London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202317961)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317961

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

10 May 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 the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs required to the resident’s window following a leak.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident and her husband have a secure tenancy of the property, which is a flat. Both the resident and her husband have physical disabilities.
During a thunderstorm on 18 August 2022, the resident experienced a leak into her property through the window. She reported the leak to the landlord, and it arranged an appointment to inspect it on 23 January 2022. As she was unhappy with the timescale of this appointment, the resident made a complaint on 25 August 2022. The landlord responded to the resident at stage 1 of its complaints process the same day. It told her it was able to bring the appointment forward to 7 September 2022.
However, on 7 September 2022, the landlord was unable to fully inspect the issue, as the ladder it brought to the appointment was too short. It returned to the property on 14 November 2022, but on this occasion found it could not bring the taller ladder through the property, due to its layout. It recorded that it needed to repair the guttering at the property and do repointing. It arranged to install scaffolding on 12 December 2022 and do the repairs the following day.
On 13 December 2022, the resident made a second complaint to the landlord. She said:
1. On 12 December 2022 she received a call from the landlord about the repair the following day. She told the landlord that the scaffolding had not been installed. The landlord told her it would need to cancel the appointment. It told her it did not arrange scaffolding appointments, as these were arranged by contractors directly.
2. She attempted to call the scaffolding contractor but was unable to get through. It called her back the following day. She felt that it was rude to her and implied she was “talking rubbish” when she relayed the advice she had been given by the landlord. She was upset and frustrated.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 of its complaints process on 14 December 2022. It upheld her complaint, saying:
1. It apologised for its poor communication. It had sent learning from her case to senior management.
2. It apologised that its contractor was rude. It said it would raise the issue at its next contract management meeting.
3. It would contact her when it was able to give her a new appointment for the scaffolding.
The landlord sent the resident a further email about her complaint on 11 January 2023, offering her £150 in compensation, in recognition of the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience she had experienced. It arranged for the scaffolding to be installed on around 13 January 2023, and for the repairs to be completed on 15 January 2023.
The scaffolding was installed, and the landlord was able to carry out the guttering repairs. However, the resident told the landlord its contractors had:
1. Scuffed the safety bars in her home when bringing the scaffolding through the building.
2. Failed to install an access ladder.
3. Installed the scaffolding platform 4ft too high. The platform would need to be adjusted so the landlord could do the repointing.
The landlord arranged to adjust the scaffolding on 10 March 2023, and said it would arrange to sand and varnish the damaged safety bars. However, on 13 March 2023, the resident contacted the landlord again as nobody had attended the appointment. She had also discovered that one of the scaffolders had used timber from her garden as part of the scaffolding, without her permission.
When the landlord looked into adjusting the scaffolding platform, it realised that the wrong contractor had installed scaffolding at the property. The scaffolding needed to be replaced. On 14 April 2023, the resident confirmed that the landlord’s contractor had removed the scaffolding. She said that in doing so, it had broken the basement window at the front of her home. It had also caused cosmetic damage to her hallway floor and wall, the communal entrance floor, the door, and the sitting room floor. She had expected another scaffolding company to arrive the same day and install scaffolding, but they did not.
On 20 April 2023 she contacted the landlord again, as she had tried to report the basement window repair. She received an automatic email response saying the landlord would respond to her report within 10 days. She asked the landlord to resolve the issue urgently. The landlord logged this as a further stage 1 complaint, and responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 20 April 2023. It said:
1. It would investigate why its contractor failed to attend the appointment.
2. It would arrange to board the window within 24 hours.
3. It would repair the damage caused by the contractor.
4. It offered the resident a £100 e-voucher as a gesture of good will.
The landlord arranged to install the scaffolding on 29 May 2023, and do the repair the following day.
On 5 May 2023, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process. She said:
1. The window was boarded, but she had not been told when it would be replaced. She felt the property was insecure and as a result, she and her husband made sure the property was never left unoccupied.
2. She had not received the e-voucher.
3. She was unhappy about the landlord’s general response to repairs maintenance. She explained she had not been updated about other repairs she had reported, that the landlord had failed to attend an appointment for her bedroom window that day, and she had spent over an hour on the phone attempting to report repairs.
4. She noted that the date she had been given for the scaffolding appointment, 29 May 2023, was a bank holiday.
The landlord told the resident it would install the scaffolding on 25 May 2023. It said it would measure and order her new window on 07 June 2023, and said it had already sent her the e-voucher.
On 26 May 2023, the resident contacted the landlord. She explained that the scaffolders had put the scaffolding platform at the same, incorrect, height as in February 2023. She said she tried to explain this to the contractor, and rang its office 4 times, leaving 2 messages. She said she was ‘beyond frustrated’ that the pointing appointment would need to be cancelled. She also told the landlord the scaffolders had caused further damage to the wooden safety bars, the flooring, and the hallway.
In an email she sent to the landlord on 31 May 2023, the resident explained that she had tried to re-report several other repairs online. She said the landlord had previously inspected 2 of the repairs but she had not heard any further about its intended actions to resolve them. The landlord responded on 2 June 2023. It said it had logged the repairs through its call centre and would send her appointment details. However, the repairs were outside of her complaint, so it was unable to monitor them as part of its complaints process.
The landlord apologised to the resident for its second failure to correctly install the scaffolding platform. It carried out two further inspections, before repositioning the scaffolding platform at the correct height on 19 June 2023. It did the repointing on 8 August 2023. It agreed to repair the damage its contractors had caused once the scaffolding was removed. On 10 August 2023, the resident told the landlord that although it had now completed the external works, the following issues were outstanding:
1. The internal damage caused by the leak had not been repaired.
2. She had not received the £100 e-voucher.
3. The scaffolding had not been removed.
4. The contractors had damaged her washing line and it needed to be replaced.
5. She had paid £60 to have her garden cleared so that the landlord could repair her back wall. It could not do the repair until the scaffolding was removed. As she was unable to use her garden while the scaffolding was installed, the garden was now overgrown.
6. The separate repairs issues, which she had reported previously.
The landlord responded, reiterating that the repairs which did not relate to the leak, or the scaffolding, were outside of her complaint. However, it agreed to log the following repairs on her behalf:
1. Alteration to the front door as recommended by occupational therapy.
2. Repairs to cracks in the bathroom and kitchen ceiling and walls.
3. Repair to a rusty radiator.
4. Repair of kitchen tiles which were ‘coming away’ from the wall.
5. Make good the mismatched paint and exposed pipes in the resident’s kitchen following a boiler replacement.
6. Investigate a bump in the kitchen floor caused by a previous leak.
The landlord responded to the resident at stage 2 of its complaints process on 18 August 2023. It upheld her complaint and said:
1. During a phone call on 10 August 2023 the resident asked it to arrange a surveyor inspection of the property. It had done this.
2. It made an offer of £518 in compensation, comprising:
  1. £50 for distress.
  2. £50 for inconvenience.
  3. £218 for the loss of use of her garden.
  4. £150 for time and effort.
  5. £40 for its delayed complaint response.
3. It gave appointment details for the 11 repairs it logged outside of her original complaint.
4. It signposted her to its liability insurers for damage the resident said had its contractors had caused to her personal belongings.
On 24 August 2023, the resident contacted both the landlord and the Ombudsman, expressing her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. She said:
1. Her complaint was not solely about the scaffolding. It was also about the time the landlord had taken to address the repairs after the leak.
2. The internal works were still outstanding, and the scaffolding had still not been removed.
3. She felt the amount of compensation offered for distress and inconvenience was insulting and did not reflect the time she had spent pursuing the issues by phone and email, or the impact of the overall experience on her physical health and mental wellbeing.
During the week of 2 September 2023, the landlord went to the property to box in the pipework around the new boiler. The resident said the operative who attended was not clear on how to construct adequate boxing due to the positioning of the boiler and agreed with the resident to get further advice and return later.
The resident complained to the landlord on 13 September 2023 about the repairs. She said she was satisfied with the work done to make good the area around the boiler, and the work done to refix the kitchen tiles. However, she was unhappy with:
1. The landlord’s repair of the bathroom door. It had planed the door and replaced the lock. She felt the door needed complete replacement.
2. She felt the landlord should have renewed rather than repaired the skirting board and said the landlord’s repair was of inadequate quality.
3. She said the repair to her back wall had not been completed.
The landlord responded to this complaint at stage 1 of its complaints process on 15 September saying:
1. The skirting boards and bathroom door were repairable, and the landlord did not consider it needed to replace them.
2. It would box in the boiler, but it could not do a bespoke design.
The resident said that on 23 September 2023 the landlord came to the property without an appointment and removed the top level of scaffolding. It was unable to complete the job within the time it had available. The resident said it told her it would come back the next day, but it did not.
On 4 October 2023, the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the complaint response the landlord sent on 15 September 2023. She said:
1. She felt the condition of the bathroom doors was unacceptable, due to their age, and wear and tear, including splinters and rusty hinges.
2. The skirting boards also showed significant wear and tear and had damp patches and black mould. The repair done was ‘outstandingly poor’ and the operative had not taped the area when he painted, marking both the wall and the floor. She said the landlord should replace the skirting and make good the decoration.
3. She did not want a custom cabinet to box in the boiler, only a robust resolution to the issue.
The landlord arranged to remove the rest of the scaffolding on 5 October 2023. After the appointment, the resident contacted it, saying:
1. Although she had called ahead to tell the contractor it would need 4-5 operatives, it only sent 3.
2. It did not bring any dust sheets.
3. She felt the operatives did not want to do the work. For example, when she said all of the scaffolding had been brought through her 1st floor window, they said this was impossible.
4. She said the operatives had worked for a short amount of time, leaving shortly after lunch for travel reasons.
5. It did not finish the job and told her it would return the next day. It did not and had not been in contact with her to arrange an appointment.
On 19 October 2024, the landlord’s records show it completed the internal works to repair the damage caused by the leak. On around 25 October 2024, it removed the rest of the scaffolding. However, the resident said that in removing the scaffolding, the landlord had caused significant damage to the floorboards, walls, doors and safety handles in her home. There was also damage in her garden to the palm tree, her plant pots, and the lawn, and rubbish had been left in the garden. She also said that of the 11 repairs the landlord raised on her behalf, only 4 had been completed by January 2024. She reiterated the impact of the experience on her physical and mental health and said that she felt the landlord’s offer of compensation for distress and inconvenience was ‘beyond insulting’.
The landlord sent a stage 2 ‘re-review’ complaint response to the resident on 13 March 2024. It:
1. Apologised to the resident for its delayed response. It said it had considered this in its award of compensation.
2. It amended its compensation offer to a total of £658.15, broken down as follows:
  1. £120 for distress.
  2. £120 for inconvenience.
  3. £228.15 for loss of use of garden.
  4. £150 for time and effort.
  5. £40 for poor complaint handling.
3. It updated her on the repairs it had logged outside of her complaint, saying it had requested a surveyor inspection of the property to inspect:
  1. The bump in the kitchen floor as the initial inspection indicated a surveyor inspection was needed.
  2. The rusty radiator the resident had reported.
  3. The skirting boards in the kitchen as the resident was unhappy with the quality of the repair.
  4. Her internal windows and window closures.
  5. The cracks in the walls.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident said that the landlord’s handling of repairs in her home impacted her physical health and her mental wellbeing. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s testimony. The Ombudsman can consider the general impact the landlord’s handling of the repairs, but it is outside our remit to establish if there was a direct link between the action or inaction of the landlord and the health conditions of the resident. This is better suited to a court or liability insurer to determine. We will consider any distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced because of errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her health.
The resident raised approximately 11 repairs with the landlord outside of her initial complaint. The landlord addressed these in a stage 1 complaint response sent on 15 September 2023, and at stage 2 of its complaints process as part of its ‘stage 2 re-review’ on 12 March 2024. It also advised the resident she could contact the Ombudsman if she was unhappy with its response. As such, the repairs are within the scope of this investigation and have been included in the Ombudsman’s assessment.

The landlord’s handling of the repairs

The landlord’s repair obligations are outlined in the resident’s occupancy agreement and in its repairs policy. The landlord is responsible for the structure and exterior of the property, including the windows, walls and boundary fences. It is responsible for splash back sink tiles, grouting and silicone sealant in the resident’s kitchen, and built in bathroom door locking mechanisms. It is responsible for all types of heating system but does not bleed or redecorate radiators. It does not ordinarily carry out redecoration following a repair unless it has an obligation to do so, or at its own discretion.
The landlord has acknowledged that there were significant issues in its handling of the repair to the resident’s property following the leak, and in particular around its provision of scaffolding. This resulted in a delay of approximately 1 year in it repairing the pointing at the property. Although repairs that require scaffolding are more complicated, and so take longer, than repairs that don’t, in this case the landlord’s records indicate that the delays were avoidable.
Poor communication between the landlord and its contractor was a contributing factor to these delays. For example:
1. The landlord raised an order for a specific contractor to install the scaffolding, but the works were carried out by another contractor. The landlord has not explained why this happened. As a result, the landlord had to remove and reinstall the scaffolding, rather than adjust the platform height, which would have been much quicker.
2. The scaffolding platform was installed at an incorrect height twice. Given it had installed the platform at an incorrect height already, it should have ensured that its communication with its contractor was clear when it installed scaffolding the second time, to prevent the same error happening again.
3. The resident’s property layout made installing and removing the scaffolding challenging. Having installed scaffolding at the property previously, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to ensure the new contractor had adequate information about the property layout and the implications this had in terms of manpower. However, there was no evidence it did so, and the second scaffolding contractor attended the property on 3 occasions to remove the scaffolding, causing further inconvenience to the resident.
There were also communication failures in the landlord’s contact with the resident, and within its organisation. These failures will have been frustrating for the resident and undermined her confidence in the landlord. For example:
1. There was mixed communication for the appointment on 13 December 2022. The resident felt she was given conflicting information by the landlord and its contractor.
2. The landlord told the resident it would come to the property on 13 March 2023, but the landlord’s internal records indicate that it did not book an appointment on this date. As a result, it did not attend.
3. On several occasions, the resident told the landlord its contractors had failed to return to the property the following day, despite agreeing to do so.
The landlord acknowledged issues with its communication, both with its contractor and the resident. On 14 December 2022, the landlord explained that it had briefed the contract manager for the scaffolding contract and senior management about the resident’s case and would raise the resident’s concern that one of its contractors was rude to her at its next contract management meeting. While this was appropriate, demonstrating the landlord’s intention to improve its service, the resident’s experience did not improve going forward. This may have further damaged the landlord-tenant relationship.
The delays in completing the repair were very frustrating for the resident and had a significant detrimental impact on her. She explained that:
1. She was unable to use her garden for months at a time over summer. This affected her enjoyment of her home.
2. She spent time and trouble in pursuing the complaint. As the resident is disabled, this was particularly challenging for her. For example, on one occasion she explained to the landlord that emailing it had taken her all day, as she had to take breaks due to her health.
3. The resident said that the stress caused by the ongoing repairs for over 18-months resulted in a decline in her health. While the Ombudsman cannot determine that there was a causal link between the repairs and the decline in the resident’s health, it is clear that the resident experienced concern about the impact that stress caused by the ongoing repairs had on her health throughout this period.
The resident told the landlord that its contractor caused cosmetic damage to her home and belongings each time it put up, or took down, the scaffolding. The damage ranged from scratches and gouges in the walls and floor, to breaking the basement window. The landlord did not dispute this. While the layout of the property created additional challenges in installing the scaffolding, the landlord and its contractor could have done more to avoid or mitigate the damage. For example, on one occasion the resident said the landlord’s contractor did not bring dust sheets, although it knew that the scaffolding had to be brought through the property. This was not appropriate, as installing dust sheets is a simple and standard precaution.
Similarly, when the contractor broke a window with its scaffolding, it could have reported this to the landlord directly so that the property could be secured. Instead, the resident attempted to report the broken window online. She received an automated response saying the landlord would respond within 10 days. She then emailed the landlord’s complaints team about the repair on 20 March 2023 and 14 April 2023. The landlord arranged an emergency repair for the window on 20 April 2023, at least a month after the resident reported it. As the broken window was at the front of the property, the resident worried about the security of her home. This would have been significantly reduced if the contractor had reported the repair as an emergency immediately.
It would have been an efficient use of the landlord’s resources for it to measure for the reglazing of the window on the same day it boarded it, but the landlord did not do so until 7 June 2023. The landlord has not explained the reason it took 6 weeks for it to measure and order the new windows, so the Ombudsman concludes this was a further unreasonable delay. The resident was worried that the boarding may invite a break in, and as a result, she and her husband ensured the property was never left empty until the window was reglazed.
After the resident reported the damage caused in her home by the contractors bringing scaffolding through the property, the landlord agreed to make good the damage, including sanding and varnishing the window safety bars. While the landlord’s policy says that it will rarely complete redecoration for residents after works, offering to do so was appropriate in the circumstances of this case. This showed that the landlord had considered that the resident and her husband both have physical disabilities and was aware of the avoidable inconvenience they had experienced. From the landlord’s repairs records, it is not clear that the redecoration work has been completed. If it is incomplete, the landlord should contact the resident to arrange a suitable date to complete the repairs.
The resident told the landlord that damage was caused to her possessions, both by the initial leak, which she said damaged her curtains and wicker storage container, and by the direct actions of its contractors, who she said broke her washing line and plant pots and used a piece of timber from her garden without her permission. The landlord’s compensation policy gives it discretion to consider compensation for damage to personal belongings but says in most cases it would expect the damage to be dealt with through a claim on the resident’s home insurance. This is reasonable as landlords are entitled to rely on insurance to manage liability costs. In its stage 2 complaint response sent on 18 August 2023, the landlord gave the resident information about its liability insurer and told her she could make a claim if she wished. While this may have been disappointing for the resident, given its policy position on compensation for damage to personal belongings, the landlord’s advice was appropriate. The landlord is aware that the resident has not made a claim against its liability insurance. It should send the details for its insurer to her again so she can pursue this if she wishes to.
In her correspondence with the landlord, the resident said she was unhappy with the work done by its operatives and contractors. The landlord could have done more to address her concerns. For example, on one occasion the resident said that the operatives worked for approximately 2 hours for a full day appointment, as they took a break for an hour and a half and left early as they were concerned about traffic. The landlord should have responded directly to this concern, but there is no evidence it did so. It could have told the resident what its expectations for working hours during an appointment were. If the conduct the resident described did not meet its expectations, it should have fed this back to its contractor during its next contract management meeting.
The landlord logged 11 repairs on the resident’s behalf that were unrelated to the leak. These ranged from a repair to her garden wall, a skirting board repair, refixing loose tiles, repairing cracks in the walls and ceiling, and repairing the resident’s rusty radiator. Of the 11 repairs, the landlord’s records show it has completed 5 repairs to the resident’s satisfaction in September and October 2023. This was approximately 3 months after the resident reported the repairs to the landlord’s complaints team. The landlord’s repairs policy does not specify its repairs timescales, but it is industry best practice for landlords to complete routine repairs within 28 days. As such, the Ombudsman considers that there was a delay in the landlord carrying out the repairs. The landlord should have carried out the repairs sooner and any delay would have caused inconvenience for the resident. However, the impact on the resident would not have been excessive as the repairs were long standing issues that would not have prevented the resident from using any part of her home.
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s repair of her bathroom door and skirting board. The resident asked the landlord to replace her bathroom door and the skirting board in her kitchen, which she said was mouldy. The landlord’s repairs policy confirms its responsibility for both internal doors, and skirting. The landlord felt that they did not need to be replaced, and instead repaired them. The decision was reasonable. The landlord has a responsibility to manage its limited resources effectively, so it is appropriate for it to repair rather than replace property fixtures and fittings, where this is possible.
The resident said that the landlord’s operative had agreed with her that the door needed replacement rather than repair. While the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s account, there is insufficient information available for us to determine whether the operative told the landlord that any further work was required. The landlord can only act on information it is given. To clarify its position, the landlord should inspect the door and explain its decision to the resident in writing.
When the resident said that the work done to the skirting board was not done to an adequate standard, the landlord said it would pass on feedback about her experience. It initially offered her £65 towards redecoration, saying it did not usually redecorate for residents. While this did reflect its repairs policy, it did not demonstrate that the landlord had fully considered the circumstances of the case. Both the resident and her husband have physical disabilities which may have affected their ability to redecorate. The landlord later agreed it would arrange for a surveyor to inspect the skirting board, which was reasonable.
The resident said that when her garden wall was repaired, damage was caused to her home as the landlord had to bring a cement mixer through the property. The landlord should have addressed this in its complaint responses, but there is no evidence it did so. The landlord should tell the resident if it intends to repair any damage caused when it completes the other internal work it agreed to “make good” damage caused by its scaffolding contractors.
The landlord agreed to arrange for a surveyor to inspect the 6 other repairs that it had not completed, or the resident was dissatisfied with. The records provided to this investigation do not show the outcome of this survey. The landlord should ensure it gives the resident a schedule of works for any repairs it intends to do. If it does not intend to complete any of the repairs the resident has reported, it should give her a clear explanation in writing.
The landlord appropriately acknowledged that there were failings in its handling of the repairs, including avoidable delays, communication failures, and a failure to fully address some of the resident’s concerns. It accepts that these failures caused the resident inconvenience and distress. Cumulatively, it offered the resident £768.15 in compensation, and an additional £100 e-gift card, broken down as follows:
1. £390 for distress and inconvenience.
2. £150 for time and effort.
3. £228.15 for the resident’s loss of use of garden.
4. £100 e-gift card as a good will gesture.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available on our website, says that awards in this range are appropriate where failures by the landlord have had a significant physical or emotional impact on a resident. Considering this, the landlord’s offer of compensation was appropriate as it reflects the significant impact which its errors had on the resident over a prolonged period of time.
The landlord has also told the Ombudsman that it has implemented recent changes in its approach to scaffolding. These changes show that the landlord has recognised inadequacies in its provision of scaffolding, and that it is making efforts to improve this. The changes include:
1. Developing a “working at heights” team, to manage scaffolding requirements.
2. Working with new contractors who can provide their own scaffolding.
3. Putting a new team in place who will implement changes in the way that the landlord manages its contractors.
Cumulatively, the steps the landlord took to put things right for the resident amount to an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s view, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. Had the landlord not taken these steps we would have found maladministration in its handling of the resident’s repairs. As such, the landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has paid the resident the compensation, and provided her with the e-gift card, that it offered her through its complaints process. The resident has said she did not receive the e-gift card. If it has not already done so, the landlord should consider re-issuing this.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out our expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents”.
The landlord’s complaints policy uses this definition. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. It says it will respond at stage 1 of its process within 10 working days, and at stage 2 of its process within 20 working days. It says that, if it needs longer to respond, it will explain why, and send its complaint response within an additional 10 working days. This is appropriate as it aligns with the Code.
While most of the complaint responses the landlord sent to the resident were within its policy timescales, 2 of the landlord’s responses were significantly delayed. The stage 2 complaint response the landlord sent on 18 August 2023, was sent 3.5 months after the resident asked that it escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process. This was an inappropriate delay far exceeding the landlord’s policy timescales. The landlord issued a further stage 2 response to the resident on 12 March 2024. This was 5 months after the resident said she was not willing to finalise her complaint, and again far exceeded the landlord’s policy timescales. The delays will have been frustrating and inconvenient for the resident.
The landlord explained to the resident that there would be a delay in its complaint responses as it had a large backlog of complaints. This was an appropriate action to manage her expectations. The member of staff who had responded to the resident’s stage 1 response also continued to communicate with the resident about the issues raised in her complaint in the period between the landlord sending its stage 1 response and when it allocated a member of staff to review the complaint at stage 2 of its complaint process. This was reasonable as it reduced any impact the complaint handling delay had on its handling of the resident’s repairs.
The landlord recorded 3 separate stage 1 complaints for the resident on 25 August 2022, 13 December 2022, and 14 April 2023. As these complaints all related to landlord’s repair of the leak into the resident’s home, it would have been pragmatic of the landlord to consider the complaint on 13 December 2022 to be an escalation request rather than a new complaint. This would have been less confusing for the resident. Additionally, although it may not have affected the landlord’s handling of the repairs, it would have condensed the complaints process for the resident, so may have saved her time and trouble.
When the resident told the landlord that she was having difficulty logging several other repairs, it said it could log them on her behalf but would not monitor them through the complaints process. This was reasonable as they were not part of the resident’s original complaint and had not been considered in the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response. For the same reason, it was appropriate for the landlord to log a new stage 1 complaint when the resident was unhappy with its handling of the repairs.
The landlord ‘re-reviewed’ the resident’s complaint about its handling of the repairs relating to the leak at stage 2 of its complaint process on 12 March 2024. This was inappropriate, as adding additional stages into the complaints process does not align with the landlord’s complaints policy or the Ombudsman’s complaint handling Code. The landlord should have told the resident it had exhausted the complaints process and advised her of her right to approach the Ombudsman. However, in this case the landlord’s actions did not cause the resident significant detriment, as they resulted in the landlord increasing its offer of compensation. In addition, adding a stage to the complaints process did not cause any delay in the resident accessing redress as she had already contacted the Ombudsman to request an investigation.
On 11 January 2023, the resident asked for her negative feedback to be passed on to a senior member of staff. The landlord passed the resident’s feedback to its executive team. This was a positive action by the landlord to demonstrate that it had listened to the resident.
The landlord recognised that the delays in its complaint handling were inappropriate and offered the resident £40 in compensation. While it was appropriate for the landlord to offer the resident compensation, the compensation offered did not adequately reflect the cumulative length of the delays and the impact these had on the resident, who spent significant time and trouble pursuing her complaint.
In combination, the landlord’s inadequate compensation offer and the lack of clarity in its complaint handling amounted to service failure. To put things right, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 in compensation, in addition to the £40 it had already offered through its complaint handling process. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which says that awards in this range are appropriate where there has been a failure by the landlord in the service it provided, and it did not fully put this right.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the complainant prior to the investigation which satisfactorily resolves the resident’s complaint about its handling of repairs in her home.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. Directly pay the resident £100 for its complaint handling failures.
2. Demonstrate to the Ombudsman that it paid the resident the compensation it offered during its complaints process, including reissuing the e–voucher if the resident still has not received it.
3. Provide the Ombudsman with evidence it has complied with these orders.

Recommendations

If the landlord has not made good the decorative damage caused by its contractors, it should contact the resident to arrange a suitable date to do so.
The landlord should inspect the resident’s bathroom door to determine whether it needs replacement and explain its decision to the resident in writing.
If it has not already done so, the landlord’s surveyor should inspect the 6 outstanding repairs the resident reported. It should then:
1. Provide the resident with a schedule of any repairs agreed, including timescales.
2. Provide a clear explanation to the resident of its position on any repairs it does not intend to complete.