London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202226880)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226880

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

11 July 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs in the kitchen, including:
  1. the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to renew the kitchen
  2. the landlord’s handling of electrical repairs
  3. the landlord’s response to a fire
  4. the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be reimbursed for costs incurred during the electrical disrepair.
2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record-keeping practices.

Background

The resident has lived in a 4-bedroom house under an assured tenancy agreement since completing a mutual exchange on 29 September 2022. The resident lives with her 7 children, who were all under the age of 16 at the time of the complaint.
On 21 and 22 June 2023, the resident raised a complaint. The resident was dissatisfied that:
1. she had already raised several complaints previously and received no response
2. a non-standard kitchen had been poorly and partially fitted by the previous tenant
3. the electrics in the kitchen continuously tripped on a daily basis, which she had been reporting for approximately 9 months, and which affected her ability to cook, and wash and dry clothes
4. her cooker had been disconnected by the landlord in or around February 2023 due to being unsafe, and she had no cooking facilities
5. she was unable to replace the cooker, as the one in situ needed to be cut out because it was integrated with the kitchen worktops
6. electrical repairs had been identified during an inspection in or around March 2023 but had not been completed
7. she did not believe the landlord had conducted adequate tests of the electrics prior to the mutual exchange
In its stage 1 complaint response on 23 June 2023, the landlord:
1. explained it would not offer a new kitchen unless the current one was beyond a state of repair, and explained it would contact the resident once her property had been added to the renewals list
2. stated it would instruct a contractor to inspect the electrics
3. explained the cooker was the resident’s responsibility to remove and replace
The resident escalated her complaint on 23 June 2023. The resident remained dissatisfied that:
1. the kitchen was beyond a state of repair and wanted it to be inspected by the landlord’s planned maintenance team
2. reiterated that the electrics were tripping daily and that the cooker had been disconnected approximately 5 months earlier
Between 25 July 2023 and 1 August 2023, the landlord told the resident outside of its complaints process that it:
1. had added her kitchen to its planned works programme for replacement
2. agreed to cut out the resident’s cooker to allow her to replace it
3. had rewired the kitchen
4. offered £170 compensation for its handling of the electrical repairs
5. would not reimburse the resident the cost of takeaways she had ordered for her and her children during the period that the electrics were tripping, and she was without a cooker
The resident escalated her complaint again on 1 August 2023. The resident remained dissatisfied that:
1. the landlord’s offer of compensation was inadequate
2. the kitchen had not yet been replaced
3. the landlord’s decision to not reimburse the resident the cost of takeaways was inconsistent with its policy
In its stage 2 complaint response on 6 March 2024, the landlord:
1. confirmed the electrics at the property had been tested before the resident moved in, and that problems with electrics tripping had not been identified
2. acknowledged the cooker was integrated into the kitchen worktop, and therefore it would cut it out
3. explained a repair appointment for the kitchen had been booked for July 2023 but it was identified at that time that the kitchen was not repairable due to being ‘non-standard’
4. stated it had prioritised the resident’s kitchen replacement, and this would likely take place between April and June 2024
5. explained that by 3 April 2023 it had given the resident £373 of food vouchers due to the lack of access to cooking facilities
6. stated it would offer further compensation for food costs incurred by the resident outside of its complaints process
7. acknowledged it had delayed in providing its complaint response, explained this was due to a backlog of complaints, and apologised
8. offered £730 compensation comprised of:
  1. £320 for loss of appliances
  2. £100 for distress
  3. £150 for inconvenience
  4. £100 for the time and effort in progressing the complaint
  5. £40 for poor complaint handling
  6. £20 for a missed appointment
On 6 March 2024, the resident provided the landlord with takeaway receipts totalling £2,933. On 25 March 2024, the landlord offered the resident £2,198 compensation for the food costs incurred by the resident.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s record keeping

The Ombudsman expects, and it is well established good practice that, landlords create and maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. Clear records also demonstrate that landlords have complied with their legal and regulatory duties.
It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has failed to maintain adequate records, which has impacted on this service’s ability to carry out a thorough investigation, as highlighted at various points throughout this report. This was a significant failure by the landlord and contributed to the other failures identified in this report.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to renew the kitchen

The landlord has not provided a copy of the original tenancy agreement to this service. It is therefore not possible to say with certainty what the landlord’s obligation to repair or renew the property was. This was a failure by the landlord.
Generally, landlords are not obliged to offer renewals or upgrades unless the items are beyond economical repair. This is a standard across the housing sector.
The evidence indicates the resident signed a declaration on 20 June 2022 which stated she accepted the condition of the property as seen. The assignment of the tenancy to the resident was completed on 29 September 2022.
On 21 and 22 June 2023, the resident raised complaints about the kitchen. This included that it was poorly and partially fitted, and that she wanted the landlord to cut out the cooker which was integrated with the kitchen worktops to allow her to replace it.
In its stage 1 complaint response on 23 June 2023, the landlord explained:
1. it would not offer a new kitchen unless the current kitchen was beyond a state of repair
2. it would contact the resident once her property had been added to the list for kitchen renewals
3. the resident was responsible for removing and replacing the integrated cooker
In reply to the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, the resident explained that the landlord had misunderstood her concerns, and that the kitchen was beyond a state of repair.
On 7 July 2023, the landlord told the resident it had made an appointment for 20 July 2023 to inspect the kitchen and identify what repairs were needed. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
The landlord has not provided this service with any contemporaneous record of an inspection on 20 July 2023. The resident reported that at that inspection, she was told the kitchen could not be repaired because it was a non-standard kitchen which had been fitted by the previous tenant. The landlord has not disputed this.
On 25 July 2023, the landlord told the resident that it had added the kitchen to its planned programme of works for renewal. This was appropriate in the circumstances, as the landlord had identified that it was unable to complete repairs.
It also stated that in the interim it would cut out the integrated cooker to allow the resident to replace it. This was reasonable in the circumstances, and there is no evidence the landlord was obliged to offer this.
The Ombudsman understands that the cooker was cut out in or around August 2023. Although the landlord has provided no records to evidence this, it has not been disputed by the resident.
The resident had accepted the condition of the property as it was, including the kitchen. However, the landlord’s mutual exchange policy states that it would conduct an inspection of a property prior to completion of an exchange. There is no evidence that the landlord did so in this case. This was a failure by the landlord.
Had the landlord conducted the pre-exchange inspection, it could have identified that the kitchen was non-standard and communicated this to the resident at an earlier opportunity. This could have avoided the delays in the cooker being removed, which itself contributed to the delay in the resident having access to adequate cooking facilities.

The landlord’s handling of electrical repairs

The landlord’s repairs policy states it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours. The policy also states the landlord will aim to complete routine repairs within 25 calendar days.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to complete repairs within a reasonable time. What is reasonable will depend on the circumstances and the nature of the repair. Where there is a delay in completing repairs, the Ombudsman expects landlords to be proactive in:
1. communicating the cause of delays to residents
2. explaining to residents what it intends to do about the delays
3. identifying what it can do to mitigate the impact of delays on residents
In her complaints, the resident was dissatisfied because she believed the landlord had not conducted appropriate checks of the electrics at the property before the mutual exchange was completed.
The evidence indicates the landlord conducted an electrical installation condition report on 14 September 2022. Therefore, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord did conduct the appropriate electrical inspections before the resident completed the mutual exchange.
Although that report did identify electrical repairs (which were completed), there is no evidence that this included problems with the electrics tripping. Therefore, there is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that the landlord knew or ought to have known about the problems with the electrics before the resident reported them.
The resident stated she had reported the electrics tripping since October 2022. Due to the lack of adequate records, it is not possible to verify the resident’s account. What is known for certain is that the resident had reported this to the landlord no later than 17 January 2023. She explained that as a result, she experienced significant difficulties in cooking, and washing and drying clothes.
The resident also reported that an inspection had been conducted on 5 January 2023 and that her cooker had been disconnected on or around 10 February 2023 due to safety concerns. Due to the fact that the electrics tripped on a daily basis, she was unable to use any alternative method of cooking for herself or her children.
Due to the lack of adequate records, it is not possible to verify:
1. what the nature of the inspection on 5 January 2023 was, or whether any repairs were identified
2. when the resident’s cooker was disconnected, or how the landlord came to the conclusion that this was necessary
3. whether the safety concerns about the cooker related to the electrics, the appliance, or both
The resident continued to chase the landlord for a response about what it intended to do about the electrics on:
1. 25 February 2023
2. 3 March 2023
3. 13 March 2023
On 21 and 22 June 2023, the resident raised complaints. This included reiterating that:
1. she had repeatedly raised concerns about the safety of the electrics at the property and nothing had been done
2. she was reliant on the use of an air-fryer, but because of the tripping electrics, was without any cooking facilities
In its stage 1 complaint response on 23 June 2023, the landlord stated it would arrange for a contractor to inspect the electrics. On 4 July 2023, a contractor told the landlord there were at least 14 plug sockets in the resident’s kitchen which had to be isolated due to safety concerns.
Due to the lack of adequate records, it is not possible to determine the number of sockets that were isolated, when they were isolated, whether any further repairs were identified, or what supply of electricity the resident was left with in her kitchen.
Furthermore, this indicates that the landlord did not inspect the kitchen electrics until at least 6 months after the resident raised her concerns. This was not acceptable and was a significant failure by the landlord given that the resident had raised concerns about the safety of the electrics and lack of access to adequate cooking facilities.
On 31 July 2023, the landlord stated the kitchen had been rewired. It is understood this occurred on or around 25 July 2023. Due to the lack of adequate records, it is not possible to verify when the kitchen was rewired, or what steps the landlord took to check the electrics in the kitchen were then safe, such as inspection report or installation certificate.

The landlord’s response to a fire

On 24 March 2023, the resident reported a fire which had occurred on that day. She told the landlord the fire had occurred in a kitchen extractor fan which was not in use at the time. She also stated that she had previously been told that the kitchen needed rewiring.
Due to the lack of adequate records, it is not possible to verify if the resident had previously been told the kitchen needed rewiring, and if so, by who, when, or why.
In an internal email dated 29 March 2023, the landlord stated it had tested the kitchen appliances on 28 March 2023 and concluded that the appliances were faulty and not the electrics. No evidence of any inspections or tests on or around 28 March 2023 have been provided to this service.
Due to the lack of adequate records, it is not possible to verify:
1. whether the landlord responded to the fire in the property, and if it did, whether it did so within a reasonable time
2. whether the landlord tested the appliances on 28 March 2023, and if it did, what the results of those tests were
3. whether the landlord checked the safety of the electrics at the property following the fire

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be reimbursed for costs incurred during the electrical disrepair

In resolution of her complaints, the resident wanted the landlord to reimburse her for the cost of takeaways. This was from when her cooker was disconnected on 10 February 2023 to when her cooking facilities were reconnected on 25 September 2023.
As highlighted at paragraphs 13 to 25 of this report, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord was not responsible for either removing or replacing the resident’s cooker. However, as highlighted at paragraphs 26 to 40 of this report, it is also the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord was responsible for repairing the kitchen electrics.
Given the electrics continuously tripped and given the unreasonable delay in completing the associated repair, it is reasonable to conclude that the resident was not left with any adequate alternative means of cooking during this period.
It is the Ombudsman’s understanding that the kitchen electrics were repaired on or around 26 July 2023. Therefore, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord was responsible for the costs incurred by the resident to feed her family up to this date.
In March 2024, the resident provided the landlord with receipts for takeaways up to September 2023, which totalled £2,933. The landlord offered £2,198 and explained that as it had provided food vouchers on 3 April 2023, it would only reimburse food costs from 4 April 2023 onwards.
It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord’s offer was reasonable. This is because the evidence indicates the resident had access to partial cooking facilities from 26 July 2023, and the landlord’s offer extends beyond this to 25 September 2023.

Summary of the landlord’s handling of repairs in the kitchen

Considering all the circumstances, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repairs in the kitchen, in that the landlord:
1. did not conduct an inspection of the property prior to the mutual exchange, which was inconsistent with its policy
2. unreasonably delayed in inspecting the kitchen
3. unreasonably delayed in completing electrical repairs to the kitchen
4. did not inspect following the fire in the property, or take any action to satisfy itself that the property was safe
5. did not consider the safety of the resident or her children
As a result of these failures, the resident was left for an extended period of time without adequate facilities for washing and drying clothes, or cooking. It is reasonable to conclude that this would have had a significant impact on the resident and her children.
In its stage 2 complaint response on 6 March 2024, the landlord offered £730 compensation, of which £590 was offered for its handling of the electrical repairs. Given the extent of the failures identified in this report, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord’s offer of redress was not reasonable.
This is because there were a series of significant failure which had a serious impact on the resident and her children and has not demonstrated that it has been proactive in putting things right or learning from outcomes.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

The landlord operated a 2-stage complaints policy. The policy states that the landlord will provide a stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days of the complaint being logged. The landlord will provide a stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated.
This service’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should manage complaints. This includes an expectation that landlords will:
1. respond to complaints and complaint escalations within a reasonable time
2. respond to all aspects of the resident’s complaint
3. provide an appropriate remedy through the complaints procedure
The evidence indicates that the resident raised her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the kitchen repairs and electrics on several occasions, including:
1. 17 January 2023
2. 25 February 2023
3. 3 March 2023
4. 13 March 2023
The landlord does not appear to have recognised these expressions of dissatisfaction as complaints. This was a failure by the landlord.
On 14 March 2023, this service instructed the landlord to provide the resident with a complaint response no later than 4 April 2023. This should not have been necessary. The Ombudsman expects landlords to be able to recognise and manage complaints effectively, without the involvement of this service.
There is no evidence the landlord provided the resident with a complaint response following this service’s intervention. This was a significant failure by the landlord.
The resident raised further complaints on 21 and 22 June 2023. These complaints were recognised by the landlord. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 23 June 2023, which was 2 working days later. This was appropriate as it was consistent with the landlord’s policy.
The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response on 23 June 2023. The landlord does not appear to have recognised this as an escalation of the resident’s complaint. This was a failure by the landlord.
The resident explicitly asked for her complaint to be escalated on 1 August 2023. In the absence of a response, the resident approached this service for further support.
On 27 February 2024, this service instructed the landlord to provide a complaint response no later than 6 March 2024. Again, this should not have been necessary, and was a failure by the landlord.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 6 March 2024, which was at least 153 working days after the resident raised her complaint. This was not acceptable, as it was far outside the landlord’s policy and the Ombudsman’s expectations.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord offered £730 compensation, of which £140 was offered for its poor complaint handling. Considering the extent of the wider complaint handling failures identified in this report, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord’s offer was not reasonable.
The evidence indicates that on several occasions, the landlord offered remedies to the resident which were outside of its complaints process. This included:
1. on 31 July 2023, the landlord offered £130 compensation for its handling of the electrical repairs
2. on 1 August 2023, the landlord made a revised offer of £170 compensation for its handling of the electrical repairs
3. on 26 September 2023, the landlord made a revised offer of £310 compensation for its handling of the electrical repairs and delay in providing a complaint response
4. on 25 March 2024, the landlord offered £2,198 compensation to reimburse the resident for costs she had incurred
This was not appropriate. The Ombudsman expects landlords to be able to resolve complaints through their complaints process. This includes offering appropriate remedies. By making such offers outside of its complaints process, the landlord has unnecessarily extended the complaints process and in effect created a 5-stage complaint procedure. This unnecessarily delayed the resident in seeking redress through this service.
Considering all the circumstances, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints, in that:
1. it did not recognise the resident’s complaints at an earlier opportunity
2. did not provide a complaint response when instructed to by this service
3. did not recognise the resident’s escalation at an earlier opportunity
4. unreasonably delayed in providing its complaint response
5. offered various remedies outside of its complaints process, which further unreasonably delayed the resident’s ability to seek redress through this service

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its record keeping practices.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord it its handling of repairs in the kitchen.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to, within 28 days of the date of this determination:
1. provide the resident with an apology from the Chief Executive
2. pay the resident £1,550 (an additional £820) comprised of:
  1. £1,250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the electrical repairs and the unreasonable delay in resolving this
  2. £300 for its poor complaint handling, and the unreasonable delay caused in the resident’s ability to seek redress through this service
  3. this total is inclusive of the £730 already offered by the landlord – the landlord may deduct this sum from the total if it has already been paid
3. provide evidence of the above payments to the Ombudsman, including evidence of any compensation it may already have paid
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to, within 28 days of the date of this determination instruct an appropriately qualified professional to conduct an inspection and test of the electrics at the property to ensure they are safe and provide a copy of the inspection report to the resident and the Ombudsman.
In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to, within 56 days of the date of this determination, undertake a senior management review of this case. The review should be presented to its senior leadership team and shared with the Ombudsman. This review must include:
1. how it ought to have responded to the electrical repairs and fire in the property, and why it did not do so in this case
2. why there was a lack of records in this case
3. whether its record-keeping systems and processes are adequate and meet the demand for the service
4. what it could do to encourage positive behaviours and better record keeping with staff and prevent the same failures from occurring in future
5. decide whether it needs to introduce written guidance for staff on the principles and importance of good record keeping
6. consider if more training is required for front-end staff in respect good record keeping
7. the landlord must produce a report for the Ombudsman confirming the outcome of its review
8. the landlord must show it has shared its report and findings together with any recommendations with its senior leadership team, as well as any affected head of services or executive director

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord pay the resident the £2,198 compensation it had offered to reimburse her for costs incurred, if it has not already done so.