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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202318467)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318467

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

13 November 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:
    1. Response to a reported leak into the bedroom.
    2. Knowledge and information management.

Background

  1. The landlord has a shared ownership lease at the property, which the landlord’s repair log describes as a 4–storey house. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
  2. On 3 November 2022 the resident advised the landlord that a leak was entering the bedroom from the roof. A roofing contractor attended on 19 January 2023 to assess the issue. The resident chased up the works on 1 February, 5 February and 16 March 2023 and advised that the leak was getting worse.
  3. The resident submitted a complaint on 22 March 2023 and stated that the landlord had not responded to his concerns about the leak despite contacting it on a number of occasions. He stated that the landlord had advised him on 3 March 2023, that the approval for the repair had been sent to the wrong department but that it had been authorised, and the repair and would be confirmed within 48 hours. He stated that he had spoken to the landlord again on 8 March 2023 and it had advised him that the repair had been rejected. Following this, he stated he had made a number of calls to the landlord but it did not get back to him.
  4. The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 the following day (23 March 2023) and stated as follows:
    1. The roofing contractor had provided a quote for the repairs. The landlord’s surveyor had declined the quote (on 3 March 2023) as the suggested repair, of lifting the whole roof deck, was considered too costly. It had requested another quote and the repair had been allocated to a different roofing contractor who would contact the resident to arrange an inspection.
    2. It apologised and acknowledged that it had been disappointing and frustrating. It upheld the complaint and advised that it would consider compensation following the completion of the work, which it would monitor going forward.
  5. It is not clear when the resident escalated his complaint, however, the landlord responded at stage 2 on 16 August 2023 and stated as follows:
    1. It had authorised the roofing works, however, the roofing contractor was closed until 31 August 2023. An appointment would be made once it re-opened.
    2. It apologised for the length of time the matter had taken and for the delay in works being authorised.
    3. It offered £170 compensation, made up as follows:
      1. £40 distress.
      2. £40 inconvenience.
      3. £40 length of time.
      4. £50 time and effort.
  6. The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman on 23 August 2023. He stated that the household had been “deeply affected” by the leak and it had caused damage to property and a “great deal of distress”. He stated that the landlord’s offer of compensation was not sufficient. He considered £500 to be more reasonable.

Correspondence following the referral to this Service

  1. On 27 September 2023 the landlord contacted the resident and stated as follows:
    1. The roofing contractor was due to attend on 5 October 2023 to investigate the cause of the leak. Following which the works would be arranged.
    2. It had re–calculated the compensation offered at stage 2 and had increased this to £930. This was made up as follows:
      1. £300 (10 x £30) distress and inconvenience.
      2. £300 (10 x £30) time and effort and complaint handling.
      3. £250 delay to repair.
      4. £80 delay to stage 2 review.
    3. It signposted the resident to its insurer for any damaged items.
  2. The resident accepted the offer of £930 compensation and works to the roof were carried out between October and November 2023. The resident subsequently submitted a complaint in respect of the contractor’s behaviour and damage caused to his property when carrying out the works (Ombudsman case reference 202402599).
  3. The landlord contacted the resident on 6 December 2023 and offered a further £225 compensation in light of the further delays in the repairs being completed. This was made up as follows:
    1. £75 for distress and inconvenience.
    2. £50 for time and effort.
    3. £100 delay to repair total.
    4. (It also offered £100 as its contractors had used the resident’s personal items. This related to the resident’s other complaint and as such, has not been considered in this investigation).

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Following the resident referring this complaint to the Ombudsman, he submitted a separate complaint to the landlord in respect of the contractor’s behaviour and damage caused to his property when carrying out the works. (Ombudsman case reference 202402599). This complaint has not completed the landlord’s internal complaints process. As such, this investigation does not include consideration of this subsequent complaint, as the landlord must be provided with the opportunity to respond during its internal complaints process.

The landlord’s response to a reported leak into the bedroom

  1. Landlords are required to assess the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards. A leak and any subsequent damp and mould are potential hazards that can fall within the scope of the HHSRS.
  2. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published in October 2021) provides recommendations for landlords, including that they should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. Taking appropriate and timely action following a resident reporting a leak would be an example of the action the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to take.
  3. The lease and the landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for the roof and this is not in dispute. Its repairs policy sets out that it aims to complete routine repairs in an average of 25 calendar days. It will attend emergency works within 24 hours. To be classed as an emergency, there must be an immediate danger to the resident or members of the public.
  4. The resident first reported the leak on 3 November 2022. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to this at the time. The landlord took 77 calendar days (3 November 2022 to 19 January 2023) to arrange for a contractor to inspect the leak. This timeframe was significantly outside of its repairs policy. The landlord provided no explanation for this considerable delay in inspecting the issue. This Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord considered its obligations under the HHSRS or the potential health impact of the leak on the household. There is no evidence that the landlord prioritised the work in light of its responsibility to reduce risk to the resident.
  5. Following this inspection, it is apparent that the resident had to chase the landlord for updates on the work being carried out on a number of occasions throughout February and March 2023. There is no evidence that the landlord had maintained proactive contact with the resident throughout this time. Despite having a Healthy Homes Initiative, setting out its expectations around damp and mould, there is no evidence that it sought to support the resident by providing dehumidifiers to help reduce the impact of the leak, as is recommended by the initiative.
  6. The resident submitted a complaint on 22 March 2023 and stated that the landlord had not responded to his concerns about the leak despite contacting it on a number of occasions. The landlord stated within its stage 1 complaint response that the original contractor quote had been declined by its surveyor on 3 March 2023. Records of this decision making were not provided to this Service. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord informed the resident of this decision at the time or the reason for it. This demonstrated a lack of open and transparent communication. It was not until the stage 1 response (23 March 2023) that the landlord explained the reason for this having been the cost quoted. It is reasonable to expect as part of keeping the resident informed as to the status of their repairs request, that the landlord should have been proactive at keeping the resident updated. The process of arranging a new quote would require the resident to be present at the property to enable a second inspection, thereby causing unnecessary time and trouble to the resident, as well as the additional overall delay. Although the landlord upheld the complaint at stage 1 and apologised, there is no evidence that it monitored the work going forward as it had assured the resident would happen as part of its resolution.
  7. The landlord has not provided the detail of the resident’s request to escalate their complaint to stage 2, however, the landlord responded at stage 2 on 16 August 2023. In the response the landlord confirmed that it had authorised the roofing works but that the contractor was closed until 31 August 2023. The landlord did not provide any records of its reasoning for instructing its chosen contractor, or whether it had considered if such a period of unavailability was appropriate given that the leak had been unrepaired for over 9 months at that stage. Within the stage 2 response, the landlord offered a total of £170 compensation in respect of its failures. It is noted that at the time, the work was still outstanding and was not completed until around November 2023, one year after the resident had initially reported the leak.
  8. Given the potential for damage to have been caused by having water entering the bedroom for around a year, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have been proactive at advising the resident of how to make a claim via its insurers for any damage caused whilst its internal complaints procedure completed. It is also a reasonable expectation as part of its overall handling of the complaint that it should have addressed how it would make good the damage to the bedroom ceiling and wall caused by the leak having been ongoing for so long. This Service has not seen evidence that it did so. As such, the landlord failed to demonstrate a resident and resolution focused approach.
  9. When a failure is identified, as in this case, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  10. Given the significant delay in the leak being actioned, the £170 compensation was insufficient to acknowledge the impact on the resident. It is noted that following the referral to this Service, the landlord reconsidered its offer of compensation on two occasions. On 27 September 2023, it increased its offer to £930. It is not clear how it determined this figure or what this offer had been based on. It then offered a further £225 compensation on 6 December 2023 to acknowledge that there had been additional delays. This brought the landlord’s total offer of compensation to £1155. This amount offered was within a range the Ombudsman would recommend where the landlord repeatedly failed to provide the same service which had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident.
  11. The Ombudsman encourages landlord’s to take resolution focussed action, irrespective of the stage at which a case is at. However, the main focus for a landlord should always be to ensure that a case in dispute progresses to a fair resolution during its internal complaints process.
  12. It was not until the resident referred his complaint to this Service, that the landlord conducted further reviews of the case and concluded that it should have offered a higher amount of compensation. Although this did indicate a willingness to learn, in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles, there was little evidence of this at the time of the original complaint investigation. A referral to the Ombudsman is not meant as another opportunity for the landlord to consider its handling of the complaint, as this should have been fully investigated during the internal complaints procedure. Although the landlord’s original complaint investigation did acknowledge that it had taken too long to address the works, it did not demonstrate that it had expedited the completion of the works in light of this. Despite acknowledging the works had taken too long, they were not completed until around 3 months after the completion of the internal complaints procedure.
  13. Although the final offer of £1155 compensation can be said to have put things right for the resident, this should have been offered at an earlier stage and during the internal complaints procedure. The Ombudsman’s outcomes guidance is clear that a finding of reasonable redress is less likely to be determined under such circumstances. As such the landlord failed to effectively put things right during the internal complaints procedure. It also missed the opportunity to learn lessons from the outcome at the time of its original investigation. As such, the landlord did not act in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles and maladministration has therefore been found with the landlord’s response to a reported leak into the bedroom.

Knowledge and information management

  1. Despite asking the landlord to provide the records of correspondence it had with the resident, there are a number of instances where the landlord failed to provide such records to this Service. Good record keeping is vital in order to maintain a record of a landlord’s actions. It is also important in instilling confidence in the landlord and in its management systems and information. Landlords should therefore take steps to ensure that its record keeping practices are adequate, and that care is taken to provide all necessary documentation requested by the Ombudsman for its investigations.
  2. An improvement in the landlord’s record-keeping would result in significant benefits for both it and residents. It would enable accurate information to be shared across teams and with residents. It would also help with our investigations by improving our understanding of the situation at the time.
  3. The initial roofing contractor attended to assess the leak on 19 January 2023. The information in respect of this was provided to this Service by the resident and the landlord failed to provide contemporaneous records of this. It is noted that the information provided by the resident was subsequently confirmed in the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response. The landlord should, however, have been able to provide records of this inspection and the findings to the Ombudsman.
  4. The landlord failed to provide a copy of the resident’s escalation request to this Service. It acknowledged in its further review of the case following the completion of the internal complaints procedure that its stage 2 response (16 August 2023) had been delayed. This is something which it did not acknowledge or address within its stage 2 response. This was not appropriate as the landlord should have considered its handling of the complaint. It should not have taken a further review of the complaint for it to identify its failure. This Service has not seen any evidence of its decision making into how it determined that £80 compensation was sufficient to acknowledge the impact on the resident of the late stage 2 response.
  5. The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management (May 2023) refers specifically to these types of incidences and the landlord is encouraged to consider the impact its knowledge management has on the quality of its housing services. By failing to share information effectively and retain accurate, contemporaneous records of activity undertaken, the landlord was unable to demonstrate effective communication with the resident. The impact of its information handling practices caused extended detriment, in the form of time, trouble, and distress to the resident and will have likely damaged the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s ability to effectively provide its services Consequently this Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s knowledge and information management.
  6. The Ombudsman identified a similar issue with the landlord’s knowledge and information management in September 2024 (case reference 202400109). Within that case, the Ombudsman ordered the landlord to conduct a review of its record keeping processes under paragraph 54.g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. As such, a further review of this has not been ordered in this case.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to a reported leak into the bedroom.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s knowledge and information management.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £1155 compensation to acknowledge the impact of the failures on him. If this has already been paid, no further payment is required. Evidence of compliance is to be provided to this Service.
  2. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, conduct a senior management review of the issues highlighted in this report, in accordance with paragraph 54.g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. This should be presented to its senior leadership team and shared with the Ombudsman. The landlord should provide the Ombudsman a report summarising identified improvements, which should also be cascaded to its relevant staff. The review should consider:
    1. The reasons why the works to fix the leak took around 12 months and the changes it will make to its handling of such reports in order to prevent delays in the future.
    2. The reasons for the lack of consideration of the impact the situation had on the resident and how it will ensure the impact on a resident is considered in the future.
    3. The reasons for the lack of transparent decision making and communication with the resident in respect of the quote for the works being declined. The steps it will take to prevent this in the future.
    4. How it will improve its processes for maintaining proactive contact with residents whilst works are outstanding and detail any changes it will make.