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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202201163)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201163

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

25 November 2024


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a fence repair or replacement.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has a lease of a two-bed property dated 4 February 2000. This is for a term of 99 years from 1 April 1999. The landlord is the freeholder. There are two other properties in the complex where the leaseholder lives. The resident has no known vulnerabilities.
  2. In 2020 the resident said that she reported a broken fence in a communal area. On 14 March 2022 the resident reported to the landlord damage by a storm to the other side of the fence.
  3. On 28 April 2022 the resident complained to the landlord about the delays in repairing or replacing the fence. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 29 April 2022 and said it apologised that it had not told the resident that it booked a fence repair for 31 August 2022.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 10 November 2022 and the landlord provided an initial stage 2 response on 17 May 2023. It then withdrew this and provided a revised stage 2 response a day later and said:
    1. it provided its stage 1 response on 29 April 2022 and booked a job for a fence repair on 31 August 2022
    2. it apologised it did not tell the resident this before then and then closed her complaint
    3. it only escalated her complaint when the Housing Ombudsman made contact on 28 April 2022 and was unaware of an escalation prior to this
    4. it visited the resident’s property on 15 May 2023 and assessed that the broken fence was beyond repair
    5. its legal team had told it that the information it provided on 17 May 2023 (stating that the resident was responsible for the fence) was incorrect
    6. it would need to consult other leaseholders on the cost of the fence through a “section 20” consultation
    7. it accepted that it had not provided the level of service it aims for and that its communication with the resident could have been more effective
    8. it acknowledged delays in complaint handling caused by a backlog
    9. it offered the resident £200, which included £50 for delays in responding, £75 for service failure and £75 for inconvenience).
  5. The landlord and resident agree that the landlord has not repaired or replaced the fence. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the delay in this and has told this service that she would like the fence repaired or replaced.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has told this service and the landlord that she reported a broken fence in 2020, and the landlord has not disputed this. While it is concerning that the resident has experienced a broken fence for several years this service may not consider complaints that the resident did not bring to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable time. This would normally be within 12 months of matters arising. This is under paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the resident raised or pursued a complaint in 2020.
  2. Therefore, this investigation has considered events in relation to the landlord’s handling of the broken fence from 14 March 2022. This is when the resident reported the broken fence which was the subject of the complaint that went through the landlord’s internal complaint process.

The landlord’s handling of the fence repair

  1. The evidence shows the resident reported one side of a fence had broken on 14 March 2022. It was appropriate of the landlord to ask about the location of the fence and whether it was communal on 28 March 2022. This is because the landlord was only responsible for boundary fences (that separated residents’ properties from public areas) under its repairs policy and for communal fences under the resident’s lease.
  2. The landlord raised a job to repair the fence on 18 April 2022, after the resident clarified the fence was communal on 13 April 2022. This was a reasonable step to take as the landlord’s repair policy (effective 31 March 2021) stated that it should complete routine repairs within 25 calendar days. According to the landlord’s repair records it completed this job on 9 August 2022 with no details of what work it did. The landlord told the resident that it booked an appointment for a fence repair on 31 August 2022. Therefore, based on the available evidence, the Ombudsman cannot conclude that the landlord acted reasonably or in line with its repair policy.
  3. The resident said that the landlord sent an operative out on either 31 August 2022 or 1 September 2022, but they did not complete any work. The resident said that this was because the operative said it was too large a job for one person. The landlord has not provided evidence to verify or contradict the resident’s account but has not disputed it did not complete a fence repair. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord ought to have monitored this job and arranged for another appointment.
  4. Instead, the resident had to chase the outstanding fence repair on 10 November 2022. There is no evidence that the landlord reviewed this until the Ombudsman made contact with it on 10 May 2023. The landlord noted on 11 May 2023 that the delay in the fence repair was partly down to the need for its contractor to amend a variation order.
  5. The landlord also identified on 18 May 2023 that it needed to consult other leaseholders, and the fence repair estimated cost was £3,439.51. This was because the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, section 20 required the landlord to consult the resident and her neighbours (leaseholders) before doing qualifying work. This is where the work would cost each leaseholder more than £250 unless a tribunal removes or changes this requirement. Following this process also allows a landlord to recover its costs from leaseholders through service charges.
  6. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord ought to have identified these issues earlier and that the delay of over nearly nine months in progressing this job was unreasonable. This is because the landlord failed to show that it had adequate oversight of this job based on the available evidence.
  7. The landlord’s repair records show that it completed an inspection of the fence on 15 May 2023 and has the job as completed on 23 May 2024. The landlord has told this service that it has not repaired or replaced the fence because it has not consulted with residents about this work. The landlord has not provided evidence that it made reasonable efforts to progress the consultation or consider whether, given the delays, it could complete the works without consulting by either not seeking to recover the costs from residents or by applying to a tribunal. Although the landlord offered the resident £500 towards the cost of the fence this was far less than the cost of repairing it. Therefore, the Ombudsman considers that the offer was unreasonable as it was the landlord’s responsibility to repair it, and the offer did not meet the cost.
  8. The resident has told this service the delay had caused her stress, the landlord offered the resident £200 compensation to acknowledge this. While this was a reasonable offer to make during the complaint process the landlord has still not repaired the fence. This has caused the resident distress and inconvenience and so the Ombudsman has made an order of compensation to reflect this ongoing distress and inconvenience.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord has a two staged complaint process. It must respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days and complaints at stage 2 within 20 working days. The resident complained on 28 April 2022 and the landlord provided a stage 1 response the next day which was in line with its policy. The landlord closed the resident’s complaint down following the stage 1 response. This was not appropriate as this was not in line with paragraph 5.5 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (2022 version) or “Code”. This required the landlord to track any outstanding actions and update the resident.
  2. The landlord also failed to acknowledge the resident’s escalation of 10 November 2022 and did not provide its stage 2 response until 17 May 2023. It took the landlord 136 working days against a target of 20 working days to respond at stage 2. It would have been reasonable of the landlord to have treated the resident’s email of 10 November 2022 as an escalation. This is because the resident expressed dissatisfaction that the fence repair was outstanding. Therefore, the landlord’s failure to escalate the complaint was not in line with the Code.
  3. The landlord told the resident that it needed to consult other leaseholders before it could repair or replace the fence, but it did not say when this would happen or how long this process would take. Therefore, the stage 2 response failed to meet the requirements of paragraph 6.5 of the Code or manage the expectations of the resident who wanted to know when the landlord would repair or replace the fence. These failures caused the resident a level of distress and inconvenience for which the Ombudsman considers it would be appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation.

 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the fence repair or replacement.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of the date of this determination the landlord must:
    1. write to the resident with an apology for the delays in repairing or replacing the fence, explaining the reasons for the delay
    2. write to the resident to say when it will complete the consultation and if this will take longer than four months explain why and provide the resident with a timetable for completing the fence repair or replacement
    3. pay the resident directly £400 made up of:
      1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience the landlord’s handling of the fence repair and replacement has caused the resident
      2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
  2. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders within 28 days of the date of this determination.