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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202304816)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304816

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

14 June 2024


Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the door entry system not working.
  2. The Ombudsman has also taken the decision to investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident and his wife have a joint assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord. The property is a fifth-floor flat. The landlord does not own the freehold of the building and is a leaseholder. A facilities management company is responsible for the estate and communal areas.
  2. The resident describes himself as disabled and his wife is in remission of cancer. The landlord’s records show it was aware that the resident’s wife has had cancer and has experienced mobility problems.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 13 and 30 January 2023 about an ongoing problem with the door entry system in his block. The resident said the door entry system was not working and he was unable to hear or see visitors. The landlord acknowledged the issue had been ongoing since August 2022 and said it would contact the facilities management company.
  4. On 23 March 2023 the resident made a complaint to the landlord. He stated the door entry system was not working and it had no camera feed and no voice communication. The resident said it was affecting the whole building. He had been reporting the problem to the facilities management company since August 2022 but was not having any success in getting the repair progressed. The resident questioned why in 8 months it had not been possible to get the parts to fix the system. He asked the landlord to contact the relevant people to get the door entry system fixed.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 27 March 2023. It did not uphold the complaint as it said the door entry system was the responsibility of the facilities management company. It told the resident to contact the facilities management company and stated it was unable to help any further. On 18 July 2023, the landlord issued a second stage 1 response. It said the facilities management company had confirmed the door entry system was obsolete, the parts were no longer available, and a new door entry system was needed. The cost of the replacement was going to be covered by the reserve fund and the work was anticipated to begin mid-September 2023. The landlord offered £25 compensation for not responding within 10 working days.
  6. On 19 July 2023 the resident escalated his complaint. He was dissatisfied with the £25 compensation when he had not been able to use the door entry system for 11 months. The resident was unable to let visitors through the first communal door. He could also not see or hear visitors on the access doors further within the block. The resident said he had the expense of getting mini cabs to the supermarket. He was unhappy that he had initially raised this with the landlord a year ago and had been ignored and would now have further expense as it was not going to be fixed until September 2023. He highlighted to the landlord that the second stage 1 response should have been a stage 2 response.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 9 November 2023. It said human error led to the resident receiving a second stage 1 response rather than a stage 2 response, for which it apologised. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint as the landlord said correspondence had been sent to residents about access arrangements. This correspondence advised residents that they would need to get visitors to call them on arrival and residents would need to go down to the door to manually let visitors in. Arrangements were put in place for carers to access the building. The landlord advised that the second stage of the statutory consultation process had been completed and the work instructed. It said this process was delayed by a few weeks and the replacement door entry system was now due to be fitted in mid-November 2023. The landlord said it had looked at the resident’s request for the service charge to be reimbursed but said the resident did not pay service charges, so no reimbursement was applicable. It offered £100 compensation for complaint handling and escalation delay.
  8. On 9 November 2023 the resident advised this Service that he was dissatisfied with the stage 2 response from the landlord. The resident was disappointed there was no apology, and the compensation was insufficient. He felt the landlord was saying because he was in receipt of benefits, he was not entitled to reimbursement for the service charge. The resident said for a year and 3 months he had been expected to travel down 5 floors when called by visitors or deliveries which he could not do because of his mobility problems. He said it had been 15 months of stress and expense which had impacted his wife’s health. The resident asked this Service for support in getting the outstanding repair resolved. Subsequently, the resident has advised the Ombudsman that the door entry system was replaced in December 2023. He has advised this Service that the new system has also begun experiencing faults.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

  1. The resident referenced in his correspondence to this Service that the new door entry system had experienced faults. Paragraph 42a of the Scheme sets out that “the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale“. As such, this Service is unable to comment on the new door entry system and the faults the resident has since experienced. Should the resident wish for the Ombudsman to consider a complaint about the new door entry system, he should ensure that a formal complaint about the issues has been raised with the landlord and the complaints process is exhausted. If the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s final response when these issues have exhausted its complaints process, the resident can bring his complaint to this Service to be investigated under a new complaint reference.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the door entry system not working.

  1. The landlord does not own the freehold of the building and is a leaseholder. A facilities management company is responsible for the estate and communal areas. This Service has not seen the agreement that is in place between the landlord and the facilities management company. However, as the evidence shows the facilities management company issued the landlord with section 20 notices, it is likely the facilities management company is also the freeholder or acting on behalf of the freeholder.
  2. The resident’s tenancy lists “Third Party Management” under Appendix A Schedule of Services but provides no further details. The terms and conditions document that accompanied the resident’s tenancy states the landlord “will make sure that common entrances, halls, stairways, lifts, passageways and other communal areas are kept repaired”. There was no reference in the document about alternative contact arrangements for repairs because of a facilities management company being in place.
  3. The resident stated the door entry system had been faulty since August 2022 and he had reported this to the landlord and facilities management company back in August 2022. The evidence provided to this Service has not shown this contact. However, there was a system note where the landlord recorded the issue had been ongoing since August 2022 and the facilities management company advised the landlord in an email dated 3 November 2023 that the problem with the door entry system was first raised in August 2022.
  4. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 23 March 2023 as he had repeatedly contacted the facilities management company to get the door entry system fixed but without success. The resident felt he was being “fobbed off” by the facilities management company because after nearly 8 months of chasing them, the facilities management company was still saying it could not get the parts. The resident asked the landlord if it could contact the relevant person as there was no progress after nearly 8 months.
  5. The landlord’s first stage 1 response on 27 March 2023 said that the door entry system was the responsibility of the facilities management company, and so it was unable to help. This was unreasonable because the resident had explained that he had repeatedly reported the problem to the facilities management company over a long period and was getting no resolution. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to proactively communicate with the facilities management company to get information on the situation and hold the facilities management company to account for their responsibilities. As the leaseholder, it was the landlord’s responsibility to pursue the repair so it could satisfy its obligation of making sure the communal entrance was kept in repair as stated in the resident’s tenancy agreement. Earlier intervention from the landlord may have resulted in an earlier resolution of the issue, rather than the resident having to wait another 9 months, until December 2023, for the resolution. 
  6. While it may have been the responsibility of the facilities management company to resolve the problem, the resident’s contract was with the landlord, not the facilities management company. Therefore, it would have been appropriate and reasonable for the landlord to have owned the situation and helped the resident achieve a resolution to the issue that had been causing significant inconvenience for nearly 8 months. The landlord may not have been able to carry out the work, but it could have taken this forward which would have saved the resident time and trouble.
  7. The Ombudsman recognises the resident made contact via a complaint form, used the word “complaint” and therefore the landlord accepted the resident’s communication as a complaint. However, the landlord should have also acknowledged the service request that was made. The resident asked the landlord to “contact whomever it is needs contacting” to ensure the repair was progressed. The evidence showed it was not until 29 June 2023 that the landlord asked the management company for a timescale for the matter being resolved. This was over 3 months after the resident raised his complaint and over 5 months after the landlord documented the resident’s calls regarding this matter. This was an unreasonable length of time for the landlord to have waited.
  8. It was not until the second stage 1 response issued on 18 July 2023 that the landlord provided the resident with an update on the situation and said a new door entry system was likely to be fitted in mid-September 2023. This was nearly 4 months after the resident reported his difficulty in pursuing the repair with the management company. While the landlord said “the issue has been ongoing for quite some time” it did not acknowledge the inconvenience the resident was experiencing. At this point it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have offered an apology for not having taken ownership of pursuing the repair and seeing it through to resolution at an earlier time. While the landlord did not have the ability to fix the problem, it had the opportunity to provide an apology. This would have gone some way towards recognising the impact of the issue on the resident and assured him that his situation was understood despite the new door entry system being delayed for at least another 2 months.
  9. The stage 2 response issued on 9 November 2023 said the resident’s complaint was not upheld. The reason the landlord gave for not upholding the complaint was because correspondence had “gone out” to residents regarding the door entry system. However, the evidence showed that prior to the resident’s escalation email of 19 July 2023, there had been no communications from the landlord regarding the door entry system and only one from the facilities management company on 13 July 2023. This was not an acceptable level of communication to manage the resident’s expectations and frustration when the evidence showed the landlord was made aware of the problem with the door entry system on 13 January 2023.
  10. The landlord sent letters to residents in August 2023 and October 2023 and the facilities management company sent a newsletter in October 2023. It was unfair and unreasonable of the landlord to not uphold the resident’s complaints because of these communications as if the landlord had responded to the resident within its policy of 20 working days, the communications from October would not have been issued yet.
  11. The evidence showed references to some information being placed on noticeboards. On 7 August 2023 in its communication to all residents the landlord said, “Please keep a look out for any updates posted on communal noticeboards”. It is the Ombudsman’s view that given the resident’s reports of how the issue was affecting him, and his request to know when the door entry system was going to be fixed, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have contacted the resident directly, in addition to putting information on noticeboards.
  12. In a letter dated 7 August 2023 to all residents, and in its stage 2 response issued on 9 November 2023, the landlord advised the resident that until the door entry system was fixed “when expecting guests, request they contact you for entry and then manually open the communal doors”. This was an unreasonable solution for the resident as he lived on the fifth floor of the block and had already stated in his escalation email of 19 July 2023 that he was disabled; his wife was in remission for cancer, and they could not keep going down to let visitors in. The evidence showed the resident’s wife’s vulnerabilities were on record on the landlord’s system.
  13. The resident had expressed his concern to the landlord about the inconvenience and expense of not having been able to get supermarket deliveries for so long. As the resident had made the landlord aware of the health and mobility issues that he and his wife were experiencing, it was inappropriate that the landlord did not address these concerns when replying to the resident. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord could have contacted the resident about these concerns to see if further support could have been put in place for him or to have signposted him to support options. It should have sought to establish what mobility issues the resident had as it did not hold any details on record, only information on his wife. When the landlord was aware of the severity of the problems with the door entry system it would have been appropriate to check its records and contact those it was aware had vulnerabilities.
  14. The resident requested reimbursement of a portion of the service charges because of the door entry system not working for so long. In its stage 2 response the landlord said the resident did not pay service charges and therefore reimbursement was not applicable. However, the evidence submitted to this Service by the landlord showed the resident’s weekly charge totalled £207.36 which was made up of £126.22 for net rent and £81.14 for services. Therefore, the resident was paying a service charge.
  15. It is unclear from the evidence available whether part of the above service charge pays towards the maintenance of the door entry system. Because of this, the Ombudsman has been unable to establish whether a reimbursement would have been an appropriate remedy in the circumstance.
  16. The door entry system was replaced in December 2023. This was over 15 months after the resident first reported the problems. This was an unacceptable length of time for the resident to wait for this to be resolved. While the Ombudsman appreciates the responsibility of the door entry system did not lay with the landlord, it is the Ombudsman’s view the landlord could have done more to support the resident given his situation, to pursue a repair with the facilities management company at an earlier time, and to communicate updates to the resident specifically, to manage his expectations.
  17. Considering the above, the Ombudsman has determined there was maladministration. To reflect the level of detriment caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the reports of the door entry system not working, the landlord should award the resident £300 in compensation. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which indicates that the Ombudsman may require the landlord to award such an amount where there was a failure that adversely affected the resident. This Service has ordered the landlord to write an apology to the resident and his wife.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states there are 2 internal stages to its complaints process. The policy states the landlord will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
  2. The landlord issued the resident with 2 stage 1 responses. This was not in line with the landlord’s policy or the Code. The first stage 1 response was issued on 27 March 2023 and the second stage 1 response was issued on 18 July 2023. In the second stage 1 response the landlord stated there had been a considerable delay in the resident receiving a formal response to his stage 1 complaint, but it did not apologise for this. The landlord awarded the resident £25 compensation for failure to respond within 10 days which was appropriate and reasonable. However, if the landlord had thought there had been a delay it would also have been appropriate and reasonable to have apologised for the delay.
  3. The stage 2 response was issued on 9 November 2023, 80 working days after the resident emailed the landlord on 19 July 2023 to request an escalation. This was 60 working days outside of the landlord’s policy and the Code. The response was sent because this Service contacted the landlord on 2 November 2023 and requested the landlord provided a stage 2 response within 5 working days. The resident should not have needed to contact this Service for the landlord to issue a stage 2 response. The delay the resident experienced was inappropriate and unreasonable. It was also unfair as it meant the resident was delayed in being able to bring his complaint to this Service for investigation.
  4. The only contact the resident received about the delay in providing a stage 2 response was a generic email from the landlord on 21 July 2023, 2 working days after he sent his escalation email. The landlord’s email said there were delays due to receiving high demand for its complaints service which meant it was taking longer than its standard response time. However, this email did not manage the resident’s expectations on timescales, it did not advise how much longer it was taking to issue responses. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide more information on timescales, so the resident’s expectations were managed.
  5. The landlord did not comply with the Code which states if a landlord needs to extend the timeframe for a response it should provide an explanation to the resident and a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. The Code states this should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason. If an extension beyond 10 working days is required, the Code states that this should be agreed by both parties. The landlord did not do this.
  6. In his escalation email on 19 July 2023, the resident highlighted to the landlord that the second stage 1 response he received on 18 July 2023 should have been a stage 2 response. In the stage 2 response the landlord said human error had led to the resident receiving a second stage 1 response rather than a stage 2 response. It apologised for this and awarded £100 compensation for “complaint handling and escalation delays”. This was appropriate and reasonable.
  7. Considering the above, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling because the landlord acknowledged its failures in complaint handling. It apologised for the error in issuing a second stage 1 response and awarded a total of £125 compensation for its complaint handling failures. The landlord has already applied this compensation to the resident’s rent account.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of the door entry system not working.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

 

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £300 in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of the door entry system not working. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not applied to his rent account. The landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with this order within 4 weeks of the date of this report by submitting a copy of the remittance advice, or equivalent document, to this Service.
  2. The landlord is ordered to send a written apology to the resident and his wife from a senior manager for the failings they have experienced as identified in this report. The letter must acknowledge the detriment and inconvenience experienced. The landlord must provide this Service with a copy of the letter it has sent within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord review and consider reimbursing charges applied (if any) to all residents living within the block for the door entry system during the period the door entry system did not work. This includes reimbursement for residents who may have paid these charges via their housing benefit.