London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202309774)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309774

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

30 August 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s shower unit.
2. The landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

The resident occupies a property with his mother and his sister. His mother, the tenant, has mobility problems. She has an assured tenancy and the family have occupied the property since 2018.
In May 2021, the resident reported to the landlord that the shower cubicle in the property was in disrepair. There were broken tiles and damaged plasterboard. Whenever they used the shower, it leaked into the downstairs kitchen. The landlord raised a job to inspect the shower on 10 May 2021. The inspection went ahead on 29 June 2021 and the landlord recorded “need to remove shower cubicle, take off defective tiles and plasterboard approximately 5 metres squared, renew with new plasterboard and new tiles, fit new thermostatic shower, 2 days’ work urgent as leaks when used”. It passed this to its major works team, but this was not progressed.
The resident raised this again with the landlord in January 2022. It arranged appointments in January and February 2022, but the contractors cancelled the appointments on both occasions.
In May 2022, the landlord recorded again that it should pass the works to its major works team. The resident chased this again in October 2022 and January 2023. The landlord confirmed that it had returned the job to its extended repairs team and that the resident would need to wait for them to contact him with an appointment date.
On 27 January 2023, the landlord told the resident that it needed to undertake an asbestos survey before it could start works in the bathroom. It completed the survey on 6 March 2023 which showed that there was no asbestos in the bathroom. On 8 February 2023, the landlord inspected again and raised works for the contractor to complete.
The resident made a complaint on 3 March 2023. He said that:
1. He had been waiting for 18 months for the landlord to undertake the works.
2. He had made a complaint on 30 January 2023, but he did not receive a response. The landlord later told him that it had cancelled his complaint.
On 16 March 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said that:
1. It apologised for the delays in completing works to the shower.
2. It upheld the resident’s complaint and had raised the works with its major works team. It would be in contact to provide him with an update in due course.
The resident did not receive this complaint response, however, and he followed this up in March and April 2023. In April 2023 he asked that the landlord escalate his complaint. When he received no response, he chased this again in May 2023. The landlord’s records show that the complaints handler dealing with the resident’s case was no longer working for the landlord. The landlord sent a complaint response letter to the resident on 31 May 2023. This Service has not seen a copy of this letter. The resident says that the landlord offered him £300 as compensation for the delays.
In May 2023 the landlord’s records show that a plumber attended the resident’s property to repair the leak. The contractor marked this job as complete.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 13 June 2023. He said that he had been reporting the shower leak for three years and that this was having a significant impact on his family’s daily life. His mother had mobility problems and she was having to use the bath rather than the shower. He said that he had many engineers come to the property to inspect the leak, and a plumber attended in May, but the leak returned after a week and told the resident that the landlord needed to replace the full shower unit. When there was no response, he approached this Service, and we wrote to the landlord on 18 August 2023 requesting a stage 2 complaint response by 8 September 2023. On 22 August 2023, the landlord acknowledged the request and said that it would respond by 18 September 2023.
The landlord arranged for its surveyor to inspect the property on 6 September 2023. It rearranged the works for 11 October 2023.
On 18 September 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said that:
1. It apologised for the delays and the distress that this had caused the resident. It conceded that it should have managed the repairs more effectively.
2. It also apologised for its poor communication which fell short of acceptable standards.
3. It said that it had spoken with senior management and staff involved and it had since provided training, which it hoped would enhance customer service going forward.
4. It offered compensation of £900 which included:
  1. £100 for the resident’s time and effort
  2. £300 under the Right to Repair scheme which it had calculated as at £10 x 30 months
  3. £100 for its service failure
  4. £200 for the resident’s distress and inconvenience
  5. £80 for its poor communication
  6. £80 for its complaint handling
  7. £40 for the delay at stage 2 of its complaints procedure.

Post complaint

The repairs did not go ahead on 11 October 2023. The landlord rearranged the works on 2 separate dates in November 2023, but they did not go ahead on either date. It rescheduled the works for 1 December 2023, however at this stage the resident said that he would not allow access for the repairs and would be referring the matter to a solicitor. The landlord later closed the complaint, as it had passed the case to its legal team.
In November 2023, solicitors acting for the resident sent the landlord a letter of claim. Parties instructed a joint expert to inspect the property and prepare a report and a schedule of works, which was dated 1 February 2024. The report highlighted items of disrepair in the property that are not the subject of this investigation, and we will therefore not consider them further.
In March 2024 the resident’s kitchen ceiling collapsed. The landlord completed the outstanding bathroom works, highlighted in the joint expert report, in June 2024. The resident signed paperwork that showed that they were satisfied with the standard of the works. The landlord has confirmed that, to date, no legal proceedings have been issued in relation to this matter.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
1. Be fair
2. Put things right
3. Learn from outcomes
This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

Scope of the investigation

The resident has raised several issues with this Service during this investigation which were not included in his initial complaint or complaint escalation. These include repairs to an upstairs toilet and the collapse of his kitchen ceiling in April 2024. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if needed.    
Prior to this investigation, the Ombudsman had carried out a special investigation of the landlord under paragraph 49 of the Scheme. The investigation reviewed 103 complaints referred to the Ombudsman over a six-month period up to June 2023. It found common points of failure and made recommendations for improvement. The investigation resulted in a special report which we published in July 2023 and is available to view on our website. The landlord has provided the Ombudsman with its improvement plan and the Ombudsman is monitoring its progress in making the changes that are needed.
Where the findings in the Ombudsman’s special report are relevant to this case, reference has been made to them in this report. The Ombudsman has not made any orders or recommendations that would duplicate those included in the Ombudsman’s special report.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s shower unit.

In investigating this complaint, it is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the reasonableness and appropriateness of the landlord’s actions considering its legal obligations, policies and procedures and good practice.
The landlord is responsible under the tenancy agreement for repairing the structure and exterior of the property, as well as the drains, pipes, walls floors and ceilings, and sanitary installations such as showers. Its repairs policy says it will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours and complete routine repairs within 25 days. It would undertake major works to involve the replacement of bathrooms or kitchens outside of these timescales.
The Ombudsman’s special report highlighted the following common points of failure in the landlord’s handling of complaints which are relevant in this case:
1. There were excessive and unexplained delays in completing repairs.
2. The landlord missed or duplicated appointments.
3. The landlord raised the same repairs on multiple occasions, often closing an issue as resolved only to reopen it when the resident got back in touch to say that the issue was not resolved.
4. The landlord did not keep residents informed of the progress of their repairs leading them to chase and complain about issues.
The landlord has a responsibility to repair the leak from the resident’s shower. If it was not repairable, it should have taken steps to replace the shower. It had marked the works as “urgent” given that the shower leaked into the kitchen each time the family used it. Over the period of investigation, the records show that the resident chased the repairs on many occasions over a period of 30 months. The landlord made appointments for the works on several occasions, but they either did not go ahead or were cancelled or closed. When the landlord did repair the leak, the resident reported that the leak had returned a short while later.
This Service acknowledges that it is not always possible for a landlord to identify and resolve an issue on first inspection; sometimes there needs to be further investigation of the issues, particularly where there is complexity. However, in this case a delay of 3 years to repair a recurring leak and replace a shower unit was excessive. When the landlord became aware that the leak could not be repaired, it should have identified how the works could be completed urgently and referred the works to the appropriate team, monitoring the works to completion. However, the landlord’s response was poorly co-ordinated. There were repeat appointments for surveyors to inspect and report on the same works. It passed works between teams which it did not follow up. A landlord should have effective internal communication procedures so that matters are followed up and outcomes recorded with other departments and contractors, to facilitate an effective and responsive service to its residents. These systems were either not in place or not utilised, which was a failing.
Poor communication between the landlord and its contractors led to it giving the wrong instructions to contractors and closing jobs before it had completed them. On several occasions contractors did not attend for pre-arranged appointments without notice being given to the resident. On other occasions, contractors attended but left the job before they had completed it. This led to the resident being more involved in the repairs process than necessary, updating the landlord on the works that were still outstanding and having to chase the landlord for updates. There was no tracking of repair progress. Consequently, the works extended far beyond the expected timeframes for an urgent repair, which was unsatisfactory and avoidable.
The repair records provided to this Service by the landlord were limited in terms of detail. These gaps and omissions have meant the landlord has not been able to clearly show what steps it had taken to resolve the resident’s concerns and its overall management of the issues. the Ombudsman’s latest spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management states that, “the failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress”. The landlord’s records do not clearly show which works it carried out and when they were completed. The lack of clear and accurate record keeping would have contributed to the lack of updates to the resident, the failure to meet agreed timescales and the protracted delays in resolving the outstanding issues.
The landlord’s communication with the resident fell short of the standard the Ombudsman would expect. The resident said that he expended time and effort in contacting the landlord with the sole aim of progressing the repairs. The landlord has not provided evidence to show that it kept the resident sufficiently updated. It did not let him know the reasons for delays and what it was trying to do to remedy them. Ultimately, the resident felt that the issue would be unresolved unless he raised a complaint.
In its complaints response, the landlord apologised for the delays in completing the repairs and offered the resident £780 in compensation regarding the repairs. It identified lessons learned and gave the resident assurances that training had been provided to staff which would enhance customer service going forward. While it is positive that the landlord acknowledged its failings and looked at what it could do to prevent recurrence in the future, its offer of redress did not reflect the detriment to the resident and his family. It did not recognise the greater impact of the delays on the resident’s mother due to her vulnerabilities. Further, despite the landlord addressing this issue following the resident’s complaint, there were several further failed appointments following its complaint responses which resulted in the resident instructing solicitors to reach a resolution. The distress and inconvenience that the resident suffered because of unnecessary and lengthy delays in the landlord undertaking the works was compounded by the landlord’s poor communication.
The Ombudsman therefore finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the resident’s shower and orders the landlord to pay the resident an added £1000 to compensate him for his distress and inconvenience, time and trouble because of the landlord’s failings. This amount includes an uplift, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which says that this can be applied where there are aggravating factors that would increase the impact of the resident. Examples of aggravating factors include the presence of people with vulnerabilities in the household.
Under 54.g. of the Scheme, the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to carry out a senior management review of complaint reference 202340261, which has included further actions the landlord must take in relation to managing repairs. Where these actions are relevant to this investigation, they have not been duplicated in this report.

The landlord’s complaints handling

The Ombudsman’s special report highlighted the following common points of failure in the landlord’s handling of complaints which are relevant in this case:
1. The landlord failed to consistently accept and escalate complaints, and in many cases, failed to review the responses set at previous stages, before issuing its next response.
2. The landlord’s communication with residents was often undermined by poor knowledge and information management.
The resident says that he made his first complaint to the landlord on 30 January 2023 by telephone. The landlord’s policy says that a response to a complaint will be provided within 10 days. There was evidence that the landlord had recorded that a complaint had been made on 30 January 2023, but it did not respond to it.
The resident made a new complaint on 3 March 2023. The resident did not receive the landlord’s response to his complaint dated 16 March 2023. He chased this 4 times in April and May 2023 but as the complaint handler had left the organisation, another member of staff did not pick this up. This was a failing. The landlord should have procedures in place to ensure that complaints are logged, monitored and responded to within its published timescales.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 13 June 2023. He received no response and in not acknowledging the resident’s request, the landlord failed to act in accordance with its policy. The landlord escalated the complaint on 22 August 2022, and only after the intervention of this Service. Its stage 2 response was delayed by 10 days, although it had agreed an extension to the deadline in advance with the resident.
Overall, there were significant failings in the landlord’s complaints handling which adversely affected the resident. He spent time and trouble in chasing up his complaint response and despite delays at stage 1 of the process, he experienced further delays at stage 2, which was unsatisfactory. The delays and poor communication meant that the complaints process was unnecessarily prolonged, and this would have added to the distress and frustration the resident was experiencing.
In its complaints response, the landlord apologised for these delays. It offered the resident the amount of £120 in compensation. While it is positive that the landlord acknowledged its failings and looked at what it could do to prevent their recurrence in the future, its offer of redress of £120 did not reflect the detriment to the resident. The resident had an expectation that the landlord would respond to his complaint within the timescales listed in its complaints procedure and that it would provide him with regular updates. Further, in line with this Service’s remedies guidance the resident’s household’s personal circumstances as outlined above are aggravating factors in deciding financial redress. The Ombudsman therefore orders that the landlord pay the resident an added amount of £200 to compensate him for his distress and inconvenience, time and trouble because of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
This Service has made a wider order under paragraph 54.f. of the Scheme in case 202223386 about the landlord’s delays in its complaints handling. The Ombudsman has not included any orders or recommendations in this report that would duplicate those included in the wider order.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the resident’s shower.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaints handing.

Orders and recommendations

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange for a senior officer to write a letter of apology to the resident addressing the failings outlined in this report.
2. If it has not done so already, it is to pay the resident £900 it had offered him as redress at stage 2 of its complaints procedure.
3. Pay the resident the added amount of £1200 in compensation which comprises of:
  1. £500 for the resident’s distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s service failings regarding repairs to and replacement of, the resident’s shower.
  2. £500 for the resident’s time and trouble caused by the landlord’s service failings regarding repairs to and replacement of, the resident’s shower.
  3. £200 for the resident’s time, trouble, distress and inconvenience because of the landlord’s complaint handling failings.