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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202214447)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214447

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

15 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s bathroom.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for reimbursement of energy bills.
  2. The Ombudsman investigated the landlord’s record-keeping.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the housing association landlord, which began in December 2008. The property was then a newly built 2-bedroom flat on the first floor of a residential block. The landlord is the leaseholder of the block, and the resident was the first occupant of the property. The resident lives with her husband and 2 children. The resident and her son have asthma. The property has a wet room instead of a bathroom.
  2. During the internal complaint process, the resident and the landlord contacted this service for advice in May 2022. The resident had 2 open complaints at the time. In agreement with the parties, this service agreed to merge the resident’s complaints, for which the landlord issued a single final response letter.
  3. The first complaint raised on 13 May 2022 was about the cost of operating the hot water tank. The resident said the buttons on the boiler’s switches were labelled incorrectly, meaning she had unknowingly used the booster mode. Since the error came to light, she had saved £50 a month on electricity, and therefore, she asked that the landlord reimburse her £10,000 for the high energy cost she had incurred.
  4. The second complaint was raised on 18 May 2022 about the condition of the wet room, specifically that the layout was odd, the floor was slippery, water seeped out of the shower area, the shower rail was flimsy, the toilet was boxed in, and poor ventilation had caused damp.
  5. In its final response letter on 30 December 2022, the landlord said:
    1. It was accepted that the immersion switches were wrongly labelled when the resident moved into the property. The resident was not given a manual for the heater, and therefore, she had no way of knowing if she used the equipment correctly. If the resident could send previous electricity bills showing she had consumed less electricity since the landlord fitted the timer, it would consider whether it could reimburse her from June 2022.
    2. It said it would not install a bathtub as the development was built to serve residents who needed wet room access. However, it recognised that a wet room was inconvenient for a family. It should have looked at other options to make showering easier, such as allowing better water drainage or suggesting a quote for a shower tray or a shower cubicle, which it said it would do. It had also asked for quotes to fit a bigger water tank.
    3. It offered a total compensation of £1,890 broken down to:
      1. £1,200 for the distress and inconvenience.
      2. £500 for the right to repair.
      3. £170 for the delay in handling the associated complaints.
      4. £20 for a missed appointment on 21 December 2022.
  6. The resident told this service in April 2024 that the landlord made no progress with the bathroom despite assurances in its final response letter. She said the water tank had now been replaced with a new, bigger model, but there had been no communication regarding her reimbursement. She explained that, in her opinion, the landlord should have picked up the errors of mislabelling the switches before she had moved in; as a result, she said she had incurred a financial loss of £10,000, which she would like to get back.

Assessment and findings

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles, which include treating people fairly, following fair processes, putting things right, and learning from outcomes. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failure on the landlord’s part occurred and, if so, whether this adversely affected or caused detriment to the resident. If the landlord’s failure adversely affected the resident, the investigation will consider whether the landlord took enough action to ‘put things right’ and learn from the outcome.

The landlord’s handling of repairs in the resident’s bathroom

  1. In 2019 (the exact date is unclear), the landlord replaced the original vinyl flooring in the resident’s bathroom. The resident reported that the new flooring was slippery and, therefore, was not fit for purpose. The new flooring exacerbated many of the issues the resident had raised with the landlord ever since she moved into the property, particularly that the subfloor did not have a sufficient gradient to ensure that the water would run to the drain efficiently. This led to the accumulation of water around the toilet, which, in combination with the slippery floor, posed a danger to anyone from the household using the bathroom. The resident also reported reoccurring damp and mould. The resident said most of these issues could be resolved if the landlord fitted a bathtub. She asked the landlord to inspect the bathroom in March 2021.
  2. The tenancy agreement reflects the landlord’s obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Act to repair and keep the property in-repair, and in good working order. Repairs must be completed within a ‘reasonable’ time.
  3. Under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by the Housing Act 2004, landlords are required to assess risks and take mitigating action to minimise hazards in their rented properties. Damp and mould are potential category 1 hazards under HHSRS. Following the resident’s request for an inspection due to her perceived health and safety concerns, the landlord was obliged to inspect the resident’s bathroom, assess the risks reported and take appropriate mitigating action within a reasonable time frame.
  4. The landlord sent its area supervisor to inspect the resident’s property in March 2022, a year after the resident made her request. Although HHSRS does not set a time in which the landlord had to take action, in all the circumstances of the case, a delay of a year in assessing potential risks to the health and safety of residents was not appropriate.
  5. Following its initial assessment, however, the landlord acted appropriately by treating the mould and servicing the extractor fan to ensure it worked in its optimal condition. In response to continuing reports from the resident, the landlord returned to the property and replaced the extractor fan with a newer model. The landlord followed the advice of its qualified operatives and discharged its obligation under HHSRS as it assessed the risk and took mitigating action.
  6. Regarding the slippery flooring, the landlord accepted it was not safe, and it needed to take action to minimise the risk. The resident suggested it could do this by installing a bathtub. This was 1 solution, out of several, open to the landlord. The resident chased the landlord for the supervisor’s decision on the matter. 2 months later, the landlord said in its first response letter that it still did not know the outcome of the supervisor’s visit. It is unclear why the landlord did not have the outcome on its system and why it was not able to retrieve it in time for its first-stage response. This indicated poor record-keeping as well as a breakdown in communications.
  7. The landlord’s plan of action remained unclear for a further 5 months until it formally confirmed its position in its December 2022 final response letter. It confirmed that it would install a shower tray to contain the water within the shower area. It said it had already raised the job to replace the vinyl flooring, and to the ‘best of its knowledge’, this has now been completed. It asked the resident to inform its repairs officer if this was not the case. The landlord again was not able to rely on its record-keeping as a reliable source of information to assess and monitor its repair service. Although the landlord raised the job with its operatives, this service understands that this job was still outstanding.
  8. The extensive delay between raising a formal complaint in March 2021 and the landlord’s final response in December 2022 has caused the resident evident distress and inconvenience. The breakdown in communication and record-keeping has taken up a considerable amount of her time and the prolonged process has left her feeling frustrated and unheard. The resident had to turn to this service just to progress her complaint through the landlord’s internal complaint process, which was not appropriate.
  9. To put it right, the landlord has apologised. It offered a total of £970 in compensation for this part of the complaint, broken down to £650 for the distress and inconvenience caused, £250 for the ‘Right to Repair’ section of its compensation policy, and £70 for the delay in escalating the complaint to stage 2. It said it had discussed with its management team the need for further staff training regarding its communications and dealing with inquiries effectively.
  10. The landlord followed the Ombudsman Dispute Resolution Principles (as set out in paragraph 9 of this report), and its package of redress was sufficient to resolve the complaint at that time. However, in 18 months since its final response letter, the landlord has yet to deliver on its promises, and the flooring and drainage issues were still outstanding; the resident’s complaint was still ongoing. The landlord missed an opportunity to solve the complaint.
  11. An order has been made below for the landlord to work with the resident to complete the bathroom repairs. A further order has been made below to compensate the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by the additional delay since the final response letter.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for reimbursement of energy bills

  1. The property’s hot water tank has 2 separate zones within the tank. The main part fills and heats the water at night using cheaper Economy 7 electricity tariffs. It then retains the heat and distributes the water as needed throughout the day. The capacity of this part of the boiler was typically sufficient for 2 showers or less if hot water was used for other purposes. The user can activate the “Booster” mode if the hot water runs out. Effectively, this was a smaller compartment within the tank that would provide supplementary hot water. Each compartment has its power switch, one next to the other on the adjacent wall, and both resemble ordinary light switches. The resident says the booster switch was labelled Eco 7.
  2. Since moving to the property in 2008, the resident raised 8 repairs related to the hot water supply issues. 7 of these 8 repairs were in winter between November and February. This indicates that the primary immersion had been used.
  3. In January 2019, the resident reported that “there was no hot water unless the booster switch was used”. This was reported again in December 2019. The landlord sought advice from its electrical engineer, who advised in February 2020 that the main compartment of the tank did not have a capacity large enough to supply hot water for a family of 4. Therefore, the resident needed to use the supplementary immersion. He said the supplementary section could be switched off manually. Alternatively, a timer could be fitted on the wall switch to assist in energy consumption, although he did expect this to significantly reduce energy consumption. 
  4. The landlord fitted the timer function on 21 May 2021. The resident says this was when the engineer had informed her that the switches were labelled incorrectly. The booster mode was labelled “Eco 7”, a reference to Economy 7. She said she had used the booster mode, thinking this was the normal operating mode. The resident said that from this point, her electricity usage had been reduced by £50 a month. She said the landlord should have checked the switch before she had moved into the property, and it should have fitted the timer earlier. She calculated that since December 2008, she had lost £10,000. 
  5. The tenancy agreement says the landlord was responsible for providing the resident with information about how to use her home. This was a failure by the landlord.
  6. In its final response letter, the landlord accepted that the switches had been labelled incorrectly, and the resident could not have known the correct operating procedure. It also recognised a delay of 15 months in fitting the timer. The landlord said it would look into fitting a larger tank. To put it right, the landlord apologised. It offered compensation of £920 broken down to £550 for the distress and inconvenience, £250 for the ‘Right to Repair’ section of its compensation policy, £100 for the delays in handling the complaint, £20 for a missed appointment. It said it would consider further compensation if the resident could show that her energy consumption was reduced by £50 a month since it fitted the timer.
  7. The resident provided this service with her electricity bills, with some gaps in the evidence. According to the evidence, the overall annual energy consumption of the resident’s household remained largely the same, year on year, except for higher consumption during the COVID-19 pandemic. 
  8. There is a single bill covering the period from September 2014 to March 2015. This bill was calculated as if the property had a singular meter. There was no reference to the Economy 7 meter. The next bill on record covers April 2019 to May 2020. The resident moved to a different energy provider, and in these bills, there were 2 separate meters, although the tariff the resident paid per kWh for day or night was the same.
  9. In May 2020, the resident moved to a different energy provider with quarterly bills and was put on an Economy 7 tariff. The tariff was slightly cheaper than the previous, but due to the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a spike in energy consumption. It is not possible to determine whether the installation of the timer had resulted in a reduction in energy consumption. Once the lockdown ended, the annual energy consumption returned to the level it had been in all bills provided. Therefore, the evidence seen does not show that the installation of the timer resulted in less energy consumption.
  10. Overall, the landlord took a resolution-focused approach. It accepted it did not explain to the resident how the hot water system worked. It accepted the switches were labelled incorrectly, and there was no way for the residents to know how the system operated most efficiently. It agreed to fit a timer, albeit with a significant delay. It later agreed to install a larger tank followed by a new timer. It said it would consider further compensation if the resident could evidence the detriment caused, and it offered an appropriate amount of compensation. Therefore, the landlord has taken steps to resolve the complaint reasonably.

The landlord’s record-keeping

  1. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on record keeping says that keeping an accurate audit trail is integral to a landlord’s service delivery. The landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate and detailed records of any conversations relating to repairs so that it can satisfy itself and the resident (and ultimately the Ombudsman if necessary) that it acted in accordance with its policies and procedures. 
  2. The landlord was not able to retrieve the supervisor’s report for a significant length of time. It could not explain the reason for the outcome either. 
  3. As part of this investigation, the landlord provided information to this service, such as the property repair log, correspondence, and other evidence relevant to the resident’s complaint. 
  4. The evidence submitted had conflicting dates, and this service asked the landlord to clarify. The landlord did not clarify the queries. It is unclear whether the information was missing, difficult to extract, or unreliable. In any event, the landlord should have been able to retrieve the information with ease.
  5. Instead, the landlord sent this service a lot of information not relevant to the complaint; some files were related to complaints made by different residents, such as a letter from a member of parliament regarding a constituent in a different borough. 
  6. For the reason set out above, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping, and an order has been made below for the landlord to address its shortcomings and report its data breach to the Information Commissioner Office.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s bathroom.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord’s record-keeping.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for reimbursement of energy bills, reasonably.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. work with the resident and agree on an action plan to repair the bathroom. The plan must specify the scope of work and include dates to be adhered to. It must also set out whether the resident can remain in the property while the works are underway and the expected date for completion. A copy of the action plan must be sent to this service within 4 weeks.
    2. The works must be completed by 15 July 2024. The landlord must confirm to this service 2 weeks after the expected date for completion that it has completed the works successfully.
  2. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord must pay the resident directly £300 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the added delay since its final response letter to refit the resident’s bathroom.
  3. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord must carry out a review of its record-keeping practices, in line with recommendations set out in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (2023), available on the Housing Ombudsman’s website. The review must:
    1. Identify the reasons for failures identified in this report that have led to the landlord not being able to retrieve its supervisor’s report or verify whether the flooring had been replaced. The landlord must set out the actions it would take to prevent these issues from reoccurring.
    2. Identify the reasons that have led to mixing records from different residents in its evidence submission to this service. The landlord must set out the actions it has taken or would take to prevent this issue from reoccurring, and it must have a confirmation that it had reported the breach to the Information Commissioner Office.
    3. Review the submission of evidence sent to the Ombudsman and set out what it will do in the future to ensure it sends this service the relevant information requested in a clear and easy-to-manage format without unnecessary duplications and responds to queries requested in a clear and timely manner.