London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202323237)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323237

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

24 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

1. This complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to the resident’s concerns about possible subsidence in her home.
   2. Response to the resident’s request to be moved because of overcrowding and health issues.
   3. Complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

2. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

Response to the resident’s request to be moved because of overcrowding and health issues

3. Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider a complaint which is made before having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure.
4. In her escalated complaint to the landlord the resident supported her request to move due to the alleged subsidence in her home by explaining that, additionally, her home was overcrowded, and unsuitable for her health requirements. In its complaint response the landlord addressed the resident’s concerns about subsidence, but did not comment on her supporting grounds for moving.
5. This issue was not specifically an element of the original complaint made to the Ombudsman, but the resident has subsequently told us that her complaint related to a decision the landlord had given her, via her MP, regarding a move on the basis of overcrowding and health reasons. No evidence of that decision, or a clear complaint to the landlord about it has been seen in this investigation.
6. If the resident is dissatisfied with a formal decision the landlord has made about her request to move because of overcrowding or health needs, she has the option of making a formal complaint to it about those specific issues. If she remains dissatisfied after the landlord has investigated her complaint it remains open to her to ask the Ombudsman to open a new investigation. Until then the Ombudsman may not investigate those issues, and they will not be considered in this report.

Background and summary of events

7. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. She lives in a flat in a 19th century terrace building.
8. Information from the landlord, and its repair records, show that the resident and her family were decanted from the property in early 2021 following a fire. The decant had already been planned to allow the landlord to carry out a range of scheduled works in the property. The repair records show that final work was done in November 2021.
9. The resident emailed the landlord on 21 March 2023. She said she wanted to complain about the repairs done to her home, because there was subsidence in the property and she did not feel it was safe to live in. She said the landlord had moved the family living next door because of the subsidence, and she wanted it to do the same for her. She said a widening crack in one of her windows was evidence of the subsidence, and that it could also be seen from the roof.
10. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 30 March 2023. Its email also explained that the resident had not yet returned to her home.
11. The landlord sent its complaint response on 13 April 2023. It explained there was no current evidence of subsidence in the building, and the major internal works in 2021 and 2022 had seen no evidence of it either.
12. The resident escalated her complaint on 18 April 2023. She disputed the landlord’s conclusion and reiterated her grounds for thinking subsidence was occurring. She also reported that her home was overcrowded, and was not suitable for her because of her medical needs.
13. The landlord acknowledged the complaint, explaining it understood her concerns to be about the alleged subsidence and overcrowding.
14. An internal email dated 27 June 2023 from one of the landlord’s surveyors states he inspected the property in March 2023 and found no subsidence.
15. The landlord’s contractors undertook a survey of the property on 25 July 2023. Their report concluded that “The distortions to the internal floors appear have been caused by a gradually operating cause over a long period. The actual root cause of the damage could not be determined based upon a visual inspection alone, but has not been caused by a sudden subsidence event.”
16. The landlord sent its final complaint response on 4 September 2023. It explained what the contractors had found in their survey, reiterating that while there were “distortions to the internal floors”, this had happened over a long period, and there was no subsidence. It also explained that no subsidence had been found in the neighbouring building. Nonetheless, it confirmed it would attend to any future repair issues which the resident reported, in line with its obligations.
17. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s conclusions, and brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She explained she had spoken with her neighbour, who had said he had experienced problems with uneven floors, and had been rehoused. She said she wanted the landlord to do the same for her. The resident has explained that she is still in the decanted property at the time of this investigation.

Assessment and findings

18. Subsidence in a property is a potentially serious issue which can have a significant impact on its structure and stability. Sloping floors in a home can sometimes be an indication of subsidence, but they can also be due to the natural settling of the property over time. Such settling is not the same as subsidence. Put simply, subsidence is when the ground beneath the property sinks. Settlement is when the property compresses into the ground beneath it.
19. The evidence shows the landlord undertook at least two inspections of the property in 2023 specifically with a view to checking for subsidence. Neither inspection found any.
20. However, the second inspection confirmed some floors in the resident’s flat were sloping, and identified this was likely a long term and gradual occurrence. Neither inspection identified any risks from the sloping floors, or from any other source.
21. The resident’s concerns are understandable in the circumstances. However, the landlord’s response to her complaint was based on the information it received from its operatives and contractors. Nothing has been seen suggesting the landlord was wrong to rely on that information.
22. The resident complained that the landlord had moved her neighbour to a new home because of subsidence in their home. She said it should do the same for her. The landlord explained there had not been subsidence in the neighbour’s property. In her complaint to the Ombudsman the resident explained she had recently spoken with the neighbour, who she said had confirmed her understanding of their move. However, no supporting evidence has been provided, and there is no evidence of subsidence or other structural issues which might obligate the landlord to consider moving the resident.

Complaint handling

23. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will respond to an escalated complaint within 20 working days. It explains that “If we need longer, we’ll explain why and write again within a further 10 working days. In exceptional circumstances we may need even longer. We will try to agree this with our customer but if they aren’t happy with an extension, they can contact the Housing Ombudsman Service.”
24. The resident escalated her complaint on 18 April 2023, and the landlord acknowledged it two days later. It updated her on 8 June, apologising for the delay investigating her complaint, and explained this was due to the large volume of complaints it had received.
25. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 4 September 2023. It referred to the delay in its timeline of events, and that the resident had chased it, but did not explain why the delay happened or what it was doing to improve its service. It did not specifically apologise for its poor complaint handling, but offered £25 compensation for it.
26. In line with its 20 work day target, the landlord’s response to the escalated complaint was due by 18 May 2023. It clearly exceeded that by a significant margin. It provided an update and explanation in June, but by that point even the extra time allowed by its policy had been exceeded. There is no evidence it explained to the resident she could approach the Ombudsman if she was dissatisfied with the delay. Accordingly, the landlord did not act in line with its complaints policy. The remedies it offered in its final complaint response were insufficiently proportionate when considered against the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, the scale of the delay, and the lack of communication.

Determination (decision)

27. In line with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in regard to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about possible subsidence in her home.
28. In line with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Reasons

29. The landlord’s responses to the resident’s concerns about subsidence were accurately based on the inspections and opinions of its operatives and contractors. No evidence has been seen suggesting the landlord should not have relied on the information it had.
30. The landlord’s final complaint response was significantly delayed, and it did not provide reasonable remedies for that service failure.

Orders

31. In light of the landlord’s poor complaint handling it is ordered to pay the resident £175. This amount is inclusive of the £25 already offered. Evidence of this payment must be provided to this Service within four weeks of this report.