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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202203773)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203773

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

1 November 2023


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:

  1. Handling of leaks, general repairs and remedial works to the property, and the decision not to reimburse the resident for works done.
  2. Response to concerns about asbestos in the property.
  3. Complaint handling.

Background

2.     The property is a three bedroom terraced house. The resident lived in the property with his wife and children. Three of the resident’s sons shared an upstairs bedroom at the rear of the property.

3.     On 10 August 2021, the resident reported two leaks in the property. One leak was from the shower. Another was from the roof. A number of jobs were raised for 10 September 2021.

4.     On 13 September 2021, the resident complained that nobody had yet attended to repair the leak and that the resulting damage was extensive. A dispute arose about responsibility for the repair to the shower leak. Remedial works were planned for the ceiling damage, caused by the roof leak.

5.     On 13 October 2021, the landlord found records which resolved the dispute, concluding that it did have responsibility for the shower leak. On 19 October 2021, an asbestos survey found asbestos in the ceilings of the downstairs hallway and upstairs rear bedroom. The decision was made to remove the ceilings.

6.     The landlord attended on 29 November 2021 and removed affected ceilings. On 2 December 2021, the landlord scheduled remedial works to replace the ceilings at the property for 10 March 2022. On 21 December 2021, the resident employed his own contractors, who attended and completed the works instead.

7.     On 17 January 2022, the landlord fixed the leak to the shower. On 14 February 2022, the resident complained, stating that when the ceilings had been removed, the property had been left in “an atrocious and unsafe state”. He explained that insulation had been removed, leaving the property cold and impacting his heating bills. Because “no furniture could be put back”, his children had nowhere to sleep, leaving the property “uninhabitable”. He felt he had been given no choice but to arrange the works himself, because the timeframe given had been unreasonable. The resident also raised:

  1. That the landlord had been “slow and negligent” in removing the asbestos;
  2. That the landlord had not given the resident clear information about the works, and he had frequently needed to “repeat himself and chase things”;
  3. Additional concerns about the handling of repairs and who was responsible.

8.     The landlord issued its stage one response on 15 February 2022. It set out the history of the leaks and attendances for these, and concluded, “…we made sure the leaks were fixed within our timescales, although there is a dispute about the shower pump we made sure it was safe. There have been instances where we have not been able to meet our timeframe, due to resource issues and I would like to apologise to this.” It offered £300 compensation for distress, inconvenience and ‘service failure’. It would not refund the resident the cost of the works to replace the ceilings.

9.     On 7 March 2022, the resident reported another, separate leak in the bathroom. On 28 March 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord, explaining that he remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. He was unhappy that leaks and repairs remained unresolved, that issues reported with his front door had not been repaired, and with the landlord’s decision not to reimburse his costs.

10. On 7 July 2022, after taking advice from this service, the resident formally asked that the landlord escalate his complaint to stage two. The escalation request was nonspecific. The landlord responded on 8 July 2022, acknowledging the request but advising that it was experiencing “a backlog of complaints”.

11. On 16 November 2022, the landlord issued its stage two response. It offered an additional £150 for failings in complaint handling. It maintained that it would not refund the resident the cost of the works.

12. On 21 November 2022 and 17 December 2022, the resident was in correspondence with this service. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of repairs including the leaks, and the front door. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s decision not to reimburse costs for remedial works and was unhappy with delays experienced. The resident wanted all necessary repairs to be completed as soon as possible and compensation for his experience.

Assessment and findings

13. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles state that landlords should seek to ‘be fair’, ‘put things right’ and to ‘learn from outcomes’.

Scope

14. The Ombudsman understands that elements of the resident’s complaint concern matters which may have been ongoing for a number of years. However, paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), states that the Ombudsman may not consider matters which were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months. In this case, it has been deemed reasonable that the investigation should cover events from August 2021 onwards. Events from prior to that time are referenced in this report only in order to provide background or relevant context.

15. Part of the resident’s complaint surrounds reported health implications caused by the landlord’s handling of asbestos. Often when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts rely on expert evidence in the form of a medico-legal report. This will give an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. Without that evidence, this Service is not able to draw any conclusions on whether the resident’s health has been affected by the way in which the landlord handled asbestos in the property. This question may be better for the courts to decide, where an expert can be cross examined during a live hearing. This means, this service is unable to say to that the resident was injured in the way explained.

Handling of leaks, general repairs and remedial works to the property, and the decision not to reimburse the resident for works done

16. Appendix B of the tenancy agreement lists leaks from water tanks, pipes or the roof as “emergency & urgent repairs”. The landlord’s repairs policy states that a leaking roof should be attended within seven working days. Despite this, when the resident reported two suspected leaks on 10 August 2021, the landlord did not arrange to attend the property until 10 September 2021. It is unclear why there was such a delay in attending the leak. The records show that all jobs raised for the 10 September 2021 were cancelled, with no explanation given. As a result, the repair logs show that when the landlord attended on 13 September 2021 in response to the resident’s complaint, the operative found the ceiling to be bowing due to “the presence of a month long leak”. The resident was concerned the ceiling would collapse, and an emergency plasterer was called out. It was confirmed that one leak was emanating from the shower and that the second leak was coming from the roof.

17. During these visits, the landlord explained to the resident that because it believed him to have fit the shower pump himself, the leak to his shower would be his responsibility to resolve. The resident disputed that he had ever installed a shower pump and continued to dispute responsibility on a number of occasions. This included on 16 September 2021, when the resident called the landlord. During the call he was told that the call would be terminated, as they were “going round in circles”. However, on 13 October 2021, the landlord checked its records and confirmed the resident’s account that the landlord had fitted the pump in 2003 and was therefore responsible for the leak. This highlights one example which supports the resident’s complaint that he had experienced frustration, and of the time and trouble he had gone to, in order to induce the landlord to take “reasonable” actions.

18. Despite the timescales set out in the repairs policy and the dispute over responsibility being settled on 13 October 2021, the leak to the shower was not repaired until 17 January 2022. The resident told this service however that this repair was ineffective. Repair logs show that the resident raised an additional bathroom leak on 7 March 2022 and 9 November 2022. The repair raised on 7 March 2022 was cancelled, with no further information provided. The reasons for these delays is unclear, however the evidence shows that the resident had continued to raise “unresolved leaks” with the landlord throughout 2022. The resident told this service that investigations to locate the source of the leak were ongoing on 17 December 2022. The repair raised on 9 November 2022 was marked “complete” on 24 February 2023. However the resident reported that the repair was not carried out and that he was instead told by the contractor that “someone would come back”, which never happened. The resident reported to this service however that both bathroom leaks remained outstanding as of 16 October 2023. The resident explained that whenever the shower is used, water “pours from the light fitting in the downstairs hallway” but that due to a loss of faith in the landlord, he finds it “easier to turn the electrics off and use buckets each time the shower is in use” than to continue to chase repairs. The resident explained that he had been waiting for this service to investigate and prompt the landlord to take action. It is unclear if the roof leak was addressed, however the resident reported that it seemed eventually to “stop on its own”. The landlord’s compensation policy states that “containable leaks which are not made good within five days require compensation of £5 per day, to a maximum of £100 per defect”. There is no evidence that the landlord has offered this compensation to the resident.

19. The landlord ‘made safe’ the ceilings which the resident was concerned might collapse and removed them in their entirety on 29 November 2021. Photographic and testimonial evidence provided by the resident following the removal appears to support the resident’s description contained in his stage one complaint. He described how “nothing was covered, [there were] naked wires, no insulation making it very cold and increasing my heating bills, [my children were] unable to inhabit the bedroom as the furniture including bed cannot be put back and assembled until ceiling is put back”. The evidence shows that the resident had been concerned about the state of the property when told what to expect from the works. He had contacted the landlord on 23 November 2021 and 25 November 2021, expressing concern that “his 3 children share the bedroom and their belongings will not be in the room [and] they will have nowhere to sleep”. The resident therefore requested that his family be placed into temporary accommodation for the duration of the works, for which he had not yet been provided a timescale.

20. The records show that on the morning of 29 November 2021, when the works were due to begin, the landlord informed the resident that it would not accept the rehousing request. It is unclear what factors the landlord considered to make this decision, or whether it had made any assessment of the impact the works would have on the resident. It would have been appropriate to do this before the works began, or at the latest, in response to his concerns. The landlord did not appear to provide any reasons why it would not decant the resident.

21. On 30 November 2021, a job was raised to replace the ceilings which had been removed. However, it was not scheduled to take place until 10 March 2022. Given the above assessment of the condition of the property, the landlord’s expectation for the resident to wait this long was unreasonable. This is aggravated by the photographic evidence which confirms the resident’s account that all insulation had been removed from the loft. Although the landlord later agreed to pay the difference in the resident’s heating bills for the affected period, it only did this after the resident complained. Had the landlord been proactive in assessing the overall impact of the works, it would have been clear that the removal of loft insulation throughout the winter months would have incurred additional cost to the resident.

22. There is a gap in the correspondence available, however the resident and landlord both agree that the resident requested permission to instruct his own contractors to carry out the work due to the timescales proposed. Both landlord and resident report that the answer given at the time was “no”. In the resident’s stage one complaint, he explained that he had “made it clear it was not practical, humane or fair that me and my family were told to wait three & a half months before we can have a habitable home”. He went on to state that the property was “uninhabitable” and that he felt he had “no choice but to make provisions to fix the issue myself”. The landlord has provided no evidence or response which gives cause to doubt the resident’s account that the home was uninhabitable. He described how two of his sons were studying for exams at the time, and felt this was necessary to avoid disruption. He felt that the landlord was being “very unhelpful during this stressful time especially [with] what [his] children were going through”. The resident had the works completed himself on 21 December 2021, at a personal cost of £1,600.

23. Following the landlord’s stage one response, there was correspondence regarding the resident’s request to reimburse him for the cost of the works done. On 28 March 2022, the landlord said that the resident had clearly been told “no” when he had asked for permission to hire his own contractors to finish the works. It added that “if a complaint was raised at the time it could have looked into moving this”. However, in the landlord’s stage two response of 16 November 2022, it explained that it understood that the appointment had been “far away but there were no earlier dates available to carry out [the] repair”. It appears therefore that the resident would have had no recourse to speed up the works, or to be reimbursed, whichever course of action he would have chosen to pursue. Furthermore, The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that a complaint is defined as a “clear expression of dissatisfaction, however made”. It is difficult therefore to understand how the resident was able to request permission to employ his own contractor, without clearly expressing dissatisfaction at the timescales proposed. The evidence therefore indicates that it is likely the resident made a complaint at the time.

24. The landlord blamed various factors on the delays experienced throughout this period, mostly regarding labour and material shortages worsened by the COVID-19 pandemic. While the Ombudsman understands that landlords were impacted in this way, this service has seen no evidence to support the landlord’s position here. It is understood that the landlord cannot complete repairs using operatives or materials which it does not possess. However, the resident’s own ability to arrange an external contractor to complete the works in a short time period demonstrates that alternative options for the landlord to consider were available. There is no evidence that the landlord considered any actions it could take to speed up the works, such as approaching an external contractor, and neither did it consider decanting the family. 

25. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will compensate residents “where the customer had no choice but to pay for something because of our inaction, delay or negligence”. It also states that it will make payment where “we fail to deal satisfactorily with repairs that are our responsibility, and the customer is continuing to live in poor conditions longer than is reasonable”. It is clear from the evidence that in this case, both should have applied. It is unclear why the landlord chose not to follow these policies and compensate the resident accordingly. There is also no evidence that had the resident waited until March 2022 for the remedial works to take place, that it would have proactively compensated the resident in line with its policies. In the landlord’s later correspondence with the resident in March 2022, it stated that because the resident had chosen to employ a contractor to do the works himself, he would also now be responsible for the maintenance of these areas going forward. In light of the assessment that the resident was forced to do this as a result of the landlord’s “inaction, delay or negligence”, this arrangement is unreasonable. Orders are made below to ‘put things right’, in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.

26. The property’s Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) is listed as a “C”. Part of this rating is due to the presence of “pitched 150mm loft insulation”, which was removed by the landlord on 29 November 2021. An order would therefore have been made to replace this insulation. However, on 31 October 2023, the resident explained to this Service that he had replaced the loft insulation himself at an approximate cost of £250. The resident explained that due to the time elapsed, it was unlikely that he still had the receipts for this work. Orders are made below to ensure that that landlord has ‘been fair’ and ‘put things right’.

27. In the resident’s stage one complaint of 14 February 2022, he also complained that a recent repair to his front door had been ineffective. He complained that the front door had been insecure, posing a security risk, for a number of years. The repair records show that the resident raised this repair on a number of occasions previously, with the landlord fitting a “temporary handle” on 30 August 2019. The resident appeared to raise the repair again on 27 April 2020, 13 October 2021, 14 February 2022, 10 June 2022 and 13 July 2022. It is unclear why none of these repairs were completed. In the landlord’s stage two response of 16 November 2022, it noted that the resident was “still waiting on the completion of your door repair which was not acknowledged [in the stage one response]”. It apologised for this failing and advised the repair would be completed on 25 November 2022.

28.  The landlord’s repairs policy lists the landlord as responsible for external doors, handles and closers, which should be repaired within one day in line with the tenancy agreement, which lists this as an emergency repair. The Ombudsman is satisfied from the evidence that the landlord failed to meet its responsibilities, significantly exceeding the timescales required of it for an emergency repair. This further exacerbated the frustration, time and trouble and general distress caused to the resident in the landlord’s handling of repairs at the property.

29. In conclusion, the landlord subjected the resident to unreasonable delays, and made unreasonable decisions, which conflicted with its own policies. The delays were such that the resident felt forced to take action to rectify the situation, at significant personal cost. The landlord showed little or no concern at the conditions the resident’s family were subjected to and did little to nothing to mitigate the impact of those conditions. As a result, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of leaks, general repairs and remedial works and its decision not to reimburse the resident for the works done.

30. In July 2023, the Housing Ombudsman produced a ‘special report’ into the landlord. The report highlighted themes which also appear in this report, including but not limited to “excessive and unexplained delays” in attending repairs, “poor record management leading to confusion of how to approach repair issues”, “residents not being kept informed of the progress of repairs”, and further complaint handling and record keeping failures. The special report contains several recommendations, which the Ombudsman acknowledges the landlord will need further time to implement. As such, it has not been deemed necessary to make any orders or recommendations which aim to improve performance in these areas, as a part of this report. Instead, orders are made in the interest of being ‘fair’ and ‘putting things right’ for the resident. The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance states that where there was a single, or series of significant failures in service which have had a detrimental impact on the resident, and where the landlord’s response to the failures exacerbated the situation and further undermined the landlord/resident relationship, compensation of over £1,000 is due. The landlord offered £300 for distress and inconvenience during the complaints process; the Ombudsman has made orders to rectify the level of redress below.

The landlord’s handling of asbestos which was located in the property

31. In the resident’s stage one complaint, he complained that he had been advised in September 2021 that asbestos was “leaking into the atmosphere” in the property. It is unclear who told the resident this. It is understood that the suspected presence of asbestos was discussed with the contractors who attended on 13 September 2021, which led to the plasterer being unable to complete his work. It has not been possible to determine what was said at this time, however it is understandable that the resident would be concerned after being told that asbestos may be present in his family home. The landlord then carried out an asbestos report and conducted laboratory testing within five weeks of this date. There are no timescales set out in any of the landlord’s policies and procedures for these types of works, however it would be reasonable to expect the landlord to have expedited such investigations in light of the resident’s concerns.

32. The report itself identified the presence of asbestos in two of the areas surveyed, both falling within the ‘low risk’ category. The report recommended that the asbestos be removed as part of scheduled remedial works. There was no indication that any of the asbestos was broken, “leaking”, or should otherwise be considered an emergency. No timescales were suggested. Following the publication of the report, the landlord had removed all asbestos identified within six weeks, which is not unreasonable. The resident was however unhappy with this, citing previous times asbestos had been removed from the property, which had been done “within a week”. It is unclear why these reported timescales contrasted so significantly, however it is to be understood that asbestos is often dealt with on a case by case basis, based on factors such as the assessed risk. In conclusion, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to concerns about asbestos at the property.

Complaint handling

33. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), by which the landlord is bound, states that the landlord should respond to all aspects of the resident’s complaint. After the landlord’s stage one response however, a number of elements remained unanswered. The resident responded on multiple occasions to the stage one response throughout March 2022, expressing dissatisfaction at the outcome, challenging the facts relied upon and citing a number of elements which had not been responded to. The landlord’s complaint policy defines a complaint as an “expression of dissatisfaction, however made”. It is clear therefore that the landlord should have escalated the complaint to stage two at this point, but failed to do so. The stage one response also maintained that the shower pump was the responsibility of the resident, despite identifying its mistake and accepting responsibility for the shower pump in October 2021. This caused further frustration to the resident, and served as an example of the resident needing to “repeat himself”.

34. When the resident asked the landlord to respond to the unanswered elements of his stage one complaint, the landlord replied “thank you for your email, I would be unable to look at anything not related to this case, such as the front door”. It apologised for the “distress this may cause”. The landlord’s decision not to respond to this element was not in line with the Code, because the issue had been included in the stage one complaint. Further to this, the landlord had the opportunity to take a number of actions, such as raise the requested repairs or to open a new complaint. It was unreasonable that the landlord did neither of these things, yet recognised that it may cause distress. It acknowledged this in its stage 2 response, stating that “the stage one investigation failed to address all concerns within your complaint”.

35. The landlord’s Complaints Policy states that stage two complaints should be responded to within 20 working days. However, the resident’s escalation request, which was formally accepted on 7 July 2022, was not responded to until 16 November 2022. Although the landlord mitigated the resident’s frustration somewhat by explaining at the time it could not provide a timescale to provide a response, the resident was nevertheless obliged to chase the landlord frequently. When the stage two response was sent, it acknowledged that it had been wrong not to consider all aspects of the complaint, and raised the outstanding repairs accordingly. However, the compensation of £300 offered for distress and inconvenience, was not reasonable. This is because, as assessed earlier in this report, there were a number of clauses in the landlord’s compensation policy which would have been appropriate to employ in the case of the resident. The landlord failed to do this, and failed to follow its own policies when assessing its decision to hold the resident responsible for costs incurred. The landlord missed multiple opportunities to use the complaints process to ‘be fair’, ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’, in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.

36. The landlord also offered compensation of £150 for various complaint handling failures at stage two of the complaints process. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that “where the landlord has acknowledged failings, made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident by making an offer that was not proportionate to the failings”, £100 – £600 compensation is due. Although the £150 offered falls within this bracket, it does not adequately reflect the resident’s experience of the complaints process, or address that the complaint should have been escalated sooner, leading to a speedier resolution. As a result, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. Orders are made below to ‘put things right’.

Determination

37. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of leaks, general repairs and remedial works to the property, and the decision not to reimburse the resident for works done.

38. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to concerns of asbestos at the property.

39. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

40. Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:

  1. Provide the resident with a written apology from the Chief Executive;
  2. Attend and repair the two outstanding leaks in the resident’s bathroom.

41. Within six weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must attend the resident’s property and conduct a survey of the works he had carried out in December 2021. Following this, it should then:

  1. Provide the resident with a written assurance that it will take responsibility for all maintenance and repairs to those areas of the property going forward;

42. To pay the resident, within four weeks of the date of this determination, £3,750 comprised of:

  1. £1,000 for the overall distress and inconvenience, time and trouble the resident experienced, relating to the failings outlined in this report.
  2. £300 for the duration that three leaks remained unresolved.
  3. £250 for the landlord’s failure to repair the resident’s front door.
  4. £350 for the failures in complaint handling.
  5. £1,600 to cover the cost of the remedial works incurred by the resident, plus 8% interest from the date of the stage one response.
  6. £250 to cover the estimated cost of the loft insulation.
  7. The £450 already offered may be deducted from this amount, if it has been paid already

43. The landlord should refund any evidenced difference in the resident’s heating bills from 29 November 2021 to 21 December 2021, if it has not done so already.