London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202210775)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210775

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

14 June 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:
1. Handling of repairs to the property.
2. Handling of repairs and the maintenance of communal parts of the building and communal grounds.
3. Response to the resident’s concerns about service charges associated with the landlord’s cleaning and grounds maintenance services.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy. The resident has occupied the property for over 19 years.
The property is a flat and has 2 bathrooms. The property is situated on the 3rd floor of a 4-storey building. The property is accessed via a communal hallway. To access the flat, the resident has to pass through a communal fire door on the same floor as the property. The landlord provides cleaning and grounds maintenance services to the block.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint with the landlord on 24 August 2022. The resident said that the landlord had not completed works to the property despite it issuing job numbers. To resolve the complaint the resident wanted the landlord to reseal the windows, repair a bath panel, repair the front door, fill and replaster cracks, and complete follow-on works in the main bathroom. The resident also said that the landlord should repair the communal fire door and complete repairs to the wider building. The resident added that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s cleaning and grounds maintenance services, for which she paid a service charge. On 1 September 2022, the resident added that the bathroom was over 20 years old and needed to be replaced. The resident also mentioned that the block was without a “mobile cleaner”.
The landlord issued the stage 1 response on 14 September 2022. The landlord:
1. Said it had raised a works order on 26 July 2022, to refit a new bath panel, to repair and repaint the front door, and to replaster damaged walls in the affected area. Appointments had been made to complete these repairs on 22 September 2022 and 23 September 2022. The landlord apologised for its delay in arranging these works, which it attributed to a shortage of materials and labour. The landlord stated that it had a backlog of work but had recruited new staff and additional contractors to resolve this.
2. Stated that it had raised a works order on 1 September 2022, to reseal all of the window frames. Its contractor was preparing a quotation. Once the quotation was approved, it would contact the resident to arrange the work.
3. Confirmed that its contractor had attended to the fire door on 6 September 2022 and had adjusted the door closure.
4. Stated that the bathroom and windows were due for renewal in 2031 and 2033, respectively. It would contact the resident nearer the time concerning their replacement.
5. Said it was aware of issues with its ground’s maintenance. It had instructed a new contractor and was focusing on getting services back to the required standard. It would not be looking to offer any refunds until this had been achieved.
6. Clarified that while there was no “mobile cleaner”, the block was attended by its cleaners. The landlord asked the resident to clarify which areas of the communal area required closer attention. Following this, it would liaise with its neighbourhood housing lead.
7. Accepted that the level of service it had provided was not in line with expected standards. It recognised that its repairs and communications could have been managed more swiftly and effectively. It committed to carrying out an internal review of the case so it could take learnings.
8. Offered an apology and £160 compensation to remedy the complaint, which was broken down as follows:
  1. £80 in recognition of inconvenience and distress caused to the resident.
  2. £80 in recognition of the resident’s time and effort progressing the matter.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 20 September 2022, as she did not agree with the landlord’s proposed remedies. The resident sent the landlord several emails between 28 September 2022 and 4 November 2022, updating the landlord, raising new issues, and clarifying the outcome that she was seeking. The landlord phoned the resident on 4 November 2022, to agree the scope of the investigation and agree a timescale for issue of the stage 2 response.
The landlord issued the stage 2 response on 10 November 2022. The landlord:
1. Stated that the bath panel, front door, and repairs to the walls were completed on 23 September 2022.
2. Said that its contractor had inspected the windows on 6 September 2022. There had been a delay in it completing required works, due to its contractor misplacing a heat loss survey. The landlord had since raised a new works order with a different contractor, after this was requested by the resident. Its new contractor would contact the resident to arrange an inspection.
3. Noted that the resident was unhappy to wait until 2031 for a bathroom replacement. After inspecting the bathroom that same day, it had raised a works order to: regrout the walls; touch up a chip in the bath; renew the sealant around the wash basin and toilet pan surround; and overhaul the mixer tap to the wash basin. Its contractor would contact the resident to arrange an appointment.
4. Said that it had liaised with its neighbourhood housing lead about the resident’s concerns about cleanliness and rubbish not being collected. The landlord set out the action it had taken in response.
5. Recognised that the resident had made a continuous effort to obtain updates but the landlord had not responded. The landlord accepted that this would have caused the resident frustration. It recognised that its services had fallen below expected levels. It had raised the case with its senior management team and committed to identifying learnings.
6. To remedy the complaint, the landlord reoffered the £160 compensation it previously offered at stage 1. In addition, it offered £30 compensation in recognition of its poor communications.
The resident emailed the landlord on 11 November 2022, stating that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and its offer of compensation was insulting. The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman on 14 November 2022, because she felt that the landlord had not addressed all of the issues she had raised.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. Paragraph 42.a of the Scheme, states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure. Although the resident’s complaint about service charges was considered by the landlord at stage 1, this was not further addressed at stage 2. Accordingly, the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about service charges, in respect of cleaning and ground maintenance services, falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
Regarding the remaining complaint elements, this investigation focuses on the landlord’s actions between 24 August 2021 and 10 November 2022. This being 12 months prior to the formal complaint being made, through to when the landlord’s complaint process was exhausted. This is in accordance with 42.c of the Scheme. However, this report also references events outside of this timeframe, where relevant to the resolution of the substantive complaint.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s obligations

The landlord had a legal obligation under Section 11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, to carry out repairs to the property. In accordance with this Act, the landlord was required to:
1. Keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. This included elements of the property such as the doors, windows, walls, ceilings, and internal plasterwork. The landlord was also required to keep in repair and in working order, any installations for the supply of water and sanitation, such as the wash basins, sinks, baths, and toilets. The landlord was also required to carry out any identified repairs within a reasonable timeframe, for which it was responsible.
2. Repair any common parts of the building that the tenant was entitled to use.
3. Repair the property to a standard that would make it fit for occupation. The landlord was not obliged to replace any item that was capable of being repaired. The landlord was not required to replace or improve any installation unless it was required to do so by law, for example where standards had changed.
The landlord’s repair policy states that it will carry out repairs within a reasonable timeframe and to a good standard. Its aim was to complete routine repairs at the earliest mutually convenient appointment. Where there was an immediate danger to the occupant of a property or to members of the public, the landlord would attend the property within 24 hours, as an emergency repair. Any follow-on repairs would be completed at the earliest mutually convenient appointment.
The landlord’s estate management policy states that it will look after shared spaces, keeping them clean, safe, and well maintained. Its neighbourhood housing leads are responsible for raising new communal repairs within 2 working days, for monitoring outstanding communal repairs, and for monitoring the progress of any actions outstanding from previous inspections.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the property.

Issues with the landlord’s approach to repairs was highlighted in the Ombudsman’s July 2023 special report on the landlord. The Ombudsman’s special report considered the landlord’s handling of a range of complaints raised between March 2019 and October 2022. The resident’s complaint was raised within this timeframe and features similar issues with the landlord’s handling of repairs. The Ombudsman is aware that the landlord has since put in place an action plan to improve its approach to repairs handling.
The landlord has provided the Ombudsman with a copy of the repair logs and contact notes for the property, showing multiple repairs requests and works orders raised. However, these records were often lacking in detail, which made it difficult for the Ombudsman to be sure what happened and when.
The evidence shows that the resident had been unhappy with the condition of the property for some time prior to raising her complaint. Sometime around June or July 2022, the landlord carried out a joint inspection of the property with the resident and the local councillor. At this time, the patch neighbourhood housing lead was on sick leave, so the inspection was carried out by another member of the landlord’s staff. This was encouraging and shows that the landlord was giving the resident’s concerns the attention they deserved.
During the inspection, the resident asked the landlord if it would replace the bath as it was 20 years old. In addition, the resident reported cracks in the living room and various communal repairs. She also raised concerns about antisocial behaviour, the security of the building, fly tipping, pest control, and the landlord’s cleaning and grounds maintenance services. The landlord documented the resident’s requests and concerns in an email, which was sent to the patch neighbourhood housing lead for consideration on their return. However, the evidence suggests that the patch neighbourhood officer did not return, which significantly delayed the landlord in addressing the resident’s concerns. This was unreasonable and left the resident feeling ignored.
Landlords should ensure that they have adequate processes in place to deal with email communications that are sent directly to staff who may be absent from work for extended periods.
For ease of reading, the Ombudsman will address each element of the complaint under separate subheadings.

Bath panel, front door, cracks, and replastering

According to the repair logs, several historical repair requests had been made for replacement bath panels, which are shown as completed. It is unclear which bathroom these works orders related to. The Ombudsman has been unable to determine when the resident asked the landlord to repair the bath panel in the second bathroom. It is also unclear to the Ombudsman why the front door needed to be repaired and repainted, or when the need to carry out these works arose.
The Ombudsman notes that there were multiple references to cracks in the walls and ceiling of the property, which the landlord had periodically addressed. The landlord was issued with a disrepair claim in April 2021 by the resident’s solicitor. While the resident’s legal claim for disrepair did not fully progress, it is noted that the claim particulars made reference to degraded plaster, as well as cracks throughout the property.
The landlord’s records indicate that a works order was raised on 13 April 2021, to investigate the cracks in the walls. The landlord closed the works order on 4 August 2021, marked as non-access.
The landlord contacted the resident on 15 September 2021, to make another appointment. It has not been possible to determine if the resident had chased the landlord about this, or if the landlord had itself identified that the inspection was outstanding. Although there is no record of a new appointment being arranged, the landlord’s contact notes suggest that some replastering works were scheduled for 23 February 2022. The landlord’s records show that the resident cancelled this appointment by text message.
The landlord raised a new inspection on 1 March 2022, which was encouraging. However, there is no evidence that this inspection was completed, which is a concern.
The Ombudsman notes that the works order was closed on 6 April 2022, due to “the age of the job” and on account of its contractor being unable to gain access. There is no evidence that this was communicated to the resident, which left the repairs unresolved.
After the resident contacted the landlord for an update 3 months later, the landlord responded by raising a works order to change the bath panel, attend to the front door, fix cracks, and replaster. The evidence suggests that there was some difficulty arranging an appointment for the work. The landlord’s contractor indicated that it had not been able to make contact with the resident. The resident indicated that she had been trying to make an appointment with its contractor, but she had been unsuccessful. The works order was later completed on 22 September 2022 and 23 September 2022.
While there appears to have been some difficulty arranging access, the landlord has accepted that it could have managed these repairs more swiftly and effectively. It was encouraging that the landlord took responsibility for its failings, apologised, and offered compensation to try to put things right.

Bathroom replacement

Although the resident maintains that the landlord promised to replace the bath in her main bathroom, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence to support this. The landlord’s records show that it inspected the bathroom on 10 November 2022. The following day it raised a works order to regrout the walls, touch up the chip in the bath, overhaul the mixer tap on the wash basin, and renew the sealant around the wash basin, pedestal and toilet pan surround. The resident told the landlord on 11 November 2022, that she was not prepared to accept “a bathroom patch up job”. Although the resident may have preferred the landlord to replace the bath, it was under no legal or policy obligation to do so if the bath could be repaired.
It is understandable that the landlord could not complete identified repairs to the bathroom, if the resident had refused the works. The evidence shows that the resident told the landlord on 6 December 2022, that she would be willing to wait until 2031 for a new bathroom, if the landlord would agree to change the bathroom taps, replace the tiles, replace the flooring, and replace the bath. There is no evidence that the landlord considered the resident’s preferred solution or issued a response, which left the parties at an impasse. It is accepted that by this time, the matter had been escalated to the Ombudsman, however, this would not have prevented the landlord from exploring opportunities for resolution in the meantime.
The Ombudsman recognises that the resident felt that the bathroom should have been upgraded sooner than 2031. However, the landlord was under no obligation to bring the bathroom upgrade forward, provided that the bathroom was in reasonable state of repair, was reasonably modern, and did not present any significant risk or hazard. According to the Decent Homes Standard, reasonably modern means a bathroom that is 30 years old or less.
The Ombudsman does not consider the landlord’s refusal to replace the bath or upgrade the bathroom earlier than 2031 to be a failing. However, given that the resident has told the Ombudsman that the bathroom has since fallen into further disrepair, the landlord should endeavour to arrange a new inspection of the bathroom.

Resealing of windows

The landlord carried out a healthy homes survey in May 2022, which identified the need to reseal most of the windows throughout the property. The evidence suggests that the landlord raised a works order on 19 May 2022, to complete follow-on works. Its contractor attended the property in June 2022, however, the resident expressed concern about the level of workmanship and that not all of the windows had been sealed. The landlord’s repairs records show that its contractor returned and completed the job on 30 June 2022. There is no evidence that the landlord post inspected the window repairs, which would have allowed it to verify that the repairs had been completed satisfactorily.
It is of concern that the resident later informed the landlord on 26 August 2022, that the job remained uncompleted. The landlord responded expediently by raising a new works order on 1 September 2022, to reseal the windows. Although the repairs log suggests that this job was cancelled, the landlord confirmed in the stage 1 response that its contractor had attended the property on 6 September 2022 and was arranging a quotation. It is understood that completion of these works was delayed after the landlord’s contractor misplaced a heat loss survey carried out at the property. This raises concern about the landlord’s information management.
The landlord instructed a different contractor on 4 November 2022 to reseal the windows, following a request from the resident who was unhappy with the progress made by its original contractor. This shows that the landlord was trying to accommodate the resident’s wishes. It is unclear if the resident was aware that this would involve a new inspection and approval process, which would add further delay.
The landlord’s records show that the landlord’s new contractor inspected the windows on 16 December 2022. The resident indicated that she was unhappy that the inspection had only taken 4 minutes. It was encouraging that the landlord chased its contractor for a revised quotation of works a few days later, so the landlord could progress the approval process.
The landlord’s contact logs show that its contractor made an appointment to complete the works on 10 January 2023. This appointment was then rearranged to 8 February 2023, although the reason for this was not recorded. It was unhelpful that its contractor was unable to gain access to the property on 8 February 2023, to complete the work. However, in an email sent to the landlord the previous day, the resident claimed that its window contractor had cancelled the appointment. This either suggests that the landlord’s records were wrong or there was some misunderstanding between the parties.
The resident informed the landlord on 16 February 2023, that its contractor had still not completed the outstanding repairs to the windows. There is no record of the landlord responding, which would have left the resident unclear as to how the matter was being resolved.
It is understood that repairs to some of the windows were carried out on 2 March 2023, however, could not be completed until the resident had removed some blinds. It is of concern that the landlord’s repairs notes show the works order as complete on 1 March 2023, if the works had not been completed. It has not been possible to establish a final completion date for the works. Again, this suggests an issue with the landlord’s record keeping.
The resident has verified that the landlord did complete the works to reseal the windows. However, the resident remains concerned about the quality of the repair, since she has continued to experience drafts. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord considers arranging a new inspection of the windows.
It is the Ombudsman’s view from the available evidence, that the landlord’s handling of repairs to the windows fell short. The likely impact on the resident was distress and inconvenience.
When considered cumulatively, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property. The landlord has acknowledged some failings and made an attempt to put things right, but the offer of compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified by the Ombudsman’s investigation.

The landlord’s handling of repairs and the maintenance of communal parts of the building and communal grounds.

Communal repairs, standards of cleaning, and grounds maintenance issues

It is appreciated that the landlord was experiencing staffing issues at the time the resident met with the landlord and the local councillor in June or July 2022. In the absence of a regular neighbourhood housing lead, the evidence suggests that the landlord was continuing to inspect the estate and log repairs. However, until the new patch neighbourhood housing lead took responsibility for the estate in mid-October 2022, there was no dedicated resource to fully consider and proactively act upon the resident’s concerns about the communal area. By then its new member of staff was presented with an “abundance of backlogged queries and issues” related to the estate, which would have taken time to address.
The landlord attempted to address the resident’s complaint about communal repairs, maintenance, and the upkeep of the estate during its complaint process. It evidenced various repairs that had been completed and recognised that its estate services had fallen below the levels it expected. However, the landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 responses were inadequate as they did not address all of the issues that the resident had raised. The landlord should have set out how it was intending to secure a long-term improvement in the appearance of the estate and in the services that it was contractually obliged to provide.
The Ombudsman was encouraged to note from the landlord’s communications with the local councillor on 20 December 2022, that the new neighbourhood housing lead had put an estate action plan in place to address the diverse range of issues identified by the resident and by the landlord itself. It was positive that the landlord said it was also putting together an estate improvement plan. It would have been better had the landlord proactively communicated this to the resident, rather than it being shared after the local councillor chased the landlord for an update.
While the evidence seen by the Ombudsman suggests there was an improvement in the landlord’s handling of estate matters from mid-October 2022 onwards, the resident has told the Ombudsman that there continues to be issues with communal repairs, estate management, cleaning and grounds maintenance services. A suitable order is made later in recognition of this.
It was positive that the landlord recognised there had been failings, acknowledged the likely impact upon the resident, and offered compensation as redress. However, the landlord’s remedies cannot be considered to amount to reasonable redress, while the substantive matters of complaint remain unresolved.

Repairs to the 3rd floor communal fire door

The resident told the landlord in June or July 2022, during the joint inspection with the local councillor, that the door handle on the 3rd floor communal fire door was loose. The Ombudsman would have expected the neighbourhood housing lead to have raised an emergency inspection of the fire door in view of the potential risk. However, there was no evidence that this was escalated to the landlord’s repairs service. This was inappropriate and left the building and its occupants at potential risk.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident raised a further concern about the fire door on 3 August 2022. The landlord’s records do not specify the nature of the resident’s concern but notes that the resident had also contacted the fire service. The landlord’s call handler responded by logging the issue with the neighbourhood housing lead, who was on sick leave. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord’s call handler should have raised the resident’s concerns directly with its repairs service, to ensure that a timely inspection was arranged.
The landlord inspected the fire door on 11 August 2022, after the fire service contacted the landlord and reported that the fire door was not closing. The landlord’s repairs log shows that the landlord attended 2 working days later. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have treated the matter as an emergency, given that this was a matter of health and safety.
The fire service contacted the landlord again on 16 August 2022, after the resident reported that the door handle had come off the fire door. It is understood that this was preventing the resident from exiting the building. The Ombudsman can understand that this must have been extremely distressing for the resident. The repairs log shows that the landlord attended the same day to make the door safe. It arranged for a temporary door handle to be fitted the following day. It carried out a permanent repair on 6 September 2022. The landlord’s response was appropriate and was in line with its repairs policy.
On 7 September 2022, the resident reported that the fire door was not closing fast enough. It is unclear how the landlord responded. The landlord’s repair logs show that the resident has raised multiple faults with the 3rd floor fire door since the complaint. The resident told the Ombudsman on 5 June 2024, that she was still concerned about the safety of the fire door. An order is made later in recognition of this.
In summary, the landlord missed several opportunities to address issues with the fire door, prior to repairs being instructed. The landlord should have treated the first repair request from the fire service as an emergency. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord’s handling of repairs to the 3rd floor communal fire door fell short and left the building and its occupants at unnecessary risk.
Overall, when considered cumulatively, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs and the maintenance of communal parts of the building and communal grounds.

The landlord’s record keeping

Issues with the landlord’s record keeping was also highlighted in the Ombudsman’s July 2023 special report. The Ombudsman has identified similar issues with the landlord’s record keeping in this case, to those identified in the special report. The Ombudsman is aware that the landlord has since put in place an action plan to improve its record keeping.
While the Ombudsman was able to determine this case based on the evidence provided, there were noticeable gaps and omissions in the landlord’s records, as highlighted throughout this report. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contact and evidence of its actions relating to each casefile, which can be provided to the Ombudsman upon request. Landlords who fail to create and record information accurately, risk missing opportunities to identify that its actions were wrong or inadequate and contribute to inadequate communication and redress. Overall, the landlord’s record keeping and information management was inadequate, which made the Ombudsman’s investigation more difficult.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs and the maintenance of communal parts of the building and communal grounds.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 42a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about service charges associated with the landlord’s cleaning and grounds maintenance services, was not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Orders

The landlord must write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
The landlord must pay compensation of £500 directly to the resident, which is reduced to £310, if the landlord has already paid the £190 compensation it previously offered. This compensation has been determined in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and is broken down as follows:
1. £200 compensation, in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property.
2. £200 compensation, in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of repairs and the maintenance of communal parts of the building and communal grounds.
3. £100 compensation, in recognition of the increased time and effort caused to the resident in progressing the substantive matters of complaint.
The landlord must share with the resident in writing, any action plan and / or estate improvement plan that it has in place. The landlord must also offer to meet the resident to explain its plans for the estate and provide opportunity for the resident to raise any unresolved concerns about communal repairs, estate management, cleaning and grounds maintenance services. The landlord should act accordingly thereafter.
The landlord must inspect the 3rd floor communal fire door. Depending upon its findings, the landlord should act accordingly. Where works are required, the landlord should notify the resident of its intentions and a timeline for completing identified works.
The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above orders, within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider arranging an inspection of the resident’s main bathroom, to satisfy itself that the bathroom remains fit for habitation. Depending upon its findings, the landlord should act accordingly. Where works are required, the landlord should agree a timeline of works with the resident.
The landlord should consider arranging an inspection of the resident’s windows to check the seals. Depending upon its findings, the landlord should act accordingly. Where works are required, the landlord should agree a timeline of works with the resident.