London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202314064)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314064

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

30 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 the resident’s:
1. Report of water ingress and the subsequent repairs.
2. Formal complaint.

Background

The resident lives in a 2-bedroom first floor maisonette. She holds an assured tenancy which started on 19 July 2004. The landlord is a housing association.
The resident reported water coming through her bathroom ceiling from a property above on 8 July 2022. She explained that water was leaking through the bathroom light. The landlord attended the same day and disconnected the light in the bathroom.
On 14 July 2022 the resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord. She said that she had reported the leak on 8 July 2022 and the landlord had told her it had made a repairs appointment for a date in November 2022. She explained that there was water leaking through the bathroom ceiling, damaging the floor, walls, and ceiling. The resident said that she that she could not wait until November 2022 for the landlord to carry out repairs.
The landlord acknowledged and responded to the complaint on 15 July 2022. In its response it apologised to the resident for the inconvenience. It explained that it had made an appointment to repair the leak from the property upstairs on 27 July 2022. It added that although it had scheduled the resident’s repair for November 2022, it would try to carry out the repair sooner and it would keep her updated if it could.
The landlord issued a second stage 1 response on 7 September 2022. In its response it confirmed that following a surveyor’s inspection of her property it would carry out the following works:
1. Renew the bathroom extractor fan.
2. Test the bathroom and utility room ceiling for asbestos.
3. Skim and paint the ceiling.
4. Renew the bath.
5. Plastering to the side of the door.
6. Check the electrical socket in the kitchen.
7. Redecorate the utility room and renew the flooring.
Additionally, the landlord offered £300 compensation for the following:
1. £100 for the inconvenience caused.
2. £100 for the distress caused.
3. £50 for the resident’s time and effort seeking a resolution.
4. £50 for the delay completing the repair.
The landlord completed the repairs on or around 15 November 2022.
It issued a final response to the resident’s escalated complaint dated 22 September 2022, on 18 July 2023. In its response it:
1. Apologised for its delay responding to the complaint.
2. Acknowledged that:
  1. It should have carried out the repairs in a more effective and timely way.
  2. It should have communicated with the resident better.
  3. The leak and the delays carrying out remedial works caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
3. Increased its offer of compensation to £700, which comprised of:
  1. £100 for its delay in responding to the stage 2 complaint.
  2. £200 for its delay completing the repairs.
  3. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of water ingress and the subsequent remedial works.

The landlord responded to the resident’s report of water leaking through her bathroom light as an emergency and disconnected the lights. This was an appropriate response and in line with the landlord’s repairs policy, which states that it will respond to emergency repairs, affecting the safety of residents within 24 hours.
The landlord’s repairs policy (in use at the time of the complaint) stated that the landlord would aim to complete routine repairs at the earliest mutually convenient time. However, it did not provide examples of what it considers to be a routine repair.
On 14 July 2022 the resident made a formal complaint about the ongoing leak. She said that water was dripping through her ceiling and that it had ruined the walls, floor, and ceiling. The resident said that the landlord told her it had made an appointment to carry out repairs in November 2022.
In response the landlord explained that it had an appointment to carry out repairs at the neighbour’s property on 27 July 2022, which was 13 working days after the resident reported the leak.
The landlord has not provided this Service with evidence of the exact origin of the leak. Nevertheless, the right to repair obligations state that a landlord should complete a repair to a leaking pipe within 1 working day. We acknowledge that to resolve the leak the landlord relied on the availability of the neighbour. However, it should have kept the resident informed of its progress and not waited for the resident to make a formal complaint. This would have demonstrated to the resident that the landlord was doing all it could to resolve the leak.
Following on from the resident’s complaint the landlord said that it would try to change the resident’s repair appointment for an earlier date. However, in an email exchange between the resident and the landlord on 10 August 2022 the resident said that she had not received any contact from the landlord regarding remedial works following the water ingress. Additionally, she said that although the landlord had resolved the leak from the property above it had not reconnected her bathroom light.
It was unreasonable of the landlord to not update the resident regarding progress of her repairs. Although it had suggested it would try to complete the resident’s repair sooner than the date it had scheduled in November 2022 it had failed to do so and failed to keep the resident informed. This was unreasonable. The landlord failed to effectively manage the resident’s expectations, and this caused her distress and anxiety.
Evidence showed that the landlord added a works order to reconnect the bathroom light at the property on 11 August 2022. It reconnected the light on 27 October 2022. This was approximately 65 working days after the leak had been resolved and 55 working days after the landlord added the request to its repairs log.
Although the landlord’s repairs policy does not indicate how long routine repairs should take to complete, it advises that they will be completed at the earliest opportunity. It was unreasonable for the resident to be without a working light in the bathroom for 55 working days. Additionally, the electricity to the bathroom had also been disconnected which meant that the resident’s only source of ventilation in the bathroom was also not working.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that its stage 1 response will set out its findings and the timescales within which the landlord intends to resolve the issues. An internal email from the landlord’s surveyor dated 31 August 2022 listed the remedial works required at the resident’s property. The landlord advised the resident of the remedial works in its stage 1 response on 7 September 2022. However, the landlord failed to advise the resident when the repairs would take place. The landlord failed to follow its published policy. This was not appropriate.
The resident escalated her complaint on 22 September 2022. She reiterated that the remedial work at her property was still outstanding, and the landlord had failed to provide her with a date for the works. Additionally, she said that there had been another leak into the bathroom the previous day.
The resident requested an update on the remedial works on 4 and 14 October 2022. While evidence showed that the landlord had made internal enquiries into the progress of the works, it had failed to keep the resident updated. This was not reasonable. The resident did not know when the landlord would carry out repairs and this caused her distress.
On 14 October 2022 the resident told the landlord that there was still a leak from the upstairs property. She explained that the extractor fan in the bathroom was not working and there was no window for ventilation. The landlord apologised and confirmed that it had arranged for a specialist contractor to attend and carry out a survey of the bathroom and kitchen.
A plumber attended the resident’s property to fix the leak on 1 November 2022. This caused the resident further frustration as she explained to the landlord that the leak was from another property. The resident expressed her concern that the landlord appeared confused as to what the issue was.
Internal landlord correspondence on 14 October 2022 showed that there was confusion as to who was responsible for ensuring it monitored the repairs. The confusion impacted on the resident who spent time and effort seeking a resolution to the issue complained about. Furthermore, this demonstrated poor record-keeping.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight on Knowledge and information management recommends that landlords should ensure databases can record information about repairs.
It is not clear to this Service exactly when the landlord resolved the leak and carried out the remedial works. However, based on evidence provided it appears to have been on or around 15 November 2022. The resident confirmed on 20 December 2022 that the landlord had completed all works.
We acknowledge that at the time of the complaint the landlord’s policy did not set out a specific timescale for completing routine repairs. However, its policy said that it would complete repairs to a good standard in a reasonable timeframe. The landlord appropriately responded to the resident’s concerns regarding water in her bathroom light within 24 hours. However, it took the landlord 55 days from the date it resolved the leak on 27 July 2022 to reconnect the electrics and light in the resident’s bathroom. This was not reasonable. The resident was left without any functioning light or means of ventilating her bathroom which caused her distress and anxiety.
Furthermore, the landlord inspected the resident’s property on or around 31 August 2022 and set out a list of required repairs. The landlord completed the repairs on or around 15 November 2022, which was 54 working days after it had specified the required works. During this time the resident contacted the landlord for an update on the repairs on at least 3 occasions.
In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case. Our dispute 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.
Across both complaint responses the landlord offered £600 for its handling of the repairs. The compensation comprised of:
1. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
2. £200 for the delay in carrying out the repair.
The landlord acknowledged and apologised for its failure to communicate with the resident in an effective way and for its failure to carry out the repairs within a reasonable timescale.
Having carefully considered all evidence available, this Service is satisfied that the landlord has acknowledged and taken responsibility for its failings. It has considered the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. Additionally, the compensation offered by the landlord is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for a maladministration finding. The offer is proportionate to the failings identified. Had the landlord not acknowledged and apologised for its failings, and offered compensation we would have made a maladministration finding.
However, the landlord failed to demonstrate how it had learnt from its failings, and what measures it would put in place to ensure similar issues did not re-occur. Consequently, we find service failure for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of water ingress and subsequent remedial works. Given that the landlord has made an offer of compensation in line with what we would expect to see for the failings identified, we will not be making an order for further compensation.
We acknowledge that since the conclusion of the complaint, the landlord has been subject to a paragraph 49 investigation by our Service. Recommendations made by our Service included a review of its assurance section in its repairs policy to ensure it can identify when it is not following its repairs policy. The landlord has confirmed that it has carried out a review and will implement appropriate assurances during its repairs change project. Therefore, we will not make a further order in respect of the landlord reviewing its repairs policy. However, we will order the landlord to review the complaint, consider the failings identified in this investigation and consider any further specific learning the landlord can take, to inform further service improvement.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. According to its policy it aims to acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and formally respond within 10 working days. Its policy states that after issuing a decision at stage 1 of its process the landlord will monitor progress until all outstanding actions are complete. Additionally, the policy states that the landlord will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the resident’s request to escalate it. In the event the landlord needs longer to respond it will explain to the resident the reason for this and respond within a further 10 working days.
The landlord issued 2 stage 1 responses. The first on 15 July 2022, which was 1 working day after the resident submitted her complaint, and the second on 7 September 2022. In its evidence submission to this Service the landlord provided the stage 1 response dated 7 September 2022 as its formal response to the resident. Therefore, we will consider this to be its formal stage 1 response when investigating the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord failed to respond within the timescales specified in its complaints policy at both stages of the complaints process.
At stage 1 of its complaints process it responded 39 working days after the resident submitted her complaint. This exceeded the timescales specified in the landlord’s policy and was not appropriate.
Furthermore, evidence showed that the landlord had no clear understanding of who was responsible for monitoring the complaint to ensure outstanding actions were complete.
The resident escalated her complaint on 22 September 2022, and despite contacting the landlord on at least 3 occasions for an update, it took the landlord until 18 July 2023 to provide a formal response. This Service has seen no evidence of the landlord contacting the resident to agree an extension for the response. This was not appropriate.
It took the landlord 227 working days from the date the resident escalated her complaint, to issue its final response. This far exceeded the timescales specified in the landlord’s policy and was not appropriate. Furthermore, the delay prevented the resident from reaching a resolution and from bringing her complaint to our Service to investigate.
Additionally, following completion of the remedial works the resident contacted the landlord about damage to her flooring, which she said was a result of the contractor failing to use floor coverings. Although this did not form part of the original stage 1 complaint, the landlord should have responded to the resident regarding the damage and explained its policy regarding compensation for damage to customer’s belongings. Its failure to do this was unreasonable.
In its final response the landlord apologised for its delay in responding at stage 2 of its complaints process. It offered the resident £100 compensation. However, given the length of the delay, this Service is not satisfied that the offer of compensation is proportionate to the resident’s time and effort seeking a response. Consequently, we find service failure for the landlord’s complaint handling.
In considering the compensation offered by the landlord we have referred to the landlord’s compensation policy and our own remedies guidance. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider making a compensation payment where it fails to follow its policies and procedures. Additionally, it states that it may offer discretionary compensation to resident’s who have suffered undue stress and upset because of its failure to respond to a complaint within a specified time.
The landlord’s compensation policy does not set out how much compensation it will pay. Therefore, we referred to our remedies guidance. We acknowledge that the landlord has attempted to put things right. However, it failed to progress the resident’s complaint within its specified timescales, and the time it took to provide a final response was excessive. Additionally, the landlord failed to respond to her requests for an update on its progress. The offer of compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified. We therefore order the landlord to pay the resident an additional £100 for its complaint handling failures.
We acknowledge that since the conclusion of the complaint, the landlord has been subject to a paragraph 49 investigation by our Service. Recommendations made by our Service included regular periodic complaint handling refresher training. The landlord has confirmed that it has implemented this and developed systems for ensuring staff have the necessary support to respond appropriately to complaints. Therefore, we will not make a further order in respect of this.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, we find:
1. Service failure of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of water ingress and the subsequent remedial works.
2. Service failure of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings highlighted in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident a total of £800 compensation, which comprises of:
  1. The £700 compensation it offered across both stages of its complaint process. If the landlord has already paid this compensation to the resident, it can deduct this from the total amount. The landlord must provide evidence of the payment to this Service.
  2. An additional £100 for the resident’s time and trouble and the inconvenience caused by the delayed complaint responses.
3. Within 8 Weeks of the date of this report the landlord must review the complaint, consider the failings identified in this investigation and consider any further specific learning the landlord can take, to inform further service improvement.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the orders within the specified timescales.

Recommendation

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report contact the resident regarding the damage to her flooring. The landlord should explain to the resident its compensation policy in respect of the damage described by the resident and if appropriate provide her with the relevant details to claim against its insurance policy.
The landlord should confirm it intentions regarding the recommendations to this Service.