London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202227606)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227606

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

22 April 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 concerns the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s leak report and associated repairs.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant. The tenancy started in July 2015. The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat in a 4 story building.
The landlord is a housing association.
The resident has various health conditions and is blind. The landlord told this Service that a flag was added on its system on 14 September 2015 to reflect that the resident is partially sighted.
In August 2023, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord regarding its failure to reinstate a reasonable adjustment of orange paint on external communal stairs. The resident stated this had been painted over by the landlord during communal works and it had not re-applied this despite promising to do so. Although the landlord issued a stage 1 response on 22 September 2023, there is no evidence of this complaint having exhausted the landlord’s complaint’s process therefore this complaint has not been considered in this investigation.
In her formal complaint and throughout her communications with the landlord, the resident said that the landlord had not acted in accordance with its duties under the Equality Act 2010. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to consider if a landlord has acted unlawfully in relation to its equality duties under the Equality Act 2010 or award damages, that is for the courts to determine. However, we will consider if a landlord has given due regard to its obligations and provide redress for any detriment caused to the resident.

Summary of events

During the evening of 23 October 2022, the resident reported that a leak was coming into her flat in several places from above. She told the landlord that the leak had affected the electrics within the property.
The landlord’s repair records show it immediately raised a 4-hour emergency repair. The landlord’s plumber and electrical contractor attended the same evening. Its plumber identified that the leak was coming from the roof of the building and its electrical contractor noted that the leaks were not affecting electricals and they provided photos of the fuse box and ceiling light.
The landlord’s records show it raised a work order with its roofing team on 24 October 2022 in relation to the roof leak. The complete date of this job was recorded as 24 October 2022 with the status “complete no action”.
On 28 October 2022, the landlord raised a work order with a drainage contractor. The completion date of this job was recorded as 28 October 2022 with status “complete no action”.
The resident raised a formal complaint by letter (undated) received by the landlord on 3 November 2022. This stated that the Area Housing Manager (AHM) told her on 26 October 2022 that a roofer and an electrician would contact her the next day however no one did. She said that the roofer only called her at 3 pm on 28 October 2022 when he informed her that work would begin on 31 October 2022. The resident said that the landlord left her in a “dangerous and unsafe” flat where due to continuous rain, this caused further water to run down her internal walls.
The resident said the landlord had failed to treat her appropriately. She asked the landlord to provide its complaints process, equalities policy and explain who was responsible for repairing damage to her flat caused by the leak.
In its internal complaint note date 4 November 2022, the landlord referenced the roof repair had not been completed and asked that the AHM to give the matter “urgent attention”.
In its letter to the resident dated 4 November 2022, the landlord acknowledged her complaint and said it was sorry to hear she was having issues with a roof leak. It stated that the issues she raised would be investigated by its AHM who would be in touch with an update within the next 10 days.
The landlord’s repair records indicate a job was raised on 9 November 2022 for the electrics to be checked and made safe as result of the roof leak. It stated the roof issue was with the gutters which had now been completed and cleared.
Over the next few weeks, the resident sent 3 further letters to the landlord (these were undated and it is unclear when the landlord received them). Within her communications the resident:
1. Reiterated her request for the landlord’s complaints and equality and diversity policies.
2. Stated that she had not received any update from its AHM as promised.
3. The water leaked into her microwave causing it to blow up. She said an electrician attended on “23 or 24 November 2022” and asked her if her electrics were working. She told them that she was only using 2 sockets which worked however she was too afraid to use others. She said they checked the fuse box which was dry and left after 5 minutes.
4. No one had visited her flat to see what damage had been caused by the leak.
5. She was disappointed she had not been asked to attend a meeting or received a response to her complaint.
The landlord’s complaint record dated 16 November 2022 referenced that the roofer confirmed that the repairs to the roof had been completed.
On 8 December 2022, the landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response. This stated it understood the resident’s complaint concerned dissatisfaction with the way it had handled the roof leak at her property. The landlord said the findings from its investigation were that:
1. The resident reported the leak to its AHM at 17.49 on 23 October 2023 who then contacted its out of hours contact centre. An emergency repair was raised for a visit within 4 hours.
2. Its plumber who attended that evening was unable to rectify the leak as this was coming from the roof of the property building but told her he would report back to its roofing team the following day.
3. As the resident was concerned about water getting in the electrics and feeling unsafe, its electrician also attended the same evening to make safe the electrics.
4. Its AHM discussed safety at the property with the resident, but it was decided a decant whilst works to the roof were being undertaken would not be possible due to the nature of her disability and the need to involve the Royal National Institute for the Blind (RNIB) in any move.
5. On 24 October 2022, its AHM escalated this matter to its maintenance manager requesting that they provide an update and proposed date for the works. The landlord acknowledged this was not followed up on and apologised for this.
6. Its AHM re-raised the job with its maintenance team on 26 October 2022 and it was agreed repairs to the roof would take place imminently and that the electrics in the resident’s property would be ‘boxed’ in to prevent any further water ingress whist the roof was repaired.
7. On 28 October 2022 the resident informed it that she would be raising a formal complaint as she had not been contacted by its roofing team or maintenance manager. The landlord apologised for not communicating with her satisfactorily. It said its AHM took leave for a couple of days at the end of October, and it was sorry this was not chased up by anyone else. It stated it would raise with the relevant management team to ensure service was improved going forward.
8. The works to the roof began on 28 October 2022 and had since been completed but it had been advised the scaffold would remain in place until next time there was excessive rain to ensure the repair had been successful.
9. During this time, she was contacted by its maintenance team to check, make safe and box in her electrics but she advised she would rather wait until the roof issue was completely fixed. It said that the electrical check had now been completed and there were no safety concerns with the electrics.
The landlord said it attached its accessible services and complaints policies but said it does not have an equality policy, but it set out its equality statement within its response.
The landlord’s internal note dated 15 December 2022 that no one has attended to assess the damage. Its maintenance team responded saying they would inspect the damage.
The landlord’s internal note dated 22 December 2022 stated that the resident was happy with the inspection date of 5 January 2023 and that she may have a representative from the RNIB or her support worker present.
The landlord raised a job order on 22 December 2022 for redecoration works to the walls in the resident’s flat in the kitchen, living room, hallway, and bedroom. The complete date of this job was recorded as 20 January 2023 with the status “complete”.
In her stage 2 complaint letter to the landlord dated 29 December 2022, the resident asked it to escalate her complaint. Within her complaint the resident stated she understood she would be interviewed and said she would like this to take place at its office. She said she would give full details of her complaint at that time but said the landlord had left her in a dangerous and unsafe environment “completely ignoring” its responsibilities under Equality Act 2010.
The landlord’s complaint note dated 9 January 2023 referred to the resident requesting that it replaced her vinyl flooring which she said was damaged by the leak.
The landlord’s complaint note dated 23 January 2023 referenced the resident’s letter requesting to move to stage 2. This record indicated it tried to call the resident to acknowledge the complaint but noted the phone “was off and no voicemail”.
Its complaint note dated 3 February 2023 stated all the redecoration works were completed apart from the flooring and that this would be booked in as soon as it received the quote back from the flooring company.
On 9 February 2023, the landlord issued a stage 2 response in which it referred to the resident’s 4 November 2022 complaint and said it provided a stage 1 response on 16 November 2022. It said it understood from her letter that she believed her complaint was not addressed and that the outcomes she sought was for the unanswered issues to be addressed.
It explained that to investigate and review her complaint it had reviewed the communal repairs relating to the roof, reviewed how her repair was dealt with and had made the following findings:
1. It was noted that the leaks were not affecting the electrics and photos were taken to confirm this.
2. Its roofing contractor attended on 24 October 2022 to assess the situation and works began on 28 October 2022.
3. The only reasonable adjustment that could be made, was to the offer to temporarily move her out as there was no minor fix that could be done to prevent any further leaks until the roof repair was carried out.
4. It had (previously) dealt with a leak in one section of the roof, which was not located near her property. The repair was carried out and there was no reason to believe that this would affect her. This leak was not linked to the one that affected your property.
5. It was not liable for damage to personal possessions, and this would need to be claimed for against her content’s insurance.
The landlord stated that due to the delay with dealing with her stage 2 complaint it was offering her £50 as a goodwill gesture.

Post landlord’s final response

On 2 February 2023 the resident told us that she had not been provided with an opportunity to present her case at stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process. She also said that the landlord’s stage 1 response had the following errors:
1. It said the leaks had not affected the electrics at the property when it had, and the electrician had to re-set the lights and heating on 23 October 2022 as water was penetrating the fuse box.
2. Its roofing team did not contact her on 24 October 2022 and works only began on 31 October 2022.
3. The landlord did not offer to move her into alternative accommodation.
4. She was still waiting for repairs to be carried out (flooring).
5. She had not been contacted by the AHM or housing officer and she would not be accepting the £50 in compensation offered.
6. The landlord did not address her complaint about putting in reasonable adjustments.
The landlord completed the flooring works on 21 February 2023.
In March 2024, the Ombudsman received communication from the resident advising she had finally met with the landlord face-to-face to discuss its handling of the leak.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s policies and obligations

In accordance with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for the structure and exterior of the property. This includes the roof and drains. This is echoed in the landlord’s repairs policy which also states:
1. For emergency works where there is an immediate danger to the occupant or members of the public, it will attend within 24 hours.
2. For emergency works that occur out of hours, it will attend within 4 hours. The out of hours service will be to ‘make safe’ and lower the immediate risk. The follow-on repair will then be completed at the earliest mutually convenient appointment.
3. For vulnerable residents it can adjust its service standards where a delay would put them at risk because of their condition.
The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Its complaints policy required the landlord, at stage 1, to write within 10 working days to explain how it will resolve the complaint and timescales. It states if it could not it would explain why and write again within a further 10 working days.
Its policy states if the resident is dissatisfied with its resolution and asks it to, it will escalate to stage 2. It will make contact within 2 working days to give residents the opportunity to explain their side of things. Its policy states that it will write with the outcome and next steps within 20 working days of the request to escalate. If it cannot, it will explain why and write again within a further 10 working days. After it has agreed the resolution and confirmed its decision in writing, it will monitor progress until all actions are complete.
The landlord’s equality statement says it values and is committed to:
1. Promoting diversity and inclusion, this was one of its core values.
2. Treating all residents with fairness and respect and providing services that do not discriminate.
3. To help it deliver on these commitments, rather than having a specific policy on equality and diversity, it ensures they are embedded in every policy and procedure through an assessment of the equality impacts of change as part of its policy review process.
4. The assessment helps it design sensible and well-evidenced policies that best enable good customer service and support the diverse needs of its residents, while respecting and valuing their diversity.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s leak report and associated repairs.

When the resident reported the leak on 23 October 2022, the landlord acted appropriately as it raised an emergency job for its plumber to investigate within 4 hours. It also raised an emergency repair to make safe the electrics at the property as the resident had told it that the leak had affected this. The landlord’s plumber and electrician attended within this timescale demonstrating the landlord appropriately followed its repair policy on this occasion.
As the plumber identified that the leak was coming from the roof of the building (when it rained), they were unable to stop the leak that evening however informed the resident the landlord would raise a job with the roofing team the next day, which it did. Whilst this was reasonable, it is clear the landlord’s roofing team did not visit to investigate the leak until after the landlord re-raised the job this on 28 October 2022. The landlord’s failure to prioritise this job to minimise the risk of further leaks suggests that it did not consider the resident’s disability or needs despite the resident highlighting these to the landlord. This is indicative of a failure by the landlord in following its policy to support the diverse needs of its residents.
Regarding the electrics, it is clear that they were inspected, and photos taken by the electrician indicate they were left in a safe condition, therefore the landlord’s actions were appropriate here. The resident told this service that during this visit the electrician had to re-set the lighting as the water had penetrated the fuse box and tripped these services. However, as the electrician’s note of the visit on 23 October 2022 suggests the electrics were not affected by the leak, this Service is unable to verify the resident’s account here. Nonetheless, because the roof leak had not been fixed, the risk of the electrics being affected by water leaking into the property when it rained was ongoing. Therefore, this Service considers it was unsafe for the resident to remain at the property whilst the roof remained unfixed, particularly as she was partially sighted which likely put her at greater risk. As the landlord was unable to ‘make safe’ the leak or provide any temporary repair during the initial visit or during the days that followed, we would expect it to look into providing emergency alternative accommodation for the resident as per it’s decant policy until the repair was completed.
In her formal complaint the resident explained that continuous rain over the next couple of days caused water to run down her internal walls in 4 different locations which she said was “extremely frightening”. This Service is mindful that in subsequent correspondence to the landlord the resident told it that her microwave “blew up” up when she tried to use it after the leak. This supports our view that it was unsafe for the resident to remain at the property whilst the roof repair was outstanding.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord stated its AHM discussed safety at the property and a potential decant with the resident but said this was not possible due to the nature of her disability and the need to involve RNIB in any move. However, the resident told this Service that no offer was made to temporarily move her. Because there are no records to show the landlord explored a decant with the resident or that it completed a risk assessment at any stage, the landlord has not demonstrated that it took adequate steps to assess the resident’s health and safety or find her temporary alternative accommodation. In the circumstances, the landlord’s failure to do so is indicative of it failing to meet its obligations.
The landlord inspected the roof on 28 October 2022 when it identified a repair to the guttering was required. Its repair records indicate the repair was completed the same day however this is incorrect as the landlord’s internal communication indicates the repair work to the roof began on 31 October 2022 and was completed by 7 November 2022 which is not shown in its repair records. Bearing in mind the landlord needed to arrange for scaffolding to be put up to enable the roof repair, the approximate 2-week timeframe taken for it to resolve the leak from the roof, was reasonable. This Service is mindful however that as some information in the landlord’s repair records are incorrect or unclear, this indicates poor knowledge and data management. This can hinder the landlord’s understanding of a customer’s journey for example when investigating complaints, as such an appropriate order has been included below.
The landlord’s communication with the resident was inadequate at times. For example, after its plumber was unable to address the leak on 23 October 2022, the landlord did not contact the resident the next day to confirm when its roofing team would visit, as promised. This prompted the resident to call the landlord to chase this. Furthermore, whilst its AHM told the resident on 26 October that its repair team would contact her the next day, no one did. This meant the resident had to call the landlord again on 28 October 2022 to chase the repair. Although its repair records show the landlord then raised this job and its roofer called the resident on the same day to advise her when the works would be undertaken, the lack of communication from the landlord prior to this was unreasonable. This would have caused the resident additional distress in an already difficult situation. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for its communication having not reached the expected standard and said it had raised this with the relevant management team. Whilst its comments suggest learning by the landlord and went some way to put right its failing, the landlord did not offer the resident any compensation which would have appropriate in the circumstance.
Following the repair of the roof, the landlord raised a job for its electrician to check the electrics at the property. In its stage 1 response the landlord said the electrician who attended found there were no safety concerns with the electrics within the property, however, this is not clear from its repair records as no details of findings or work undertaken is included. This is further evidence of poor knowledge and information management by the landlord.
In her formal complaint the resident raised concerns about internal damage caused to the flat because of the leaks. In accordance with its repairing obligations the landlord was responsible to address any damage caused to the walls and ceilings. Whilst its repair policy does not include any timescale for such repairs, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to complete any repairs within a reasonable timeframe. There is no evidence to show the landlord was proactive in arranging with the resident to inspect the flat to assess the repairs needed. It took the landlord until 22 December 2022, more than six weeks after the resident initially raised this issue, to raise a job for its contractor to apply a stain block and paint of the ceilings and walls in the kitchen, living room, hall and kitchen. The landlord’s internal notes indicates it then inspected the property on 5 January 2023 and booked in the works for 30 January 2023 which were completed within a few days. It is acknowledged that the landlord also replaced flooring damaged by the leak as per the resident’s request. This was reasonable. Nonetheless, because there was a delay with acknowledging the internal repairs needed to the flat, this impacted the overall time taken to complete this work, which was inappropriate.
In summary, although the landlord initially attended the resident’s leak report promptly, it was unable to resolve the leak or provide any temporary repair for more than a week. As it did not carry out any risk assessment or take any steps to temporarily re-house the resident in the interim, this shows that the landlord failed to give proper regard to the resident’s health and safety and did not appropriately consider her needs and personal circumstances. This is indicative of maladministration by the landlord.

Complaint handling

The landlord received the resident’s formal complaint on 3 November 2022, and sent its stage 1 response on 8 December 2022, indicating this was issued 25 working days outside of its timescale. In her formal complaint the resident requested the landlord provide her with its complaints, accessible services, and equality policies. As the landlord sent these to the resident in the post with its complaint response, this Service considers that there was also a delay in providing this information to the resident.
It is unclear exactly when the landlord received the resident’s stage 2 complaint letter dated 29 December 2022 sent by post, however it logged this on its system on 23 January 2023. As the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 8 February 2023, this does not indicate there was any significant delay in issuing this however in its stage 2 response it offered the resident £50 in compensation due to the delay in dealing with her stage 2 complaint which was reasonable.
However, the resident told this service that she believed she had not had a reasonable opportunity to “present her case” at stage 2. In her escalation request, the resident had requested a “face to face” meeting with the landlord to fully explain why she was unhappy with its handling of the leak and associated stage 1 complaint. This Service has seen no evidence of an acknowledgement being sent to the resident.
The landlord did try to call the resident on 23 January 2022 regarding her stage 2 complaint but was unable to speak to her. Whilst this was in accordance with its policy that states it will make contact “to give complainants the opportunity to explain their side of things”, there is no evidence that it tried to call her again regarding her complaint before issuing its response. Furthermore, there is no evidence of the landlord considering her request for a face-to-face meeting as a reasonable adjustment or explaining the reasons if it was unable to do so. This shows the landlord failed to consider her vulnerabilities and that it did not manage the resident’s expectations. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident as it made her feel as though she had not been afforded a reasonable opportunity to properly explain her stage 2 complaint. The resident has since told us she had a face-to-face to meeting with the landlord however as this took place more than a year later after the complaints process, it will not be considered here.
It is clear that there were factual errors within the landlord’s complaint responses including in relation to the date it provided its stage 1 response, when it raised the roofing repair with its maintenance team and the date the roofing works began. Furthermore, as previously mentioned, this investigation found the landlord did not explore decanting the resident, therefore, its suggestion in its complaint responses that it did, was inappropriate. This service considers that such inaccuracies suggest that the landlord did not take appropriate steps to properly investigate the complaint and is further evidence of it failing to take sufficient steps to understand the situation from the resident’s perspective.
As mentioned above, following the resident’s complaint, the landlord took appropriate action to address damage caused to the walls, ceilings, and floor. However, it did not acknowledge this in its complaint responses. As the resident raised this matter in her complaint, we would expect it to explain the works being carried out and include the expected timescales for this in its response. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (CHC) which makes clear landlords are expected to address all points raised in a complaint. Its failure to do so therefore is evidence of poor complaint handling by the landlord.
These issues indicate there was maladministration by the landlord whilst handling the resident’s complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord whilst handling the resident’s leak report and associated repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord whilst handling the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord completed repairs to the roof within a reasonable timeframe which stopped rainwater leaking into the resident’s flat in several places. However, it failed to carry out any risk assessment or offer the resident temporary accommodation whilst the repair was outstanding. This put the resident’s health and safety at risk and is evidence of the landlord failing to give due regard to the resident’s vulnerabilities and needs in accordance with its obligations. There were also communication failings by the landlord which compounded the issues and made the resident feel unheard.
There were some minor delays by the landlord in providing its stage 1 response and details of policies the resident had requested. There were also inaccuracies in its responses, and it did not consider the resident’s request for a face-to-face meeting as a reasonable adjustment. Further, it did not take sufficient steps to enable the resident to explain her stage 2 complaint in full, so it properly understood her concerns.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders that the landlord within 4 weeks:
1. Provides an apology to the resident for the failings identified in this review.
2. Pays the resident £650 in compensation made up of:
  1. £400 for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble whilst handling the resident’s leak report and associated repairs.
  2. £250 for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble whilst handling the related complaint.
3. Considers the findings of the Ombudsman’s spotlight report Knowledge and Information Management and self-assess against these findings.
4. Reviews its repairs and complaints policies, specifically how it deals with vulnerabilities whilst handling repairs and complaints to ensure it reflects the commitments outlined in its equality statement.