London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202212695)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212695

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

12 February 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of repairs relating to water ingress.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

2. The resident holds a secure tenancy. The property is a second floor flat. There is a flat directly above the resident’s that has a parapet. The landlord is a housing association.
3. On 21 December 2020, the resident reported a leak in the sitting room of her property. She said it was coming from the flat directly above her. The landlord contacted the neighbour above the resident and booked in a repair. Over the next 6 months, the resident chased the landlord about the repair. The landlord confirmed that the neighbour’s parapet needed to be repaired but would not give her specific details because of data protection. On 23 July 2021, the landlord’s contractor cleared the neighbour’s parapet. The contractor also cleared the neighbour’s rainwater pipe which was next to the parapet.
4. The resident contacted the landlord on 8 March 2022 to report further water ingress into her sitting room whenever it rained. In April, the landlord’s general contractor attended the neighbour’s property twice. On the first occasion, the general contractor could not access the parapet as the neighbour’s window was stuck. On the second occasion, the general contractor told the landlord a roofing contractor needed to renew the hopper attached to the neighbour’s rainwater pipe. 
5. On 28 June 2022, the resident complained that the landlord had not updated her on the neighbour’s parapet repair. She said that her neighbour had told her the repair to the parapet was booked for October 2022. She did not think this was reasonable due to continued water ingress in her property. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 30 June 2022. It part upheld the complaint. It said it could not tell the resident the repair details for her neighbour as this would breach data protection. It said that it would try to get a sooner appointment for the parapet repair but could not update the resident. It asked the resident to advise it if there was any internal damage to her property and to claim on its insurance for damage to her belongings.
6. The same day, the resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2. Between August 2022 and September 2022, the resident chased the landlord several times about the stage 2 complaint response. The landlord advised her it had a complaint backlog and could not be sure when it would be able to allocate an officer to deal with her stage 2 complaint. The resident told the landlord the damage to her property was getting worse including cracks on her living room ceiling and walls. The resident told the landlord there was little point in repairing the damage in her home until the neighbour’s parapet was fixed. The landlord suggested as part of the repairs to the resident’s property, that it could issue her with paint vouchers for redecoration. It said the resident would have to source her own decorator which the resident disagreed with.
7. On 26 September 2022, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to issue its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 10 October 2022. It said:
   1. It was sorry for the delay in completing the repair to the neighbour’s parapet. It had discovered in May 2022, that it could not access the parapet and needed its carpenter to attend first. The earliest appointment it had for its carpenter to attend was on 6 October 2022. Its carpenter had now attended and adjusted the neighbour’s window. This meant its roofing contractor could now access the neighbour’s parapet to assess the repairs.
   2. During the COVID-19 lockdown, it could only complete emergency repairs. This had led to a backlog of routine repairs. A national shortage of materials for repairs had also caused further backlog. It had since employed more contractors to help with the backlog.
   3. It acknowledged the resident’s frustration with its data protection policy. Although it could not share details of the neighbour’s parapet repair due to data protection, it should have reassured the resident that the repair was in hand.
   4. Its complaints policy was in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). However, due to the complaints backlog it was sometimes working outside of the set timeframes for complaint responses. It was hiring more stage 2 complaint officers to deal with the backlog.
   5. It offered £100 compensation for the inconvenience due to the delay of the neighbour’s parapet repair. It offered an additional £30 for delays in issuing its stage 2 complaint response. It found that although there was a delay in issuing its stage 2 complaint response, this had not impacted on the outcome. It would keep the resident’s complaint open at stage 1 until the repairs were completed. 
8. At the end of October 2022, the landlord’s roofing contractor attended to the parapet repair.  After this, the resident told the landlord that the water ingress was still happening in her property. On 8 November 2022, the landlord raised another repair for its roofing contractor to attend to the parapet. Throughout the rest of November 2022 and December 2022, the resident continued to chase the landlord for updates on the repair. She also reported that there was damp by her living room window. The repair to the neighbour’s parapet was completed in January 2023.
9. At the resident’s request, the landlord’s contractor carried out a damp and mould inspection in her property in February 2023. As part of this inspection, its contractor treated the damp and mould in the bedroom and living room. The damp and mould contractor said that a further repair was needed to the neighbour’s downpipe to prevent further water ingress. In March 2023, the resident chased the landlord for an update on the damp inspection recommendations. The landlord told the resident that its damp and mould contractor had failed to send it the inspection report. Once it had the report, it would raise the necessary repairs. The resident was unhappy with this response and brought her complaint to the Ombudsman.
10. The resident has since told the Ombudsman that:
    1. The neighbour’s downpipe was fixed around August 2023, although the landlord did not update her.
    2. In September 2023, she reported further water ingress to the landlord.
    3. The landlord sent its second roofing contractor in October 2023. This contractor told the resident that the previous works to the neighbour’s parapet were not up to standard. The second roofing contractor gave the landlord a quote for further works which the landlord declined. The landlord told the resident that the second contractor quoted to do the works externally. It declined the quote as the works could be done internally.
    4. She continued to report water ingress into her property and the landlord gave her a dehumidifier. It sent its second roofing contractor again to inspect what repairs needed to be done. It sent its damp and mould contractor again who submitted a further report to the landlord.
11. Environmental health carried out an inspection of the resident’s property on 25 January 2024. After this, environmental health contacted the landlord and recommended it complete the works to the neighbour’s parapet. The landlord told the resident in January 2024 that it could do the works internally but that the resident was refusing access. It then said that her neighbour was refusing access for the works to be completed internally. The resident disputes this due to her own conversations with the second roofing contractor and neighbour. As an outcome to her complaint, the resident wants the repairs to the neighbour’s parapet to be completed. She then wants the water damage in her property to be repaired. She wants the affected rooms to be redecorated.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs relating to water ingress.

12. The landlord’s data protection policy is in line with the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR). It only shares data where it is permitted to by law. The evidence showed that the landlord told the resident on several occasions that it could not share details of the repair to the neighbour’s parapet due to data protection. The landlord could have provided the resident with general updates about the repair to the neighbour’s parapet which did not reveal personal information that breached GDPR. This would have reassured the resident that the repair was being dealt with in a timely way. 
13. COVID-19 lockdown restrictions were in place in England between March 2020 and March 2021. During this time, landlords were directed by government to provide only essential services to residents.
14. When the resident first reported water ingress into her property in 2020, it took the landlord 6 months for its contractor to attend to the neighbour’s parapet. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said delays were due to lockdown. However, it did not communicate this to the resident over the period of 6 months where she was chasing on the progress of the repair. It should have done so to manage the resident’s expectations. Although the landlord may have been affected by lockdown at the time, it should have considered whether it needed to reprioritise the repair as essential. This was because the resident continued to report further water damage to her property.
15. Following the first fix to the neighbour’s parapet, it was 8 months before the resident reported further water ingress. However, the landlord continued to display a lack of urgency in getting the repair to the neighbour’s parapet resolved. Its reasons for this were due to a backlog caused by the COVID-19 lockdown (as per its stage 2 response). This was not a reasonable response to a repair request raised a year after lockdown finished. It also said that a lack of materials caused further delays. The evidence showed no indication that materials were required to allow access to the neighbour’s parapet. It should have considered appointing an alternative contractor to allow access to the neighbour’s parapet. It took 7 months for its carpenter to attend. This was not reasonable, especially as the resident reported that the water damage was becoming worse in her property.
16. The landlord showed a lack of understanding of the reasons for the water ingress into the resident’s property. The landlord’s contractor completed a repair to the neighbour’s parapet in October 2023 which the resident said did not work.  It suggested sending its contractor to remedy the damage in the resident’s property several times even though the neighbour’s parapet had not been fixed. In December 2023, the resident said the landlord sent an emergency plumber after she reported water running down her living room walls and soaking her carpet. The resident said that the plumber told her they could not do anything about the water ingress as the neighbour’s parapet needed to be fixed. This indicated poor information management.
17. The landlord’s contractor completed a further repair to the neighbour’s parapet in January 2023. This was 3 months after the resident said its last fix had not worked. The landlord’s contractor said the delay was due to poor weather conditions which the landlord cannot be held accountable for. However, it did not show that it was proactively managing the contractor or chasing it for updates until the resident prompted it to do so. The landlord should have been proactive in its oversight and management of the repair. It should have communicated updates to the resident without her having to chase it.
18. After the landlord’s roofing contractor completed repairs to the neighbour’s parapet in January 2023, the landlord’s damp and mould contractor identified that further repairs were required in February 2023. The resident told the Ombudsman that the landlord’s roofing contractor attended 7 months later to fix the neighbour’s rainwater pipe. This was not reasonable. The repair did not work, and the resident reported further water ingress. It took the landlord until October 2023 (a further 2 months) to send its second roofing contractor to quote for the works. It then sent its second roofing contractor 3 months later to quote again. If the landlord declined the first quote as it felt the work could be done internally, it should have asked its contractor to provide another quote. It was not reasonable that it waited for the resident to contact it again before asking for another quote. This caused unnecessary further delays.
19. There was a lack of clarity in the landlord’s communications. In December 2023, the landlord advised the resident that the repair was on hold because the resident had refused access to the bay window roof. The resident disputed this with the landlord and told it she was happy to allow access. In January 2024, it then told the resident that the repair was on hold as her neighbour had declined access for the repair. There was also conflicting information from its second roofing contractor. When the resident contacted its second roofing contractor, they told her they were waiting for the landlord to approve the quote for the works to go ahead. When the resident raised this with the landlord, it again referred to her neighbour declining access as the reason for the repair being on hold.
20. Its lack of clarity and conflicting information regarding its contractor, led to confusion for the resident. This also led to the resident chasing the landlord regularly to clarify what position the repair was at. The landlord needs to clarify the position of the repairs with its second roofing contractor.
21. The landlord completed a self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s damp and mould recommendations. The landlord says that when damp and mould reports are received, it carries out a “healthy homes” assessment. Repairs recommended from the assessment are raised within 10 working days. The assessment also includes a clean and shield treatment.
22. The landlord did not raise the recommended repairs from the damp and mould inspection within 10 working days. The resident chased the landlord for an update and was told 2 months after the inspection that the contractor had not uploaded the report. The evidence does not suggest the landlord chased this report with its contractor if it had not received it. It should have been proactive in doing so, especially when the resident reported further water ingress into her property.
23. The resident’s reports of water ingress were continuous from March 2022 despite the landlord’s subsequent attempts to fix the issue. The resident advised the Ombudsman that the water ingress was still ongoing in February 2024. This is a period of around 100 weeks where the landlord failed to adequately repair the cause of the water ingress into the resident’s property.
24. The resident told the Ombudsman that the ongoing damage to her property caused her considerable distress. The resident was also concerned that damp and mould would return to her property because of the ongoing water ingress. She said whenever it rained heavily, she had to put out buckets and empty them regularly to contain the water damage. She was concerned about the impact this would have on her health following an operation in January 2024.
25. The landlord’s repairs policy says it is responsible for repairs to internal walls, plasterwork and repairs relating to damp. The landlord will only redecorate following a repair if it is obligated to do so via the tenancy agreement.
26. The resident’s tenancy agreement says she is responsible for internal decoration. The tenancy agreement says the landlord is responsible for repairs to the internal walls, but not decoration and painting.
27. The landlord told the resident that it would reimburse her for the cost of a decorator. Although the resident is unhappy with this, the tenancy agreement and repairs policy both state that the landlord does not redecorate. Therefore, it has gone beyond its obligation in agreeing to reimburse the resident for the redecoration.
28. The landlord has told the resident she can submit a claim for damage to her belongings with its insurer. The resident wants to wait until the repairs to the neighbour’s parapet and her property are completed before doing this.
29. Overall, the landlord demonstrated severe maladministration in its handling of repairs relating to water ingress. This is because of the unreasonable length of time it took and continues to take to adequately repair the neighbour’s parapet. This led to further damage in the resident’s property, damp and mould and damage to her belongings. The landlord also displayed poor communication, a lack of understanding of what was causing the leak, and a lack of urgency to fix the issue.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

30. The landlord’s complaints policy says it aims to resolve stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. It aims to resolve stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. In exceptional cases where it needs longer to resolve a complaint, it will try to agree this with the resident. It acknowledges complaints within 5 working days. After issuing its final complaint response, it will monitor progress until actions are complete.
31. The landlord’s compensation policy says it may offer compensation for failure to respond within complaint timeframes. It offers a fixed amount of £10 for failure to respond to a query within 10 working days.
32. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code sets out requirements for member landlords that will allow them to respond to complaints effectively and fairly. It says that if a landlord needs to extend its complaint response timeframe, this should be no longer than an additional 10 days.
33. The resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 30 June 2022. The landlord did not acknowledge her request until she chased it a month later. This goes against the Code. It then told her it could not say when it would issue its stage 2 response due to staff shortage. The Ombudsman had to prompt the landlord to issue its stage 2 response. It issued its stage 2 response 72 working days after the resident’s request to escalate.  This goes against the Code and its own timeframes in its complaints policy. It is unclear whether the landlord had a plan in place to address the backlog of complaints, but it was unreasonable that it left the response timeframe open ended and did not update the resident without her chasing it.
34. When the resident asked to escalate the issue to a manager, the landlord declined to do so. Initially, it advised the resident she would have to wait for a stage 2 complaints officer to be allocated. After the stage 2 response was issued, it did not respond to the resident’s requests to escalate to a manager regarding the ongoing management of the repairs. This was unreasonable and the resident felt that her requests were being ignored. This led to the resident’s perception that her ongoing repair issue was of little concern to the landlord.
35. The landlord’s ongoing monitoring of the issue following the stage 2 complaint response caused confusion. The landlord was not clear with the resident that its complaint procedure was complete after stage 2. It passed the outstanding repairs actions back to its stage 1 complaints officer to monitor. This led the resident to believe her complaint had been downgraded back to stage 1. The landlord’s complaint policy could provide further clarity on which of its staff monitor outstanding actions.
36. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint officer continued to correspond with the resident for a further 4 months regarding the outstanding repairs actions. The resident told the landlord she was distressed when the decision was made to pass back to the stage 1 complaints officer. The landlord advised this was its procedure and needed to be done due to high workload. This showed that the landlord was inconsistent in its response to monitoring the outstanding repairs actions. This caused confusion for the resident and unreasonably raised her expectations around having a sole point of contact.
37. The landlord’s compensation offer of £100 for inconvenience did not reflect the length of delays in adequately completing the repairs. It should increase its offer to £600 which also reflects distress caused to the resident. This should be added to the £30 it offered for its delay in issuing the stage 2 complaint. It should also give compensation amounting to 20% of the rent per week to cover the part loss of enjoyment of the resident’s bedroom and living room over a period of 100 weeks. This reflects the period between 8 March 2022 (when the resident began reporting continuous water ingress) and 12 February 2024 as the repair issue remains unresolved.
38. The landlord evidenced maladministration in its complaint handling through its delay in issuing the stage 2 response. It also caused confusion through its handling of the outstanding actions. Its compensation offer did not reasonably reflect the delays in repairs and the detriment caused to the resident as a result.

Determination

39. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
    1. Severe maladministration with the landlord’s handling to repairs relating to water ingress.
    2. Maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

40. The landlord’s senior director should provide a written apology to the resident for the failures in this case. The landlord should identify what caused the failures. The landlord should set out what it will do to prevent these failures from happening in the future. The landlord should provide a copy of this apology to the Ombudsman.
41. The landlord should pay the resident a total of £2,749 made up of:
    1. £2,119 for the part loss of enjoyment of the bedroom and living room over 100 weeks.
    2. £130 it offered as part of its stage 2 response if it has not done so already.
    3. £500 for distress and inconvenience.
42. The landlord should speak directly with its second roofing contractor to clarify whether there is an access issue or whether it needs to accept the contractor’s quote. If there is an access issue with the neighbour, it should consider whether it can complete the repair to the parapet without requiring access to the neighbour’s property. If access through the neighbour’s property is unavoidable, it should clearly set out what it will do to gain access and the timeframes it will work within. It should also consider what it will do to mitigate the water ingress issues in the resident’s home if neighbour access is an issue. If it needs to accept the contractor’s quote, it should do so and complete the outstanding repairs within a 6 week period.
43. Once the repairs are completed to the neighbour’s parapet and the resident’s property, the landlord should agree the resident’s quote for redecorating. It should set out how and when it will reimburse the resident for the redecoration. 
44. The orders above should be completed within 6 weeks of the issue of this report. The landlord should provide evidence of its compliance to the Ombudsman.

Recommendation

45. The landlord should consider changing its complaints policy to clarify who has ownership of outstanding actions after the end of its complaints procedure. This would provide clarity for its staff and residents.