London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202402829)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202402829

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

28 January 2025

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 to the bathroom.
2. repairs to the kitchen.
3. the resident’s report about the behaviour of the landlord’s employees.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

The resident occupies the property, a two-bedroom, second floor flat, under an assured tenancy which began on 23 August 2010. The resident lives at the property with her 4 children. During the period of her complaint, the resident was pregnant, and gave birth to her baby on 3 May 2024.
The landlord attended the property on 8 June 2022, after the resident reported that the bath panel at the property was rotting and that there was no cold water coming out of the bath tap. The landlord confirmed that work was needed to bypass the cold-water tank, which was currently feeding the bath tap and shower, and connect to mains. The landlord also confirmed that the basin and pedestal in the bathroom needed to be replaced.
On 13 February 2023, the resident emailed the landlord, noting her intention to raise a complaint as the works to the bathroom had not yet been carried out.
In a letter to the resident dated 29 August 2023, the landlord confirmed it would attend at the property on 20 November 2023 to carry out the works to the bathroom.
Further correspondence dated 29 August 2023 noted that a contractor would contact the resident to confirm an appointment to collect and dispose of the kitchen sink with a crumbling asbestos sink pad.
On 7 November 2023, the resident complained by email to the landlord about the length of time it was taking to complete the works to the bathroom. The resident contacted the landlord again on 20 November 2023 by telephone to complain about the behaviour of the operatives who had attended that day to complete bathroom repairs, and to report that the works had still not been carried out.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint by voicemail on 22 November 2023, confirming it had spoken to the operatives who attended on 20 November 2023, and it would rearrange an appointment to complete the repairs.
The resident called and emailed the landlord requesting to escalate her complaint on 24 January 2024, 26 February 2024, 6 March 2024, and 7 March 2024. In her escalation requests, the resident noted she was unhappy about the outstanding repairs to the bathroom, the outstanding kitchen repairs and mould and asbestos in the kitchen. The resident also stated that she had been waiting for many years for both her kitchen and bathroom to be renewed.
On 7 May 2024, the resident emailed the landlord again requesting that the landlord escalate her complaint. She noted she had already asked to escalate her complaint and that she was distressed that the landlord had not acted following her request.
The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response on 21 August 2024, acknowledging delays from August 2023 in repairing the bathroom, and offering the resident the sum of £485 in compensation in recognition of the delays, missed appointments, and delays in complaint handling regarding the bathroom repairs. Following a request from the Ombudsman, on 12 September 2024 the landlord issued a revised stage 2 response to include reference to the resident’s concerns about her kitchen repairs. The landlord increased the compensation it had previously offered by £70 to take into account its handling of the kitchen repairs.
The resident confirmed on 23 September 2024 that she was unhappy with the final response from the landlord, its compensation offer, and the fact that the bathroom and kitchen had still not been renewed. In addition, the kitchen unit under the kitchen sink had not been replaced, and the problems with fitting the basin and pedestal in the bathroom had not been rectified. She asked the Ombudsman to investigate her case.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

There are records showing that the resident reported problems with the cold-water feed to the bath/shower mixer tap over several years, dating back to at least 2016. It appears that the resident only raised a formal complaint about the bathroom repairs in November 2023, however. In accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, normally within 12 months of the matters arising. Whilst this would ordinarily lead this service to focus on the landlord’s handling of the matter from November 2022 onwards, the Ombudsman notes that the landlord assessed the resident’s bathroom in June 2022, following which, the repairs which form part of this complaint were recommended. As such, the Ombudsman considers that it would be fair to consider the landlord’s handling of this matter from June 2022 onwards.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the bathroom

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a legal duty on a landlord to make full, effective, and lasting repairs, once given notice of disrepair. They must keep in repair and working order the installations for the supply of gas and electricity, water and sanitation and space heating and heating water. The resident’s tenancy agreement also reflects these obligations.
Section 8 of the landlord’s repair policy states that it will attend to routine day to day repairs in an average of 25 calendar days. For emergency works, where there is an immediate danger to residents, it will attend within 24 hours.
The landlord’s repair records show that on 8 June 2022 the landlord attended the property after the resident reported that the bath panel at the property was rotting and that there was no cold water coming out of the bath tap. The bath panel was replaced on 16 June 2022. The landlord’s operative noted at the initial attendance on 8 June 2022, that in addition to replacing the bath panel, further works were required to bypass the cold water tank and fix the cold tap on the bath. The operative also noted that the basin and pedestal in the bathroom needed to the be renewed, and that prior to any plumbing works taking place in the bathroom, the landlord needed to carry out an asbestos survey. An asbestos survey was completed on 14 July 2022.
The resident contacted the landlord on 13 February 2023 noting that she was still waiting for the works to be completed in her bathroom and that she was going to be making a complaint to the landlord about this issue. She stated in her email that she had called the landlord on numerous occasions with no resolution and that she was finding the situation stressful as she had young children.
At this point, 5 months had passed since the landlord’s asbestos survey had been carried out on the bathroom, following which, the landlord should have arranged the works without delay. Section 8 of the landlord’s repair policy states that it will attend to routine day to day repairs in an average of 25 calendar days. It was not reasonable, or in compliance with the landlord’s policy, for the landlord to fail to carry out the necessary repairs within the specified timescale. In addition, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord communicated with the resident about the works during this period or updated her about the reason for any delay. This was not appropriate, and meant that the resident needed to contact the landlord to find out when her repairs were going to be carried out.
On 29th August 2023, a repair was raised again to bypass the cold water tank, fit a new cold tap to the resident’s bath, and renew the basin and pedestal, as per the wording of the works specified in June 2022. However, an appointment letter addressed to the resident, also dated 29 August 2023, showed that the landlord had scheduled the appointment to carry out the works for 20th November 2023. In the absence of any reasonable explanation for this further delay, the Ombudsman considers that it was not appropriate for the landlord to arrange for the works, which had been recommended over a year earlier, to be scheduled a further 3 months later.
Prior to the appointment, on 12 October 2023, a Legionnaires risk assessment was carried out at the property. The operative examined the water systems at the property and confirmed that there was a high risk of scalding due to low water pressure from the tank fed cold water tap for the shower. Flow temperature was recorded at 56°C and it was noted that risk of scalding increases at temperatures above 45°C. The risk assessment contained a recommendation to either increase the cold water pressure from the tank or move the cold water supply for the shower from tank to mains, in order to obtain a better pressure.
At the time of the survey, the work to move the supply to mains was already scheduled to take place on 20 November 2023. There is no evidence that the landlord treated the repairs with any increased urgency after receiving the risk assessment report, in spite of the high risk of scalding being brought to its attention.
During the appointment on 20 November 2023, the repairs were not carried out, due to a dispute about the works between the landlord’s operatives and the resident.
An appointment was rescheduled for 19 January 2024, however this was subsequently cancelled by the landlord and rearranged to 6th March 2024. The landlord’s records state that this was due to the landlord’s staff being unable to attend on 19 January 2024. While staffing issues may sometimes mean planned work by a landlord must be rearranged, the Ombudsman notes that the landlord did not rearrange the appointment with any urgency. The Ombudsman considers that in light of the already substantial delay in completing the required works, and the health and safety risk posed by the hot water, it was unreasonable for the landlord to rearrange this appointment for a further 1.5 months later. This further delay caused the resident further distress and inconvenience.
On 6 March 2024, the landlord’s operatives attended and completed the work to bypass the tank and convert to mains feed and changed the bath taps. Another operative attended on 7 March 2024 and completed works to install a new basin, pedestal, and new taps.
This long delay from when the original works were requested in June 2022 to when the works were eventually carried out in March 2024, was contrary to the landlord’s repair policy. Section 8 of the landlord’s policy states that it will attend to routine day to day repairs in an average of 25 calendar days. For emergency works, where there is an immediate danger to residents, it will attend within 24 hours. It was not reasonable, or in compliance with the landlord’s policy, for the landlord to complete the required works 20 months after the asbestos survey was carried out in July 2022. This left the resident and her children with a shower which was too hot, presented a high risk of scalding, and offered no resolution for over 20 months.
In the stage 2 complaint response, the landlord appropriately apologised for the delay in carrying out the repairs in the resident’s bathroom going back to August 2023, but did not acknowledge that the resident had in fact been waiting for the repairs to be completed since the landlord had set out its proposed solution to the issue in June 2022. As such, it did not adequately acknowledge the full extent of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
The Ombudsman also notes that on 13 November 2023, the resident emailed the landlord because she was concerned, following the Legionella risk assessment, that there was a risk of Legionnaires’ Disease from the water tank. The resident contacted the landlord by telephone again on 24 January 2024 and said she had been warned of a Legionella risk following the survey.
The risk assessment contained a recommendation that the landlord should arrange regular access to the cold-water tank in the resident’s loft in order to check temperatures, but did not record a high risk of legionella at the property. Still, there is no evidence that the landlord appropriately responded to the resident’s concerns about legionella, or that it offered her any reassurance regarding the findings of the risk assessment. This failure to respond to the resident’s concerns was not appropriate, and caused the resident unnecessary distress.
Following the works, the resident contacted the landlord by email on 8, 11 and 14 March 2024 to advise that the works to the bathroom were not completed to a good standard as there was a gap between the newly fitted basin and pedestal. The landlord scheduled an operative to attend on 15 April 2024 and confirmed a supervisor would attend to inspect the works.
The supervisor attended on 15 April 2024 to inspect the work to the bathroom. This was within 25 working days of the problem with the bathroom repairs being raised, and was an appropriate response to the resident’s concerns about the work.
The supervisor advised on 15 April 2024 that the bathroom should be renewed. However, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the problem with the gap between basin and pedestal were fixed, leaving the repair unresolved. This was inappropriate, and led to further distress and inconvenience to the resident.
In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, dated 21 August 2024, the landlord stated that its planned works team would be in contact with the resident to advise her further about the bathroom renewal. In the email enclosing its response, the landlord confirmed it would contact the resident by 4 September 2024 to update her regarding the status of the kitchen and bathroom.
This commitment to contact the resident was repeated in the revised stage 2 response dated 12 September 2024.
At the time of writing this report, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence of further contact with the resident, or that any further work has been scheduled. The resident reports that she has not received any further visits or communication regarding the bathroom renewal.
The Ombudsman recognises that it is reasonable for landlords to schedule major works such as bathroom renewals in advance, and to have a programme of such works so that multiple properties can be renovated at the same time. However, landlords would be expected to carry out major works such as bathroom renewals outside such major works programmes, if it was necessary to do so based on the condition of that particular property.
It is inappropriate that, 9 months after the recommendation for renewal of the resident’s bathroom was made, the landlord has not yet arranged for the planned works team to assess the bathroom to determine when the works will take place.
It is also apparent that the landlord’s communication regarding the bathroom renewal has not been adequate in this case. The resident was told on several occasions that the landlord would contact her to update her on the works, but the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that any such communication has taken place.
This failure by the landlord to follow up on its commitment to update and communicate with the resident about the bathroom renewal is not appropriate and is likely to have undermined the relationship between the landlord and tenant further.
In the stage 2 response in this case, the landlord appropriately offered compensation for the acknowledged failures in service. In the breakdown of the compensation in its stage 2 response, the landlord awarded £225 for distress and inconvenience and £40 for the missed appointments the resident experienced in the handling of her bathroom repairs.
Where a landlord has offered compensation, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord was adequate to put things right. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies and the landlord’s own compensation policy.
The landlord’s compensation policy, dated August 2021, states that where there has been a loss of individual service/facilities, and it has not been resolved within given timeframes and service level agreements, the landlord will consider discretionary compensation. The policy also states that it will provide fixed service awards for set scenarios, such as £20 for failure to keep an appointment without at least 24 hours’ notice. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord offered the resident compensation for these issues.
The Ombudsman considers that the sum of £40 awarded for missed appointments was appropriate, and in line with the landlord’s compensation policy.
However, in the Ombudsman’s view, the £225 paid to the resident by the landlord for distress and inconvenience did not adequately recognise the failures outlined above, in particular the significant impact of the shower and bath running too hot for several years in a household which included young children. In addition, the Ombudsman notes that at the time of writing this report, the problem reported with the installation of the basin and pedestal remains unresolved, and the landlord has not provided the resident with a date for the bathroom renewal.
In consideration of the failures in service outlined above, a determination of maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the bathroom repairs has been made.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests awards of up to £600 are appropriate where there was a failure which had an adverse effect on the resident. The Ombudsman considers that a total award of compensation of £600 for distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the bathroom repairs would appropriately recognise the adverse impact on the resident in this case. An order is therefore set out below for the landlord to pay the resident an additional £375.
A further order requiring the landlord to arrange for a surveyor to assess the bathroom and provide the resident with a schedule for when the works to replace the bathroom will take place is set out below.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the kitchen

The records show that the resident reported a problem with damp and mould behind the kitchen units and washing machine on 24 January 2024.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that an assessment of the property will be carried out within 20 working days of a report of damp or mould and that any remedial work will be carried out within 10 working days of the assessment.
In this case, the landlord confirmed that an appointment would be made with a contractor to attend to assess and treat mould if necessary and the contractor attended at the property to investigate the issue on 29 January 2024.This was 5 days after the damp and mould was reported, and therefore in line with the landlord’s policy.
Following the assessment, a mould wash was recommended, and an appointment was made for the 11 March 2024. This was 30 working days after the assessment had been carried out, and therefore exceeded the 10 working day target for remedial works under the landlord’s damp and mould policy.
On 11 March 2024, the landlord arranged for its operatives to attend at the property to remove kitchen units before the contractor carried out the mould wash. Due to miscommunication between the landlord and the contractor, the units were not removed before the contractor attended and the contractor was therefore unable to carry out the mould wash treatment which had been arranged. This missed appointment resulted in a further delay to the landlord attending to the recommended mould treatment following the assessment on 29 January 2024.
This appointment was rebooked for 18th April 2024, but the resident, who was by that time 37 weeks pregnant, advised that unless the units were going to be replaced with new units, she did not want the works to go ahead, as there was a risk that the old units would not be in a fit state to reinstall after being removed for the mould wash to be carried out. The landlord’s planning team had also advised that they would like to move the washing machine to confirm that there was mould present before going ahead with the works, due to the condition of the units.
There is a record that the landlord contacted the resident again on 22 May 2024 to rearrange the treatment, but that the resident was unable to agree to the works being carried out at that stage (this was soon after the birth of her child). Within the record of the telephone call, the landlord noted that the job would be cancelled but that the landlord would contact the resident the following month to see whether she was in a situation to allow the works to be carried out.
There is no record that the landlord contacted the resident again after May 2024 to discuss investigating the mould further or carrying out the mould wash. The Ombudsman notes that the resident did not allow access in April 2024, but this should not have been the end of the matter. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it will work with residents to ensure ease of access and agree appointment times, and that if denied entry it will escalate appropriately in order to gain entry in line with its Property Access policy and procedure.
The failure by the landlord to contact the resident again after May 2024 to arrange access either to move the washing machine to confirm that mould was present, or to remove the kitchen cabinets in order to investigate further and treat the mould in the property, was in breach of its damp and mould policy.
In relation to asbestos, there is a letter, dated 29 August 2023 from the landlord to the resident, notifying the resident that an appointment will be made by the landlord’s contractor to collect and dispose of the kitchen sink with confirmed crumbling asbestos sink pad. The records show that on 6 March 2024, the landlord changed the sink in the kitchen due to asbestos pad breakdown, and that the landlord arranged for its contractor to collect and dispose of the kitchen sink.
Asbestos was used in many buildings until it was banned in 1999. According to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), asbestos is not dangerous for occupants if it is in good condition and not disturbed.
The landlord’s asbestos policy acknowledges that asbestos is dangerous, however it says if in good condition and well managed it can be left in-situ safely. It adds that exposure to asbestos fibres arising from disturbances can cause serious long-term harm and as such it says effective management arrangements are in place to prevent asbestos disturbance.
The asbestos policy confirms the landlord’s commitment to the management of asbestos and says all identified asbestos containing material will be either managed, remediated to reduce the risk, or removed as appropriate.
There is no evidence that the landlord took steps to identify or act on any risk posed by the asbestos between 29 August 2023 and 6 March 2024. This delay was inappropriate and a breach of the landlord’s asbestos policy.
On 7 March 2024, the resident noted in an email to the landlord that she had been unable to answer the landlord’s call the previous day because she had been attending to an operative removing her kitchen sink as she had discovered that there was asbestos which she and her family had been exposed to. The resident contacted the landlord again on 17 April 2024 in relation to replacing the cupboard under the sink and noted she was worried that the problem with the crumbling asbestos pad meant that she had been exposed for many years.
The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns in her email of 7 March 2024 or 17 April 2024, or provided the resident with information about asbestos – for example that asbestos is not dangerous if it is in good condition and not disturbed – which may have reassured her. This failure to adequately respond to the resident’s concerns about asbestos was not appropriate, and will have caused the resident additional distress.
Following the removal of the kitchen sink, the unit under the sink fell apart. The resident emailed the landlord on 17 April 2024 to say she had just received a call from the landlord’s contractor offering to replace the unit with a white unit. The resident refused this as the rest of the kitchen was wooden and it would not match.
There is no record that the landlord responded to this email or offered to provide a like for like replacement. At the time of writing this report, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord has taken any further action to replace the unit.
The Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s offer of a mismatched unit was inappropriate, and it would have been reasonable for the landlord to offer a like for like replacement. The Ombudsman also notes that at the time of writing this report, there is no record that the issue has been resolved, meaning that the resident has had a missing kitchen unit under the sink for 9 months. This is in breach of the landlord’s repair policy, which states that repairs should be carried out within 25 working days.
The resident has also expressed dissatisfaction in her correspondence and discussions with the landlord about the fact that she has waited many years for a new kitchen to be installed at the property.
On 17 April 2024, the landlord confirmed that the supervisor, who had attended on 15 April 2024, was completing a form for the kitchen to be renewed. The landlord also said it was looking into what had happened and why her kitchen renewal was delayed after COVID. The landlord told the resident that an asset manager had confirmed that a validation survey would need to be completed, and that someone would be in contact with the resident to arrange to carry this out.
As part of the landlord’s investigation of the stage 2 complaint, it spoke with the resident and noted again that she was waiting for a new kitchen to be installed. In the email enclosing its first stage 2 response to the resident, dated 21 August 2024, the landlord stated it would contact the resident by 4 September 2024 to update her regarding the status of the kitchen and bathroom.
In the amended stage 2 response dated 12 September 2024, the landlord noted that there were no planned works for the kitchen, so it would look into the status of a replacement kitchen. In the meantime, it would be arranging for a surveyor to inspect the resident’s kitchen units, and she would be contacted shortly.
At the time of drafting this report, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that a surveyor has inspected the kitchen, or that the resident has been updated about the progress of the renewal works to her kitchen.
It is inappropriate that, 9 months after the recommendation for a kitchen renewal was made, the landlord has not yet arranged for a surveyor to attend to assess the kitchen and determine the urgency of any works required.
The landlord has also failed to honour the commitments it made to update the resident on 17 April 2024, 21 August 2024 and 12 September 2024. This is inappropriate and is likely to have further undermined the landlord and tenant relationship.
In light of the delay in dealing with the damp and mould recommendations, kitchen cupboard repairs, and in consideration of the poor communication around the asbestos and the kitchen renewal in this case, a determination of maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the kitchen repairs has been made.
It was appropriate that in the revised stage 2 response, dated 12 September 2024, the landlord apologised and offered to increase the compensation it was offering to the resident in recognition of the landlord’s failings in dealing with the kitchen repairs.
However, the Ombudsman considers that, in light of the level of distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the kitchen repairs, the sum of £70 offered was too low. An order is therefore set out below that the landlord must pay the resident the sum of £350 in total in respect of its failings in the handling of the kitchen repairs. This sum is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident. The sum of £350 is inclusive of the additional £70 offered by the landlord in its stage 2 response letter dated 12 September 2024.
A further order requiring the landlord to arrange for a surveyor to assess the kitchen and provide the resident with a schedule for when the works to renew the kitchen will take place is set out below.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report about the behaviour of the landlord’s employees

On 20 November 2023, the landlord’s records show that operatives attended at the property and advised the resident that they were there to complete the works on the bath taps and tank. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with this, as she had been told by the landlord that a new basin and pedestal were also going to be fitted.
This was a reasonable expectation for the resident to have, as these works had been set out in the landlord’s letter, dated 29 August 2023, confirming the appointment.
Following a dispute between the resident and the landlord’s operative, the works did not go ahead, and the resident called the landlord to complain.
The landlord’s call records show that the resident called the landlord on 20 November 2024 and reported that its operatives had attended and asked the resident what the job was. The resident said she explained to them that she had been told it was a 3 hour job including taps, bypassing the water tank and replacing basin and pedestal. The resident reported that the operatives said they were there to deal with the taps and tank only. She reported that one of the operatives stormed out of the house when she went to her room to get her phone to establish what work needed to be done. The resident told the landlord she felt vulnerable and wanted to confirm that the operatives had been sent by the landlord, as they had not shown ID. The record states that the resident told the landlord that she felt intimidated, and was sobbing throughout the call.
In response to this complaint, the records show that the landlord left a voicemail for the resident on 22 November, telling her that it had spoken to the operatives involved and would rearrange the appointment.
Whilst it was appropriate that the landlord confirmed to the resident that it had spoken to the operatives involved, and showed some attempt to put things right, there is no indication that the landlord admitted or denied that there was any wrongdoing, or that there had been a mistake or any confusion regarding the works which needed to be carried out.
In these circumstances, the Ombudsman considers that it would have been appropriate for the landlord to investigate the matter, by contacting both the resident and the employees to seek their account of events. The landlord should have then sought to resolve the matter by either explaining its position, if it concluded the matter was a misunderstanding, or apologising if it concluded its employees were at fault. This Service considers that the voicemail left for the resident was an inadequate response to the resident’s complaint about the conduct of the landlord’s employees and did not appropriately recognise or respond to the resident’s distress.
It was also inappropriate, following the distress the resident expressed after the attendance by the landlord’s operatives on 20 November 2023, that the landlord sent one of the same operatives to complete the works on 6 March 2024.
The landlord appropriately apologised for sending the same operative to complete the works in its email to the resident dated 10 April 2024. The landlord apologised and confirmed that it had now put in place a procedure to ensure operatives were not sent out again if a resident had expressed concerns about their behaviour. This was an appropriate response to the resident’s concerns about the same employee attending her property.
In consideration of the failures in service outlined above, a determination of service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the report about conduct of the landlord’s employees on 20 November 2024 has been made.
The Ombudsman considers that compensation of £50 for distress and inconvenience would appropriately recognise the adverse impact on the resident of the landlord’s response to this issue. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases where there was a failure in the service a landlord provided, and it did not fully put things right.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

A landlord’s complaint handling should aim to resolve issues quickly, effectively, and fairly. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out what good complaint handling looks like, and all landlords are expected to comply with this.
The landlord’s complaint policy, dated October 2020, states that it operates a 2 stage complaints process. Stage 1 complaints will be acknowledged within 1 working day and responses will be provided within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaint responses will be provided within 20 working days. This is in line with the Code.
On 13 February 2023, the resident emailed the landlord to say she would be making a complaint, that she had called numerous times about the issues with her bathroom, but the landlord had not completed the repair.
There is no record that the resident proceeded to make a complaint until an email to the landlord on 7 November 2023, where the resident stated that she needed to pursue a complaint regarding the repair issues with the bathroom. She noted that she had made previous complaints regarding the bath taps and water pressure for 10 years, and that she had no cold water from the bath tap for several years. However, she stated that despite lodging complaints and concerns with the landlord, and asking for a surveyor to attend, the issue had not been resolved.
No evidence has been provided to the Ombudsman to show that the landlord acknowledged or responded to the resident’s email of 7 November 2023. This was inappropriate and in breach of its complaint policy which states that stage 1 complaints will be acknowledged within 1 working day.
The resident complained again by telephone on 20 November 2023, following an attendance by the landlord’s contractors and a dispute regarding the work which was due to be carried out in the bathroom.
The landlord has confirmed to the Ombudsman that it addressed the resident’s Stage 1 complaint via telephone call. The records show that, on 22 November 2023, the landlord confirmed via voicemail that the operatives who had attended on 20 November 2023 had been spoken to, and that the works in the bathroom would be rearranged.
This was an inappropriate stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint about a longstanding issue. It was also in breach of the Code, which requires that a stage 1 response should be provided in writing.
In addition, the response provided by the landlord on 22 November did not address all of the complaints raised by the resident. The response focused on the conduct of the landlord’s operatives on 20 November 2023, but failed to address the resident’s concerns about the length of time she had been waiting for the repairs. This was a further breach of the Code.
There is no evidence that the resident was given any information about how to escalate the complaint if she was unhappy with the landlord’s response, which was also in breach of the Code.
The resident contacted the landlord by email on 18 January 2024 noting that she was still waiting for bathroom repairs and that she wanted to escalate her complaint. There is no record of a response to this email.
The resident called the landlord on 24 January 2024 requesting that her complaint should be escalated to stage 2 of the complaints process. The call note recorded that the resident also mentioned wear and tear around the property which she wanted to be looked into urgently. The resident followed up this telephone call with an email on the same day, confirming that she wanted to make a stage 2 complaint. She noted that she was still waiting for the bathroom to be completed, that the kitchen had mould on the wall and that she had been waiting for a new kitchen and bathroom for 13 years.
There is no record of a response from the landlord to this escalation request and the resident contacted the landlord again on 26 February 2024 noting that she had asked for the complaint to be escalated in January 2024. The landlord recorded that the resident wished for the complaint to remain open until works were completed. However, there is no evidence that the resident’s complaint was escalated at this stage. On 6 March 2024, the resident called the landlord asking to escalate the complaint again.
On 7 May 2024, the resident emailed the landlord noting she had already requested escalation of her complaint and asking why this had not yet happened. She noted her distress as she thought the matter had already been escalated to stage 2.
On 14 August 2024, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord asking it to provide a stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint by 18 September 2024. The Ombudsman intervened at this stage because the resident had made several requests to escalate her complaint and had not received a response from the landlord. It was inappropriate and in breach of the Code that the landlord did not respond to the resident’s escalation requests until the Ombudsman contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf. This failure by the landlord to respond to the resident also meant that the resident had to spend excessive time and effort in order to escalate and progress her complaint.
On 15 August 2024, the landlord responded to the Ombudsman, confirming that the stage 1 complaint was addressed by telephone and that the stage 2 complaint had now been escalated to its stage 2 team.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 21 August 2024. The landlord appropriately apologised for the delay in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
The Ombudsman noted in its correspondence dated 27 August 2024, that the resident’s concerns regarding her kitchen repairs had not been addressed in the landlord’s stage 2 response, and asked the landlord to revise the response to include its position regarding the complaints about the kitchen.
A revised stage 2 response, including the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaints about her kitchen was issued on 12 September 2024. This final response was received by the resident 140 working days after the resident’s request to escalate her complaint on 24 January 2024, 120 days in excess of the 20 working day time limit for providing its stage 2 response under the Code.
Overall, the landlord has failed to respond appropriately to the resident’s complaint, failing to comply with its own complaint policy and the Code. As a result, there has been a significant delay in the resident being able to pursue her complaint and bring it to the Ombudsman.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord appropriately acknowledged its failings in handling the resident’s complaint and offered compensation in the sum of £220 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her complaint.
In cases where the landlord has admitted failings and offered compensation, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord was adequate to put things right and resolve the failings in the landlord’s complaint handling satisfactorily.
In line with of the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, the Ombudsman considers that the sum of £220 previously paid to the resident by the landlord was reasonable, and adequately recognised the landlord’s poor complaint handling and additional time and effort required to bring the complaint. This is because the sum of £220 is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies for cases where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident. A finding of reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling is therefore set out below.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of:
1. the repairs to the bathroom
2. the repairs to the kitchen.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s report about the behaviour of the landlord’s employees.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the failings identified in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report
2. Pay the resident an additional £775 made up of:
  1. £375 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the bathroom. This sum is in addition to the £225 for distress and inconvenience which was previously paid by the landlord to the resident following the landlord’s first stage 2 response letter dated 21 August 2024.
  2. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the kitchen. This sum is inclusive of the additional £70 offered in the landlord’s second stage 2 response letter dated 12 September 2024
  3. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the report about the conduct of the landlord’s employees
3. Arrange for a surveyor to assess the kitchen and provide the resident with a schedule for when the works to replace the kitchen will take place
4. Arrange for a survey of the bathroom and provide the resident with a schedule for when the works to replace the bathroom will take place
5. Provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders.