London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202109262)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109262

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

17 February 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of cracks around the living room window.
2. Complaint.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the property since 2008. The property is a third floor 2 bedroom flat owned and managed by the landlord, a housing association.
On 4 March 2021, the resident reported that water was entering the property from the wall above the living room window. The resident said she suspected blocked drainage was causing the issue. She said she had experienced a similar issue a few years prior, which had been repaired at the time.
The landlord acknowledged the report on 5 March 2021 and said it would send a contractor to repair the issue. The landlord said the resident would not need to be home for the repair because the gutters were a communal area.
The resident emailed the landlord on 27 March 2021 stating she had not received any updates about the indoor work needed on her window and the surrounding wall. She said there had been damage caused by the water leak and this had led to mould and damp.
The resident sent a further email on 18 June 2021 asking for an update on the outstanding work. She said the wooden panel above the window which held the curtain rail had fallen down due to the surrounding damp.
The resident sent 3 further emails between 24 June 2021 and 20 July 2021, in which she asked for updates on the work. The resident said she had received no response to any of her emails. On her third email, the resident said she had noticed a bees’ nest outside her living room window, and she raised a formal complaint about the landlord not completing the required works or responding to her emails. She asked the landlord to attend, assess and complete the required work to resolve the complaint.
The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint acknowledgement on 21 July 2021, in which it partially responded to the issues the resident had raised. It said:
1. It would investigate the leak from the roof and water ingress into the living room and update her by 3 August 2021.
2. Bees were a protected species so it could not take any action on the nest. It advised her to contact the British Bee Keepers’ Association to report it.
3. She should claim on her contents insurance for any damages caused by the water leaks. Alternatively, if she did not have insurance, she should write to the landlord’s insurance team providing as much detail and photographic evidence as possible.
4. It had ‘finalised’ the complaint and the resident should request an escalation to stage 2 if dissatisfied.
The resident clarified by email response on 21 July 2021 that the issue was with a wasps’ nest, rather than a bees’ nest.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 2 August 2021, in which it said:
1. Its subcontractor would contact the resident by the end of that week to arrange an appointment for the work needed inside her property.
2. Its other subcontractor had removed the wasps’ nest.
3. It had now addressed the complaint at stage 1 and the resident should request an escalation to stage 2 by response if she remained dissatisfied.
There were various communications between the resident, landlord and contractor between 9 August 2021 and 3 December 2021 regarding there being no appointments, promised appointments, scheduled appointments, and no one attending. On 15 September 2021 a contractor attended and completed pointing and brickwork repairs. It believed the leak was tracking from adjacent properties, so it was going to send a surveyor to inspect the building.
The resident asked the landlord for an update on 3 December 2021, stating the problem was getting worse with the winter weather, but the landlord did not respond to this. This Service then contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf on 21 January 2022, asking it to issue a response to the resident’s complaint within 10 working days.
The landlord emailed the resident on 28 January 2022 attaching its stage 1 responses previously issued on 21 July 2021 and 2 August 2021.
After receiving information from its subcontractor, the landlord told the resident on 11 February 2022 that it would be replacing the concrete window lintels with heavy duty Catnic lintels in a neighbouring flat in the building. It said it would roll this work out to all affected flats in the building if it resolved the problem, and would update her in due course.
The resident acknowledged the update on 13 February 2022. However, she complained about her quality of living in the flat. The resident said she could not make use of her living room because of the cold entering through the cracks surrounding the window. She also complained that the proposed works may take months to start and that the landlord had not offered her any compensation for her living conditions. The resident followed this up with a further email on 17 March 2022 requesting an escalation to stage 2 of the complaints procedure.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 4 April 2022. It said it could not provide a timescale for a response because it had a backlog in the cases requiring escalation, but that it would contact her in due course.
The resident emailed the landlord on 5 July 2022 stating she had received no updates for over 3 months and asking when it would begin the repair work. The landlord emailed the resident on the same date apologising for the delays and saying it was recruiting to help with its backlogs.
Following contact from the resident, this Service contacted the landlord on 21 July 2022 and asked it to respond to the complaint within 10 working days.
The landlord sent a stage 2 acknowledgement email to the resident on 22 July 2022. It said it would issue a response within a few days about:
1. The roof leak and water ingress.
2. The wasps’ nest.
3. Damage to the resident’s property and possessions.
4. Delays in the works being completed.
5. Its communication and complaint handling.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 18 August 2022, in which it:
1. Said its subcontractor had resolved the wasps’ nest.
2. Confirmed a structural engineer had visited on 15 August 2022 and it was awaiting their report. It said it would update the resident as soon as possible once it received this.
3. Said the repair was a highly complex issue but it apologised for the delays and the periods when it provided no information to the resident.
4. Stated it would provide compensation of £490 for the resident’s time, distress and inconvenience and it would provide this without the need for acceptance from the resident.
5. Confirmed it had concluded its internal complaints process and would close the complaint, but would update her regarding the works when information is available.
6. Explained how the resident could bring her complaint to this Service if she wanted to escalate it further.
The landlord’s subcontractor wrote to the resident on 27 January 2023 stating it intended to commence the works on 6 February 2023. It confirmed it would return the resident’s internal wall and ceilings to their original condition on completion of the external works. The contractor estimated the works would take between 6 and 8 weeks, depending on weather conditions.
The resident duly made her complaint to this Service on 13 February 2023.
The resident sent another complaint email to the landlord on 17 April 2023, in which she said:
1. Workmen had been in her property for around 2 months and, during that time, she had been unable to use some areas of her home. The kitchen and living room were sectioned off for the first part of the work.
2. The workmen had wasted time replacing the handles of the windows to fix the issue with them not opening and closing correctly. The window frames needed to be aligned due to subsidence to fix the issue.
3. 4 of her glass windows needed to be replaced because they were badly misted.
4. Her flat had been cold for over 3 years with the issues.
5. The workmen being present in the flat and completing works had caused significant stress to her and her cats. One of her cats began plucking his hair out with stress when the works began and had subsequently died on 15 April 2023.
6. She would like the landlord to provide compensation for the additional stress which was placed on her and her 2 cats by the repair work, which was prolonged by the mistake made with the window repairs.
The landlord registered a new complaint for the resident and sent her an email acknowledging this on 25 April 2023. The landlord said it had passed the matter to the surveyor, who would contact the resident.
The subcontractor submitted a practical completion certificate to the landlord on 5 May 2023, which confirmed it had completed the lintel replacement works for all affected flats.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 22 May 2023, stating she had received no response to her previous email and asking for an update. She said the subcontractor had completed its works 3 weeks previous and had told her it would send work requests to the landlord to replace the misted windows.
During a discussion with this Service on 30 January 2024, the resident told us there was an appointment arranged for 22 February 2024 to replace the misted windows.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has raised the issue of her misted windows, which she first reported to the landlord as a required repair on 17 April 2023. This was after the landlord had concluded its internal complaints procedure for the substantive issue of this report (i.e. the cracks around the window).
The property was affected by cracks around the living room window which was allowing water to enter the property. In the landlord’s stage 2 response it referred to the matter being highly complex and involving replacing the concrete boot lintels at multiple properties. The lintel is a load bearing structure placed around doors and windows to take the load that would normally be borne by brickwork if the door or window was not there.
It is very likely that the issues with the lintels affected the integrity of the windows which the resident reported were difficult to shut. The resident confirmed the work took place around the kitchen and living room windows and they are misted. As such, the Ombudsman will be including the further issues raised about the windows as part of this complaint.

Cracks around the window

Section 2.3a of the resident’s tenancy agreement (“our obligations”) says the landlord will keep in repair the structure and outside of the building, including drains, gutters, the roof, outside walls, window sills and window frames.
Aside from emergency repairs, which are defined as presenting “an immediate danger to the people in your home or members of the public”, the landlord does not provide timescales for repairs in its repairs policy. However, section 2.3c of the resident’s tenancy agreement says “after we learn that a repair is needed to an item we are responsible for, we will carry it out within a reasonable period of time”. This is in line with the landlord’s obligations under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
While the landlord acknowledged the report on 5 March 2021, it did not provide any timescale for a repair, and nor did it attend quickly to inspect the problem. It did not provide a response to the numerous emails the resident sent between 27 March 2021 and 8 July 2021. The first response the landlord provided to the resident was on 21 July 2021, which was an acknowledgement of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord’s repair log shows it raised a job on 25 June 2021 to “repair leak above window – tower scaffold given, V/O repairs”. There is no outcome recorded for this job, nor any additional notes. This is an example of a lack of follow-up and record keeping from the landlord. It also did not inform the resident it had raised this job or tell her of the next steps or likely timescales involved.
There were other instances of poor communication on the part of the landlord, both in its dealings with the resident and with its contractors. The landlord told the resident in its stage 1 response that its subcontractor would contact her the same week to arrange an appointment, but this did not happen. An email between the landlord and subcontractor from 3 September 2021 shows that the subcontractor’s roofing specialist was on holiday during this period. Had there been better communication between the landlord and its subcontractor, the landlord could have known this before misadvising the resident about when to expect contact.
There was also a gap of 15 days between the subcontractor providing the landlord with an update on 15 September 2021 and the landlord communicating this to the resident on 30 September 2021.
The resident said that the landlord had made an appointment for 30 September 2021 but arrived on 1 October 2021 instead. The landlord has provided no evidence to show the date for which the appointment was booked.
The resident asked the landlord on 8 August 2022 about an email her neighbour had received regarding an upcoming visit from a structural engineer to the building, which the resident had not received. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to communicate this to all affected residents in the building. Even if the engineer did not require access to all flats, providing this information would have at least given the resident and her affected neighbours an update.
We have seen no evidence that the landlord responded to other emails sent by the resident on 3 December 2021 and 16 November 2022. In these emails, the resident said the problem was getting worse with the winter weather and her home was affected by damp, mould and heat loss.
It is evident from the photographic evidence provided by the resident, and her email correspondence to the landlord, that there was mould growth around the window where the cracks in the plaster and brickwork were present, and that she reported this to the landlord.
The resident has also said she was unable to make use of the living room during the colder periods because the heat loss through the cracks in the wall made it very difficult to keep the room heated to an acceptable standard.
Given the effect damp, mould and coldness can have on human health, the landlord should have considered steps it could have taken to minimise the risk and impact on the resident.
Damp and mould are included as hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System. The Ombudsman released his “Spotlight on: Damp and mould” report in October 2021 which emphasised, among other things, that landlords should take responsibility for damp and mould. Some of the recommendations in the report were for landlords to take a “zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould” and to “ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue”. The Ombudsman also recommended in his report that, where extensive works may be required, the landlord should consider whether it is appropriate to move the resident(s) out of their home.
In an internal email sent on 5 April 2022, the landlord said “it’s not as if the water is pouring into these residents’ homes, otherwise we would decant them…it’s not going to be fixed quickly”. Based on the evidence seen, this is the only time the landlord mentioned the possibility of decanting the resident.
The resident frequently told the landlord that water was entering the property every time it rained. She has provided photographic evidence showing the water ingress and the damage this did to the wall, window sill and skirting board. The photographic evidence also shows the resident had taped plastic bags to the wall and window to try to limit the amount of water ingress. We have not seen any evidence of the landlord considering whether the flat was fit for habitation. As such, its position that decanting was unnecessary was not properly considered.
While the Ombudsman’s ‘Spotlight on: Damp and mould’ report had not been released when the resident first reported the issue, it had been released when the resident raised further concerns about damp and mould in December 2021 and later occasions. The evidence suggests the landlord did not implement the Ombudsman’s recommendations on damp and mould in its approach to this matter.
In total, it took the landlord 26 months to complete the repair following the resident’s report on 4 March 2021. During this time, the resident was living with damp, mould and heat loss which would have had a detrimental impact on her enjoyment of the property. The Ombudsman understands that the repair work was complex and affected multiple flats in the building. However, the landlord has not fully accounted for the delay in resolving the disrepair to the resident’s flat or the service failures that occurred.
The resident reported another issue with misted windows on 17 April 2023 and 22 May 2023. She told the landlord its subcontractors had agreed the work was necessary and had sent requests for this. The resident has told this Service an appointment is due for this work to be completed on 22 February 2024, which would be 311 days after she reported this. This is another example of the landlord being very slow to respond to a repair.

Complaint handling

Section 4.2 of the landlord’s complaints policy matches the timescale requirements included in section 5 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), It says the landlord will:
1. Log and acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days.
2. Send a stage 1 decision in writing within 10 working days of acknowledgement, extending this by up to 10 working days if necessary by writing to the resident with an explanation of the delay.
3. Send a stage 2 decision within 20 working days of the resident’s request to escalate, extending this by up to 10 working days if necessary by writing to the resident with an explanation of the delay.
While the landlord provided its stage 1 response within the correct timeframe, the way it wrote this response was potentially confusing to the resident. The landlord issued the stage 1 response in 2 separate letters sent on 21 July 2021 and 2 August 2021. In the first letter, the landlord told the resident it had “finalised” the complaint and it invited the resident to request an escalation to stage 2 if dissatisfied. It then issued its second letter on 2 August 2021, in which it further addressed the complaint issues raised and told the resident again to submit a stage 2 escalation request if dissatisfied.
To make its response more clear, the landlord should have provided an acknowledgement of the complaint in its first letter dated 21 July 2021, before addressing the issues in one response on 2 August 2021.
As mentioned in paragraph 35 of this report, the subcontractor did not contact the resident as advised by the landlord in its stage 1 response due to a miscommunication between the landlord and subcontractor. The landlord was unaware of this until the resident notified it on 9 August 2021. Following this, the landlord did not acknowledge this failure until 31 August 2021. The landlord should have followed up with the resident to ensure that all actions promised in the stage 1 response were completed in line with good complaint handling practice.
Section 1.2 of the Code defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents”. This definition is included in section 3 of the landlord’s complaints policy.
When the resident emailed the landlord on 3 December 2021 saying the problem was getting worse and asking for an update, this met the definition of a complaint under the Code and the landlord’s policy. As such, the landlord should have asked the resident if she wanted to escalate her complaint.
The landlord also should have done this when it received contact from this Service on 21 January 2022. Instead, the landlord merely re-sent the resident the stage 1 response it had already issued.
The landlord then did not respond to another expression of dissatisfaction the resident sent on 13 February 2022, in which she complained about her quality of life in the flat and her use of the property being limited due to the repair issue. The landlord only acknowledged the stage 2 request from the resident when she sent a further complaint email on 17 March 2022, and it did not acknowledge this until almost 3 weeks later on 4 April 2022.
In its stage 2 acknowledgement, the landlord said it had no timescale for when it would provide its response to the resident. The landlord told the resident this was because of a backlog caused by its implementation of a new complaint handling process in line with the Code. However, an internal email from 5 April 2022 shows the landlord’s maintenance manager told the complaint handler that the works would take a long time to complete and that the resident’s expectations needed to be managed accordingly.
The landlord could have issued a complaint response to the resident upon receiving the update from the maintenance manager on 5 April 2022. The landlord should have followed section 5.5 of the Code at this time, which says a complaint response must be sent to the resident when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue are completed. Had it done this, it could have kept the resident updated on the progress of the works after it had issued its stage 2 response.
In total, it took the landlord 136 days to issue its stage 2 response on 18 August 2022 from acknowledging the escalation request on 4 April 2022, which is far beyond the timescale required under the Code and the landlord’s policy. This is made worse by the landlord not considering an earlier escalation to stage 2 when the resident expressed dissatisfaction on 3 December 2021 and other occasions.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord raised the issue of the wasps’ nest and said it had resolved this. The landlord had already addressed this in its stage 1 response, and the resident had not brought it up again in any of her escalation requests. Therefore, there was no need for the landlord to include this in its stage 2 response.
Sections 6.2 and 6.4 of Code say that any remedy offered by the landlord must reflect the extent of any service failures and the level of detriment caused to the resident. This can include the length of time a situation has been ongoing, the severity of any service failure, the number of different failures and the cumulative impact on the resident.
Section 4.2.2 of the landlord’s compensation policy states it will provide £10 for each failure to respond to a query within 10 working days where it is identified as part of a complaint investigation. Section 4.2.3 of the policy says it will consider a partial refund of rent where a resident is not able to use a room(s) in their home because of an outstanding repair issue that is the landlord’s responsibility.
The landlord offered no financial redress in its stage 1 response despite there being several documented incidents where it did not respond to the resident’s email queries. In its stage 2 response, the landlord provided £490 but this did not include any rental rebate for the reduced use the resident had of the property.
It would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider section 4.2.3 of its policy in its stage 2 response considering the resident had told the landlord of the impact the damp, mould and coldness was having on her use of the living room. In omitting this, the landlord did not meet the requirements of its compensation policy and of sections 6.2 and 6.4 of the Code. The total compensation of £490 provided by the landlord equated to approximately £28 per month for the inconvenience, stress and lack of utility of the full property the resident had experienced since first reporting the issue. It would then be a further 9 months after providing this compensation that the landlord completed the repair, which was not taken into account in the compensation provided.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been severe maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of cracks around the living room window.
2. Complaint.

Orders

It is ordered that, within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord resolves the issue with the misted windows for the resident. If the landlord completes this work as currently scheduled on 22 February 2024, it will have satisfied this order.
It is ordered that, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the chief executive of the landlord provides the resident with a written apology.
It is ordered that, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord provides the resident with a payment of £3555.21. This equates to a refund of 20% of the total rent paid between 4 March 2021 and 5 May 2023 (113 weeks) based on the weekly rent amount of £157.31 confirmed by the landlord as at October 2023. This order aims to compensate the resident for her reduced enjoyment of the property (specifically the living room) for the period in question.
It is ordered that, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord provides the resident with a payment of £800. This takes into account the £490 payment already provided by the landlord and comprises an additional:
1. £500 for the service failures identified in its repair handling, including time taken to complete the repair, poor communication and the failure to respond on several occasions.
2. £300 for the service failures and delays identified in its complaint handling.