleaned the pre-existing tiles, replaced felting, and replaced tiles. In or around October 2022 it also replaced the roof batons and underlaying to the roof.
3. Arranged for the electrics to be re-instated on 5 occasions between 22 July 2016 and 14 November 2023. During these appointments, the contractors made safe the electrics and later re-instated them.
4. Arranged for the gutter to be assessed on 8 occasions between 23 October 2012 and 20 October 2022. During these appointments, the landlord instructed its contractors to clear the gullies to unblock the drains. In or around August 2022 it realigned the gulley boards and installed new timber boards.
5. On 11 October 2022, the internal communications confirm that it sought legal advice and found that should an electrical fire break out, it would be responsible for any harm to individuals.
In addition, the landlord’s contractors recommended the following actions as a resolution:
1. On 12 October 2022, lopping the trees in the vicinity of the roof. It also recommended cleaning the gutter on a cyclical basis.
2. On 5 April 2023, replacing the roof. The landlord incorrectly raised this as a job to re-inspect the roof and fix the leak.
On 14 April 2023, there was a suggestion made by the complaints team to raise the gulley at one end by a couple of centimetres so that the rain drains away adequately instead of sitting in the valley and causing further leaks. The Ombudsman notes this was not a recommendation from a contractor, however again, there is no evidence the landlord considered this option.
On 21 September 2023, the resident reported the kitchen ceiling had collapsed. The landlord responded by:
1. Re-opening the resident’s formal complaint the same day.
2. Arranged for scaffolding to be erected on 25 September 2023.
3. Arranged for roofing contractors to attend the property on 1 October 2023 to assess the roof. It said the resident denied access internally.
4. Arranging for a building surveyor to do an air test for asbestos in the ceiling on 3 October 2023. There is no evidence of the findings of this survey.
5. Offering temporary accommodation on or around 22 September 2023, whilst it investigated the leak. The resident said she declined this because the offers made to her were unsuitable. She accepted hotel accommodation on or around 4 October 2023.
In its internal communications when the resident was offered temporary accommodation, the landlord noted that it could have discussed the repairs at its panel meetings. As a result, the landlord referred the matter to its panel meetings for discussion.
The Ombudsman notes there was a lack of records relating to the discussions of the panel on this matter. Therefore, the Ombudsman has been unable to determine if it sufficiently reviewed the case and its history or whether its oversight identified key elements of the repair such as the length of time it was ongoing, the wishes of the resident and the lack of detailed assessments.
The Ombudsman considers this a failure of record keeping. This is because this service expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. Clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ abilities to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
In addition, the Ombudsman considers if this resource was available and intended to ensure repairs and managed and monitored more effectively, it is unclear why the landlord had not utilised this at an earlier opportunity. The landlord’s reactive approach to the resident’s repairs was demonstrated by the fact that it only undertook this action when the resident’s ceiling collapsed.
Although the landlord offered the resident temporary accommodation, the resident said that the offers were unsuitable based on the location and the distance to both work and childcare providers. The Ombudsman is unable to determine whether the offers themselves were suitable based on the evidence provided. However, it is of note that had the substantive repair been made to the leak at an earlier opportunity, it could have prevented the use of temporary accommodation. This was a missed opportunity to mitigate the impact of the repair on the resident.
The repair records show that the landlord was aware that the leak was persistent because it returned consistently between 2010 and 2023. The resident also reported the return of the leak this year. This was inappropriate. Although the landlord responded with an action plan in January 2024, there is no evidence available to this service that any of the actions it committed to have been carried out.
The landlord told the resident it could not find the cause of the leak despite attending the property on several occasions and repeating the same types of repairs. It is the landlord’s stance at the time of writing this report, that it is still investigating to find the source of the leak. No evidence of a specialist surveyor’s assessment to identify the leak’s root cause was presented to the Ombudsman. This is an inadequate service to provide to a resident in social housing, to expect them to reside in a property that has leaked somewhat consistently for around ten years.
There has been no clear evidence presented to this service that shows the landlord:
1. Has completed the complete replacement of the roof as recommended by contractors in April 2023, despite the internal communications of the landlord showing its intention to do so.
2. Considered the first and second recommendations and concluded why these may or may not be suitable as a long-term solution.
3. Communicated the first and second two recommendations to the resident and explained why it has chosen not to undertake these.
4. Undertaken a detailed structural survey of the property to determine the cause of the leak.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to:
1. Carry out sufficient investigations to find out the cause of leaks and how best to remedy them.
2. Identify reoccurring repairs at the earliest opportunity to mitigate their impact and promptly resolve issues in a reasonable time.
3. Communicate with residents about the investigations and repairs it undertakes with the applicable timescales for completion and any follow-on works that may be required. If there is a delay, the landlord should communicate with residents at the earliest opportunity with a new set of timeframes for completion.
In addition, the repair records of the landlord were poor. This is because although the landlord marked the repair works as complete, it was unclear what actions were taken to complete the repairs. There were also repair jobs that were “completed with no action” and contained no further explanation.
Furthermore, this service observed that there were no detailed reports for the assessments the landlord claimed to have been carrying out during the repair process. This is concerning to note having consideration of the failure of the landlord to identify the re-occurring repair. The Ombudsman considers this to be a further failure in record keeping and/or sharing the relevant information.
Having considered the findings above, the Ombudsman considers there was severe maladministration in the way the landlord handled the substantive repair because:
1. It failed to comply with its obligations under the Act to provide a lasting repair to the leak.
2. It unreasonably delayed in carrying out sufficient investigations to assess the root cause of the leak.
3. It left the resident in a regularly leaking property for a considerable period.
4. By waiting for the ceiling to collapse it showed some disregard to the safety of the resident and her household.
5. It failed to identify that the repair remained unresolved over a significant period.
6. It continued to provide the same repairs despite the resident re-reporting the same issue over a significant period.
7. It failed to provide a lasting repair despite having the opportunity to do so over a significant period.
8. It did not appropriately consider or account for why it did not carry out the recommendations of its contractors. This impacted the resident because the landlord was not accountable for the repairs because it failed to provide her with an action plan that was followed through.
9. It was reactive to the repairs meaning that it only considered mitigating the impact on the resident by offering temporary accommodation when the ceiling had collapsed.
10. It showed a consistent failure in record keeping.
11. Acted in a heavy-handed and inappropriate manner because:

i. The resident, over a decade ago, spent considerable time and trouble reporting an ongoing and serious repair in her property that remains unresolved.

ii. The failure to address the leak caused distress to the resident, as she was concerned about the safety risks it posed to the electrics and her household.

The Ombudsman would question whether the property is fit for human habitation based on the condition of the property given the recurrent leaks and the risks associated with the ceiling collapse and electrics.
The landlord has not considered whether it should have considered a management transfer for the resident, which was a further failure.

Level of redress

The landlord said it offered the resident £1,910 to date for:
1. Distress and inconvenience.
2. Time and trouble.
3. Complaint handling.
The Ombudsman considers the landlord’s offer to be insufficient to address the failures found by this service and the impact on the resident. This is because the remedy did not consider:
1. The seriousness of the unfair impact on the resident.
2. The duration of the avoidable distress and inconvenience to the resident.
3. Its consistent failure to communicate with the resident promptly about its intentions regarding a permanent fix.
4. Its failure to identify the re-occurring repair and mitigate the impact on the resident at the earliest opportunity.

Complaint handling

The Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) states that:
1. Complaint handlers should have the authority and autonomy to act to resolve disputes quickly and fairly.
2. Complaints should be resolved by landlords at the earliest possible opportunity, after assessing what evidence is needed to fully consider the issues, what outcome would resolve the matter for the resident and whether there are any urgent actions required.
3. Landlords should keep residents regularly updated about the progress of the investigation even where there is no new substantive information to provide.
4. A complaint response must be sent to the resident when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue, are completed. Outstanding actions must still be tracked and actioned expeditiously with regular updates provided to the resident.
5. Landlords must respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. Exceptionally, landlords may extend this time limit by explaining to the resident a clear deadline for when the response will be issued.
6. Landlords should look beyond the circumstances of the individual complaint and consider whether anything needs to be ‘put right’ in terms of process or systems to the benefit of all residents.
The landlord’s complaints policy states:
1. Stage 1 responses are to be issued within 10 working days of being logged.
2. Stage 2 responses are to be issued within 20 working days from the date of the request to escalate.
3. A complaint is to be reactivated within 6 months of either closure or at the customer’s request.
4. Investigations must consider all aspects of the complaint to determine whether it needs to look at things differently for example:

i. Length of time the issues have impacted the customer.

ii. Changes to policy/procedure that might prevent further complaints in the future.

The resident escalated her complaint on 2 November 2021 as detailed above. The landlord responded on 4 November 2021 and explained that due to its current backlog, it did not have a timeframe for its stage 2 response, but it would be done “ASAP.”
This response was inappropriate because the Ombudsman expects landlords to communicate a new deadline for complaint responses if they exceed the timeframes set out in the Code. This was a failure to follow the relevant code of practice, which meant the resident experienced further distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble in pursuing the complaint through to conclusion.
Whilst the resident was waiting for her stage 2 response the landlord said it would keep the resident updated with its contractor’s recommendations for a permanent fix. However, the evidence shows that during this time the landlord did not provide consistent regular updates to the resident. This was inappropriate because it failed to comply with the Code. The Ombudsman expects landlords to provide timely updates to residents about the progress of investigations even in the event there are no substantive updates to provide.
The landlord did not issue its stage 2 response until it was engaged by this service. This was inappropriate. The Ombudsman expects landlords to progress complaints through its internal complaint procedure without the intervention of this service.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 20 October 2022. The Ombudsman notes the landlord did not explain to the resident:
1. Whether it had considered the recommendations of its contractors.
2. What the roof supervisor’s assessment of the property was and how the building being listed would impact any repairs it might make.
3. Which repairs it had organised a contractor to undertake.
It also failed to explain what its findings were to date, and if those findings placed any restrictions on its intended actions. This was inappropriate because the resident was unable to hold the landlord to account because she did not know what it intended to do.
In addition, the complaints team were unable to monitor and track specific actions through to completion because there were no sufficiently clear actions it agreed to undertake. The Ombudsman considers this to be an example of a lack of autonomy and authority of the complaints team to question and hold to account the relevant team to provide both clarity and a solid action plan as part of the management of the complaint.
Following the final response, the landlord closed the resident’s complaint and placed the responsibility with another team to monitor any subsequent repairs. However, the evidence indicates that there was no follow-up on the matter until 10 March 2023. After this, the resident received an update only after she followed up with the landlord on 5 April 2023.
The Ombudsman considers this was a significant delay and extremely poor management of the outstanding actions of the complaint. The Ombudsman finds that there was a significant delay and extremely poor management of the outstanding actions of the complaint. If the landlord had monitored repairs effectively, it may have prevented the ceiling from collapsing in September 2023.
The evidence shows the resident logged another formal complaint on 14 April 2023 about the continuous leak that was impacting the electrics and remained unresolved. The Ombudsman considers the internal communications of the landlord during this time to be unsympathetic. This is because it commented that the resident had “many complaints open” and “had even raised a further one” that day. This service expects all complaints to be handled sensitively and professionally by staff members.
It is concerning to note that the complaint encompassed a continuous failure to resolve a continuous repair. However, there is no evidence the landlord used its complaint process to acknowledge its failings with the substantive repair or take steps to assess the root cause of them. This meant that it did not look beyond the circumstances of the individual complaint and consider whether anything needed to be ‘put right’ in terms of process or systems to the benefit of all residents.
The Ombudsman considers that the culmination of failures noted in the landlord’s complaint handling amounts to severe maladministration.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration with the way the landlord handled the resident’s reports of a leak.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration with the way the landlord handled the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Arrange for the CEO to call the resident to offer a full apology for the failings in this report and follow this up with a written apology explaining how it intends to learn from this complaint.
2. Pay the resident compensation as detailed in paragraphs 60 and 61 below.
3. Arrange for an independent survey to be completed of the property and the roof as set out in the ‘survey order’ below.
4. Undertake a case review of its repairs to determine:

i. Why the landlord failed to identify the re-occurring repair remained unresolved over a significant period.

ii. Why the landlord failed to identify the re-occurring repair posed a hazard to the resident and her household.

iii. Create an action plan for what it intends to do to prevent this from happening in future.

Undertake a case review of its complaint handling to determine:

i. What were the barriers that prevented the complaint handling team from progressing the complaint promptly, and how can it prevent and manage them in the future.

ii. What the barriers were to the complaint handling team in monitoring and progressing the outstanding actions of the complaint.

Conduct an urgent risk assessment of the electrics to decide whether to offer the resident temporary accommodation while complying with this order.
Consider whether the resident should be offered a managed move. If it agrees to, it must consider home loss and disturbance payments under the Land Compensation Act 1974, in addition to the compensation awarded by the Ombudsman below.
Provide evidence of compliance with the orders of this service.

The compensation order

Pay the resident £7,750 compensation comprising:
1. £7,500 to recognise the distress, inconvenience, and loss of enjoyment of the home due to the landlord’s failure to provide a lasting repair within a reasonable time. This includes the distress and inconvenience of failing to address the substantive issue and the time and trouble of the resident in pursuing the repairs to date.
2. £250 to recognise its failure to provide effective complaint handling. This includes the distress and inconvenience and the time and trouble of pursuing the complaint to completion.
This award replaces any offer made to date by the landlord through its internal complaints process. The landlord is entitled to offset against this sum any payments already made to the resident. Unless otherwise agreed by her, but the landlord must make a direct payment to the resident and not apply the compensation to her rent account.

The survey order

The landlord must, within 28 days of the date of this determination appoint and instruct an independent survey to inspect the resident’s home and the roof. The landlord must contact the resident and agree to a mutually convenient time for the survey to be completed within 28 days of the date of this report.
The surveyor must inspect the property and the roof and any loft spaces and be asked to provide a report with their findings, setting out:
1. All disrepair in the property.
2. The structural integrity of the ceiling.
3. Set out whether there are any hazards under the HHSRS.
4. Set out whether the property is habitable.
5. A scope of works and indicative costs and timescales to complete the works.
6. Photographs of the condition of the property.
The surveyor should be encouraged to produce the report within 5 working days of the inspection.
The landlord must share the full report with the resident and the Ombudsman within 5 working days of receipt.

The repairs order

The landlord must use all best endeavours to ensure the works to the property and the roof are completed within 56 days of the date of the survey or shorter timescales specified in the survey. Where it cannot meet this deadline, the landlord must set out its reasons to the Ombudsman together with the evidence of why it cannot make this deadline.
The landlord must consider if the resident should be temporarily decanted.

Recommendations

Within 28 days of this determination, the Ombudsman recommends the landlord:
1. Self-assess against the recommendations for landlord’s in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report ‘Attitudes, respect and relationships’ and create an action plan to embed these in its service provision to address any underlying negative complaint handling culture.
2. Self-assess against the good practice recommendations in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report ‘Room for improvement’ on repairs and create an action plan to embed these in its service provision to address how it can better respond to reports of repeated repairs for residents.