Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202215833)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215833

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 the landlord’s:
    1. Response to reports of a broken window and the handling of subsequent repairs.
    2. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident holds a lease with the landlord, a housing association. The resident’s flat is on the 8th floor. The lease commenced on 13 October 2020.
  2. The resident reported that on 14 August 2022 the glass window in the living room spontaneously shattered. This happened whilst the resident was in close proximity to the window causing him significant shock and distress. The resident called the out of hours repairs line, he was advised that they could not help and as a leaseholder it was his responsibility to repair the window. The resident was unhappy with this response and made a formal complaint on 14 August 2022. The resident requested that the landlord fixed the glass immediately because he was worried that it could cause further damage.
  3. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 15 August 2022. In its stage 1 response, the landlord stated it had spoken to the manufacturers of the windows who advised that the windows had a safety seal over it so shattered pieces would stay on the window itself and would not scatter around. The landlord advised that a new unit would need to be ordered to replace the window and this would take around 6-8 weeks. The landlord apologised for the distress and inconvenience the shattered glass caused the resident and explained how he could escalate the complaint if he remain unsatisfied.
  4. In the resident’s escalation request of 15 August 2022 he raised the following concerns:
    1. The length of time the landlord quoted to replace the glass (2 months) as being too long, his research showed it was closer to 4-6 weeks. The resident requested that the landlord revised the timeline so the process was concluded within 6 weeks.
    2. That the window posed a significant danger from a health and safety standpoint and he was fearful any nudge to the window could cause the glass to fall causing potential injury. He requested that the landlord install a protective film on the glass to prevent it from collapsing.
    3. He requested the certificate of compliance for the glass previously installed in the building. He believed that the glass used was substandard as the windows in 6 other flats on the estate had shattered previously. He believed this was a trend that needed investigating.
    4. He requested a formal letter guaranteeing the replacement glass for life and a certificate of compliance for the new glass that would be installed.
  5. The landlord attended the property on 19 August 2022 to place layers of protective covering over the glass. The landlord’s internal correspondence from 12 October 2022 confirmed that it had the window unit in stock. The landlord was arranging for a crane and would advise the resident of a date for installation once it confirmed the availability of the crane.
  6. The resident contacted this Service on 19 October 2022 informing us about his complaint and that the landlord had not responded at stage 2. This Service wrote to the landlord on 2 November 2022, requesting that it responded to the resident’s complaint by 16 November 2022.
  7. The landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint on 16 November 2022 and stated in summary as follows:
    1. It apologised that it had not escalated the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 15 August 2022 and said this was due to an administrative error.
    2. It confirmed that the replacement glass was scheduled for installation on 16 November 2022 and provided links to assist the resident in getting a copy of the national house building certificate and advice for homeowners on building insurance.
    3. It promised to provide a copy of the FENSA certificate to the resident once it received the certificate from the project team.
    4. It acknowledged that there had been a delay in replacing the glass and apologised for the delays and the shock and distress the problems with the glass had caused. It acknowledged that the level of service the resident received was not reflective of the high standards it aimed to provide.
    5. It offered the resident a compensation payment of £450, comprising of £40 for delays between stage 1 and 2, £300 for distress and inconvenience, £50 time and effort and £60 for complaint handling.
  8. The resident contacted this Service on 2 March 2023 to advise that the landlord had not yet provided him with a copy of the FENSA certificate. On 24 March 2023, this Service confirmed to the resident that we would investigate his complaint.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to reports of a broken window and the handling of subsequent repairs.

  1. The lease agreement does not specifically state who is responsible for the windows of the property. However, it states that the leaseholder must not replace the windows or external doors of the premises without the prior written consent of the landlord.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states that, for homeowners, the landlord would be responsible for external window frames and furniture but that it would not be responsible for internal frames, hinges, and furniture, or glazing. In this case, the landlord ultimately accepted responsibility for replacing the damaged window within its complaint responses. This was reasonable given that the property was on the 8th floor of the building.
  3. The landlord’s repair policy states that it aims to complete routine repairs within 25 calendar days. The policy does not provide a specific timeframe for repairs such as window replacements. The Ombudsman understands that larger works, such as window replacements, where parts need to be manufactured and ordered, may require longer timeframe. In these cases, the landlord would be expected to provide regular updates to the resident and confirm an expected timescale for the repair to be completed in order to manage a resident’s expectations.
  4. The landlord, in its stage 1 response of 15 August 2022, initially estimated it would take 6 weeks to complete the repairs. The repair was completed on 16 November 2022 – this was an additional 7 weeks longer than the landlord advised. The landlord’s records show there was minimal communication with the resident throughout this process. The repair took 13 weeks in total to be completed and the landlord communicated with the resident twice throughout the process.
  5. While some of the delay may have been outside of the landlord’s control given the need for the window to be manufactured and the need to source a crane to complete the work, the delay and lack of communication would have caused inconvenience to the resident. Although the landlord acted fairly by attending to make sure the window was safe in the meantime, it is reasonable to expect that it should have kept to its agreed timeline or communicated any difficulties it was having, with regards to ordering or installing the windows, to the resident.
  6. In this case, the landlord acted reasonably by acknowledging the time, effort distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and it offered the resident a compensation payment of £350 in recognition of this.
  7. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  8. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging the time, effort distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and its offer of £350 is considered proportionate in view of the failings identified in this case. The amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which states that amounts in this range are considered appropriate where has been a service failure which adversely affected the resident but where there may be no permanent impact. This Service considers the landlords actions of replacing the window, acknowledging the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, and offering compensation meets our expectations and guidance for appropriate resolution and redress.
  9. For the reasons set out above, the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will respond within 10 working days at stage 1 and within 20 working days at stage 2 of its complaints process. The landlord acted appropriately by responding to the resident’s initial complaint at stage 1 within its published timescales.
  2. However, following the resident’s escalation on 15 August 2022, there was a delay in acknowledging and responding at stage 2 until 16 November 2022. This was a period of 3 months. This was significantly outside of its published response timescale of 20 working days at stage 2. During this time, the resident needed to spend additional time and trouble pursuing his concerns through the intervention of this Service.
  3. The landlord, in its stage 2 response, acknowledged this delay, apologised and offered £100 compensation for its complaint handling. The landlord acted fairly by acknowledging its mistakes, apologising and offering compensation. The landlord’s offer of £100 compensation goes some way to acknowledge the complaint handling failings. However, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to address each aspect of a complaint within its responses.
  4. The landlord did not provide any response to the resident’s concern regarding the cause of the glass shattering. It is reasonable to expect that the landlord would want to know the cause of the glass shattering, if not for the resident’s sake but so that it can know to refrain from installing that particular type of glass in the property if an issue was identified.
  5. The landlord stated in its complaint response that it would provide a copy of the FENSA certificate to the resident as soon as it received it from the project team. It is of concern that despite agreeing to do so, the resident has informed the Ombudsman that he has not yet received these as of 29 January 2024. The FENSA website suggests that certificates are issued within 6-8 weeks after installation. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to provide the certificates as agreed or explain why it was unable to provide these within a reasonable timeframe in order to fully resolve the complaint. 
  6. Given the landlords failure to provide a FENSA certificate as promised in its stage 2 response along with the delay in responding to the complaint at stage 2 and the lack of an explanation or any reassurance in relation to the cause of the glass shattering in the resident’s flat and in 6 other flats, this Service has determined that there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and orders are made below for remedy.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s response to reports of a broken window and the handling of subsequent repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

 

Orders

  1. The landlord must do the following within the next four weeks:
    1. Confirm its position as to whether it has investigated the reported pattern of glass panes shattering and provide the outcome. If it has not done so, it should confirm whether it intends to investigate the concerns further and the steps it would take to do so.
    2. Provide the resident with a copy of the FENSA certificate for the new windows or explain why it is unable to do so.
    3. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failures identified in its complaint handling.
    4. Pay the resident compensation of £600 comprised of:
      1. £450 as offered by the landlord in its stage 2 response of 16 November 2022.
      2. A further compensation of £100. This compensation is awarded for the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to provide the FENSA certificates as agreed following its complaint responses.
      3. A further £50 for its complaint handling.
  2. The landlord should provide this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.