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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202328643)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202328643

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

29 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. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments for the annual gas safety check.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured non shorthold tenancy which commenced on 18 April 2005.
  2. The property is described as a 1-bedroom flat located on the ground floor.
  3. The resident is registered disabled and has reduced mobility. The resident has requested that the landlord communicate with him by email.
  4. The resident complained to the landlord in November 2021 and November 2022 that he had been a tenant for the past 15 years and it had not complied with his communication preferences regarding appointments for gas safety checks.
  5. The landlord acknowledged on 26 November 2021 that the resident’s account did not have a flag to reflect his disability. In its response in November 2022, it noted that it was aware that the resident was experiencing problems accessing his external post box. The landlord also stated that it knew that the resident had raised the issue before and it apologised for the inconvenience experienced by him. It agreed that future appointments for the gas safety check would be made by phone and his records would be updated to that effect.
  6. The landlord’s records show a gap in communication until 5 October 2023 when it recorded numerous emails from the resident, stating his dissatisfaction with its gas contractor. The resident expressed that the gas contractor had not complied with the Equality Act 2010 and the landlord would need to get a warrant to gain access to his property.
  7. In response, the landlord apologised to the resident the same day (5 October 2023) and advised that it had registered the resident’s complaint. Also, threats to its staff had been recorded and passed to the enforcement team. The landlord advised that it did not appreciate the tone or threatening behaviour stated in the resident’s communication.
  8. The landlord provided its initial complaint response on 20 October 2023. It advised that its gas contractor attended the resident’s property on 6 October 2023 when they could not contact the resident by phone. After that, the gas contractor emailed the resident to arrange a convenient appointment. They attended on 13 October 2023 but were unable to get access to the property. It acknowledged the frustration experienced by the resident and advised that they had tried to contact him on several days: 6 October 2023, 11 October 2023 and 19 October 2023 but had been unable to speak to him. It suggested that its gas team attend to carry out the gas safety check instead of its gas contractor and requested that the resident confirm his agreement.
  9. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to his complaint. The landlord confirmed with the resident, on the same day (20 October 2023), that he wanted his complaint progressed to the next stage of the complaint procedure.
  10. The resident made a new complaint to the landlord on 9 November 2023 stating the landlord had breached the Equality Act 2010 since it had awarded the gas contract. He advised that the gas contractor had woken him up at 8am when he had taken sleeping tablets. The landlord noted the following day that it already had a complaint open regarding the resident’s concerns.
  11. On 15 November 2023, the resident advised the landlord that he wanted to make a complaint about the conduct of the officer in the gas team. He advised that he had already told the landlord that he would not communicate with them by phone and he would not agree to an appointment to carry out the gas inspection until the situation was resolved. In response, the landlord acknowledged the complaint about the conduct of the gas officer on 16 November 2023.
  12. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 17 November 2023. It confirmed that the gas inspection to the property was required. It repeated that its gas contractor had attended as they could not contact the resident by phone. As there was no response to an email they sent, they attended on 13 October 2023. It acknowledged that the email may not have been received by the resident. It stated that it had attempted, but had been unable, to make contact with the resident. It repeated that it was willing for its staff to attend to carry out the statutory gas inspection as the resident did not want its gas contractor to attend.

After the complaint process had ended

  1. The resident made a new complaint to the landlord on 18 November 2023 that it had not abided by the Equality Act 2010 as it had not arranged an appointment to carry out an electrical safety check.
  2. On 22 November 2023, the landlord carried out a pre-warrant visit with the police. It noted that the resident refused access to the property. It decided to apply for a warrant to carry out the gas safety inspection.
  3. The landlord’s records show that a warrant visit was arranged for 29 November 2023 and the gas safety inspection was carried out on that day.
  4. In January 2024, the landlord ended its contract with its gas contractor.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because, with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. In this particular case, the resident’s complaint to the landlord in November 2021 did not complete the landlord’s complaints procedure – therefore, this Service cannot look at the landlord’s handling of those concerns. His subsequent complaint made on 17 November 2022 was escalated to this Service in December 2023. As his request for this Service to consider the complaint was made a year after the landlord had issued its complaint response, we were unable to investigate that matter and the resident was advised to make a new complaint to the landlord about any ongoing issues.
  2. The resident has also raised new complaints to the landlord about the conduct of its staff which did not form part of the formal complaint to the landlord. The landlord acknowledged and investigated the resident’s concerns. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to that complaint, he can approach this Service to obtain a resolution.
  3. The resident’s complaints related to the landlord’s attempts to obtain access to carry out the annual gas service inspection. It is noted that the landlord obtained a warrant to gain access to the resident’s property. This investigation has not considered the landlord’s decision to take legal action to obtain a gas warrant as the Housing Ombudsman Scheme paragraph 42(e) outlines that we may not consider matters that have been the subject of legal proceedings.

Request for reasonable adjustments for the annual gas safety check.

  1. The resident told the landlord over a considerable period of time that his preferred method of communication was by email as he could not access his post box. The resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord is duly noted. The Ombudsman has carefully considered all the available evidence and the report will take a view on the landlord’s overall handling of the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments.
  2. The Equality Act (2010) provides a legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals and to advance equality of opportunity for all. Under the Act, the landlord has a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where there is a provision, criterion or practice which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in comparison with persons who are not disabled. We cannot find a landlord has breached an individual’s right under the Equality Act (2010). However, we can decide whether a landlord has failed to take account of its duties under the Act.
  3. Furthermore, the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (2020) outlines that landlords should comply with the Equality Act (2010), and may need to adapt normal policies, procedures, or processes to accommodate an individual’s needs.
  4. The landlord’s gas safety policy sets out that it appoints competent persons to undertake the annual gas safety checks of fixed gas appliances, flue systems and gas pipework. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the resident is obliged to give access to the landlord’s gas contractor to carry out the annual gas safety inspection.
  5. The resident raised concerns that the landlord’s gas contractor had not complied with his communication preference – to be contacted by email. This is acknowledged and accepted in the landlord’s complaint responses and in other communication with the resident. For this, the landlord apologised that on the first visit, its gas contractor had not emailed the resident to notify him of its intention to visit. It explained that its gas contractor had emailed him before it attended the second visit to arrange a mutually convenient appointment.
  6. The landlord’s records show that it recorded on the resident’s account that he is registered disabled and any written communication should be sent by email. The record also states that any appointments should be made in the morning. This was an error by the landlord. The resident had explained to the landlord that he preferred appointments in the afternoon, as he experienced disturbed sleep. This mistake by the landlord had a direct impact on the resident as its contractor attended his property at inconvenient times which affected the resident’s ability to sleep.
  7. The accuracy of the landlord’s record keeping when making notes on resident’s accounts in noted in this Service’s Special Report into the landlord (July 2023). This noted that the landlord was reviewing the flags on resident’s accounts. An order is made below for the landlord to review the notes it has recorded regarding the best appointment times to attend the resident’s address.
  8. The landlord or its contractor should ensure that any appointment made is correctly notified to the resident and is at a time that the resident can attend. The landlord’s gas contractor attended the second appointment when it could not contact the resident. The resident was clearly frustrated by the actions of the gas contractor. The evidence shows that the landlord took appropriate steps to investigate the resident’s concern and to clarify any disputes. Its gas contractor advised that they had tried to make the first appointment by phone and on the second occasion, had sent an email as requested by the resident. The landlord came to the conclusion that the email sent by its gas contractor had not been received by the resident. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to try to make contact with the resident and to offer to use its own staff to arrange and complete the annual gas service.
  9. The landlord’s internal correspondence demonstrates the factors which were considered, and how its decisions were reached. During the complaints process, the resident continued to raise the same matters as included within his original complaint. Given that the resident’s subsequent correspondence with the landlord on 25 October 2023 involved a continuation of the issues, the landlord’s decision not to open a new complaint – as it was already considering with the same matters – was reasonable.
  10. The landlord has demonstrated that to ensure the annual gas service took place it tried to speak to the resident to agree a convenient appointment. The evidence shows that it was not successful. In its complaint response, it repeated its offer for its own gas team to attend to carry out the gas servicing – this took on board the resident’s dissatisfaction with its gas contractor. This demonstrates that the landlord was aware of the potential detriment to the resident and sought to minimise this by agreeing a convenient appointment with the resident. It was important that the landlord respond to the resident’s concerns that he was not being treated fairly and show its commitment to delivering an equitable service.
  11. The landlord’s enforcement team sent a warning letter to the resident regarding his communication with it. The landlord determined that the communication contained abuse and threatening behaviour. The landlord has a responsibility for the health and safety of its staff and to set out to its residents when their behaviour is not in line with the tenancy conditions. Following the issue of the letter, the resident continued to display behaviour that the landlord concluded to be abusive and threatening towards its staff. Therefore, it was reasonable for the matter to be sent to the landlord’s tenancy team to act upon. It is noted that, regardless of this, the landlord continued to communicate with the resident to agree a mutually convenient appointment for the annual gas servicing.
  12. The landlord accepted that the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments had not been met by its gas contractor. It demonstrated that it took appropriate steps to address this by trying to speak with the resident by phone and by offering for its gas team to attend to carry out the gas servicing. Whilst the resident had requested that the landlord communicate by email, it was reasonable for the landlord to try and contact the resident by phone as a previous email had not been received. However, the landlord failed to correctly record the resident’s appointment time preference.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments for the annual gas safety check.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is to:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the service failure identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £100 for its failure to correctly record the resident’s preferences.
    3. Amend the information recorded on the resident’s account regarding the best time to contact him. This should reflect that appointments should take place in the afternoon.
  2. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within 4 weeks.