London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202203840)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203840

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

26 January 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 response to the resident’s reports of a leak.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been a leaseholder of the property since 2014. During the timeline of her complaint, she let the property. The landlord is the freeholder. The property is a 2 bedroom flat on the third floor. There are no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident, however she expressed throughout her complaint that she was pregnant at the time and the situation had caused her considerable distress.
The resident first notified the landlord of a leak out of hours in the second bedroom of the property on 4 October 2021. The landlord visited on 21 October 2021 and said scaffolding would be required as the leak was on the terrace of the building. The resident continued to contact the landlord on a number of occasions to advise that the water ingress continued. The landlord attended on 17 December 2021 and closed the repair the following day.
On 16 February 2022 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. She explained that water had been entering the property every time it rained, for approximately 4 months. The second bedroom, used by the child of her tenant was unusable. The ceiling was bowed and she was concerned that it might collapse. She was frustrated at the level of service she had received and the lack of communication from the landlord. Records show that after her complaint, the leaks worsened and began to affect both bedrooms. The resident sought her own independent legal advice.
Following intervention from the Ombudsman, the landlord responded to the resident at stage 1 of its complaint process on 25 August 2022. It said it was sorry for the delay in concluding the roof repairs, but they had since been completed and a surveyor had confirmed they were happy with the works. It offered her £600 for distress and inconvenience, and advised she could submit an insurance claim for damages to her home. The resident was dissatisfied with the response, and reported that the leak was unresolved.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 2 September 2022. It acknowledged that its communication should have been managed more effectively and a repair resolution delivered more swiftly. It increased its offer of compensation to £1,450 and said it had arranged for a surveyor and roofing contractor to attend on 6 September 2022. It said it would continue to monitor the situation until completion of the outstanding repairs.
Records show that the resident continued to contact the landlord to advise that works to repair the leak were unsuccessful and water ingress continued when it rained. On 2 February 2023 the landlord issued a further stage 2 response and acknowledged that the resident had to chase for further updates to remedial works. It offered an additional £1,670 in compensation.
In recent communication with the Ombudsman, the resident advised that the leak appeared to have been fixed for a period of time, but returned in October 2023. She notified the landlord and they had “reactivated” her complaint. The landlord informed the Ombudsman it was awaiting recommendations following a contractor visit in December 2023.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak.

Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact the situation has had on her health where she reported experiencing additional stress during her pregnancy, resulting in time off work. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. The Ombudsman accepts that the resident experienced considerable distress during the timeline of her complaint and whilst she was pregnant. However, we cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The investigation of personal injury or damage to health and related compensation are more appropriately addressed by way of insurance, or a personal injury claim through the courts.
In accordance with the lease agreement and the landlord’s repairs policy, the landlord is responsible for all structural parts of the building, including the roof and common parts. The landlord’s repair policy states that for routine repairs, it will aim to complete the repair at the “earliest mutually convenient appointment”. In this case, the landlord raised a job within 24 hours from the first report of a leak. This was appropriate given that the resident had reported that there was active water ingress that appeared to be coming from the roof terrace above.
In order to effectively manage repairs, it is imperative that landlords maintain clear and accurate repair records of what the issue is, and who is dealing with it. Records show that whilst the landlord initially raised a repair within an appropriate timeframe, it recorded that it sent the job to an “unknown contractor” due to a system issue. This was inappropriate and did not demonstrate that the landlord had taken ownership of the repair.
The resident recorded that the landlord attended on 21 October 2021 and was informed that scaffolding was required. There is no record of this visit or advice on the landlord’s repair records, and it is unclear why it marked the job as “complete” on 12 November 2021. As a result, the resident continued to report water ingress to the landlord on several occasions throughout December 2021, causing her distress and inconvenience.
In the meantime, the resident sought her own independent plumbing and plastering reports which she shared with the landlord. These highlighted that there was ongoing water ingress that needed further intervention from the landlord. However it was not until 17 December 2021 that it raised another job for its contractors to inspect. The delay was unreasonable and there is no evidence that it updated the resident on the outcome of the visit.
The landlord marked the job as complete a day later, noting “not leaking any more”. It is unclear why the job was marked as complete, or what interventions it put in place to contain the leak. A record of this would have been vital for the landlord’s records. However, it is reasonable to conclude that some form of works had been undertaken, as at the start of January 2022, the resident notified the landlord that water appeared to have stopped coming through the ceiling.
Respite from the leak was short lived, and on 10 February 2022 the resident reported that it had returned. Repair records from this date show that the landlord appeared confused as to which contractor could attend as a priority, leading to cancelled jobs that were later re-raised on the same day. On 11 February 2022 the landlord recorded that it had raised a new repair to attend to the roof, but not as a priority. This was not communicated to the resident, who reported that the landlord failed to attend the same day as it had advised. The confusion about the status of the repair was unreasonable and contributed to the resident’s distress.
Given that the resident had reported that the ceiling was starting to bow and she was concerned it would collapse, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have raised a priority repair. However there appeared to be a lack of empathy and understanding of the impact on the resident and her tenant. There is no evidence that the landlord responded promptly to her concerns that the tenant was sharing a room with her son to avoid the ceiling which had begun to bulge. The landlord did not treat the matter with priority or put the resident’s mind at ease as to what its plan of action was to address the issue.
An engineers report dated 22 February 2022 said that there the leak was caused by “problems with the flat roof”, and the decking in the property above needed to be removed in order to complete the repair. Correspondence between the resident and the landlord show that there was confusion as to whether the neighbour above or one of the roofing contractors had fitted the decking. The landlord took no steps to follow up on the engineer’s report or clarified the decking ownership in a timely manner, resulting in further delays.
The landlord’s failure to address the leak at the earliest opportunity and follow up on the recommendations is likely to have contributed to a worsening of the situation, and in May 2022 the had leak spread and was affecting the master bedroom. The landlord’s failure to take ownership of the leak was unreasonable, exacerbated the problem, and contributed to the resident’s distress.
It is clear that there were significant failures in the landlord’s communication with the resident and also her legal representative. It should not have taken the resident to approach her legal team to try to obtain a schedule of works from the landlord. When she did, evidence shows that the landlord did not respond to a either the disrepair claim letter sent on 8 June 2022 or the chaser that was sent in July 2022. The resident later disengaged with the her legal team because of affordability issues. The lack of openness about what steps the landlord was taking to address the repair was unreasonable and caused the resident significant time and trouble in chasing it for a response.
Records show that the resident had to chase the landlord on a number of occasions throughout July 2022. Around this time, she reported that she was 4 months pregnant and had been signed off work with stress as a result of the situation. She reported that she was aware others in the block of flats were experiencing the same issue and the landlord’s lack of communication left her at her “wits end”. The landlord showed no empathy to the resident’s situation. It was only after she posted pictures of the ceiling on social media, that she received a response from the landlord. It should not have taken public awareness of the issue for the landlord to have made contact with the resident.
In contacting the resident following her social media post, the landlord assured her that she would receive regular contact and updates, and works to the roof would be progressed “urgently”. However the landlord failed to follow up on its assurances, and records show that the resident had to chase it on several further occasions into August 2022, escalating the matter to the chief executive. The lack of proactive communication was unreasonable and caused her evident frustration.
Scaffolding was erected on 10 August 2022, but a scope of works had not been made clear to the resident, nor had they been recorded on the landlord’s repair log. As a result, staff dealing with the resident’s complaint were also unclear on what works had been agreed and completed. This is demonstrated in emails between the landlord’s customer service team and the resident around 18 August 2022.
The landlord’s failure to appropriately update its repairs records hindered its ability to provide a satisfactory response to the resident at stage 1 of its complaint process. For example, it concluded that the works were complete and the surveyor was satisfied, but it also raised a repair job to attend to the leak again on the same day. As a result, the £600 it offered the resident for distress and inconvenience was not reflective of her experience and failed to put matters right.
When the resident expressed she was dissatisfied with the response, the landlord was quick to act and issued a stage 2 response 5 working days later. Within the response it better recognised the delays caused in repairing the leak, and the frustration caused to the resident. The response was comprehensive and acknowledged that there had been a poor level of repairs service and its communication had been insufficient.
Aspects of the resident’s complaint escalation request related to compensation to cover her increase in mortgage costs, damages to the value of approximately £3,500. She later alleged there was devaluation of her flat to the value of approximately £50,000 whilst she delayed selling to await completion of the repair. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to award damages in the way a court might, but we can consider whether the landlord appropriately applied its compensation policy. In this case, the landlord’s policy had specific clauses for leaseholders, which did not include payment for costs incurred due to a repair issue or loss of service. The resident was appropriately signposted to the policy within its initial stage 2 response.
The £1450 it offered at stage 2 was substantial in line with its policy and would have been sufficient to put matters right had it been confident that it had fixed the issue. However after conclusion of the resident’s complaint, records show that its remedial works were unsuccessful and the roof continued to leak when it rained. The resident experienced additional time and trouble pursuing the matter, particularly throughout September and October 2022.
The additional delay caused the resident further distress and inconvenience. Whilst the Ombudsman does not encourage multiple stage 2 complaint responses, it was appropriate for the landlord to have revisited the amount of compensation that it offered her to account for the additional delays, which it did on 2 February 2023. In responding to the resident, it noted she had received a settlement £4,320 in damages through a successful insurance claim and offered payment of the insurance excess. It also offered to pay £420 towards repainting costs and a further £800 for distress, inconvenience, time and effort. The additional offers were reasonable and demonstrated a willingness to put matters right for the resident.
In determining whether there has been service failure or maladministration we consider both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. In this case, had the matter been resolved after the second stage 2 response on 2 February 2023, the Ombudsman would have determined that there had been reasonable redress. This is because the landlord’s final response acknowledged its failures, explained the exact cause of the leak and offered revised compensation sufficient to put matters right.
However there was still a failure of the landlord in terms of learning from the outcome of the resident’s complaint. Throughout the landlord’s handling of the leak, records demonstrate that the landlord’s remedial works only lasted a short period of time. For example there were 4 days before a leak followed rain again 1 October 2022. It was therefore imperative that on concluding the resident’s complaint, the landlord was confident that the issue had been fully resolved and able to demonstrate it had put measures in place to ensure it did not make the same mistakes again.
It is not disputed that since conclusion of the resident’s complaint a leak has recurred in the same location, causing her additional frustration and inconvenience. On 23 October 2023 the landlord informed the resident that a surveyor would be in touch to discuss the next steps. However it has not since updated the resident of the outcome of a specialist contractor visit in December 2023 that took place to investigate the issue. This demonstrates a lack of learning from the resident’s complaint and the issue remains unresolved.
Overall, there were significant failures in the landlord’s communication with the resident and its record keeping about the repair was poor. The landlord has acknowledged its failures and the revised level of compensation it offered in February 2023 was appropriate for its failures at the time. However the Ombudsman has found maladministration where the landlord has been unable to demonstrate that it has taken sufficient learning from the complaint. To date, the resident remains affected by the leak in the same location and is unaware of what steps the landlord is taking to address the issue. The landlord has not rebuilt the resident’s confidence that the matter will be resolved within a reasonable timeframe and failed to communicate with her, causing additional inconvenience.

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

When the resident made her complaint on 16 February 2022, she could have expected a response within 10 working days in accordance with the landlord’s complaint policy. It failed to respond to the resident within a timely manner, and the Ombudsman had to intervene which was unreasonable. The landlord’s stage 1 response was issued 132 working days later. The delay was significant and contributed to the resident’s feeling that her complaint was not being taken seriously.
The landlord’s stage 1 response was insufficient and lacked appropriate detail and there is no evidence that it contacted the resident prior to issuing the response. Had it done so, it would have recognised that the leak was ongoing and unresolved. Whist the landlord recognised that there had been delays in addressing the matter of the leak with the resident, it offered no apology or compensation in recognition of its complaint handling failures. In failing to do so, it did not sufficiently put matters right for the resident.
The landlord acted swiftly to the resident’s request to an escalation to her complaint, responding within the expected timescales. The stage 2 response issued on 2 September 2022 was an opportunity for the landlord to have put matters right for the resident. Largely it did so, offering her appropriate compensation and signposting her to her insurance and its compensation policy. However, it demonstrated little learning from the complaint and it did not follow through on assurances that it would monitor the issue until completion of the outstanding repairs.
The landlord’s stage 2 response was an opportunity for it to learn from the outcome of her complaint and resolve the matter fully. Despite assuring her that it would monitor the situation, records show that the resident continued to experience a poor level of service after October 2022. This included delays in stain blocking and repainting her ceiling, which she had requested to be done as soon as possible so that she could get the property ready for sale. Furthermore she had to chase for the cheque for compensation. The delay to conclude matters was unreasonable, causing the resident additional frustration and distress.
The Ombudsman does not encourage multiple final complaint responses and it should have not taken a further response from the landlord to have concluded matters for the resident. However, it is recognised that the revised stage 2 response issued on 2 February 2023 was a reasonable attempt by the landlord to put matters right and conclude the complaint. It acknowledged that it could have done more to resolve matters and it increased her compensation appropriately to account for the additional complaint handling delays.
Overall, a finding of reasonable redress for complaint handling would have been determined by the Ombudsman had the landlord demonstrated that it had taken appropriate learning from the resident’s complaint. However, evidence shows that it has continued to make the same mistakes in terms of communication with the resident. For example, the landlord’s complaints team recently informed the Ombudsman that it “hadn’t had much correspondence with the resident”, despite informing her on 23 October 2023 that it had “reactivated” her complaint. To date, she has not received a further update causing her additional frustration and inconvenience.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the failures noted in this report, within 4 weeks.
The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £3,445 in compensation within 4 weeks. The amount is comprised of:
1. £3,120 it offered in its revised stage 2 response dated 23 February 2023, if not already paid.
2. £250 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak after its final response.
3. £75 for the time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to provide the resident and the Ombudsman with a schedule of works it proposes will resolve the leak.
Within 8 weeks, the landlord is ordered to have completed and post-inspected all works. An update should be provided to both the resident and the Ombudsman.
Within 6 weeks the landlord is ordered to conduct a review of this case and provide an update of its learning of the resident’s complaint. The review should include:
1. An update of how it will monitor recurring and outstanding repairs.
2. A review of its record keeping for repairs notes, with reference to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management.
3. A review of its complaint handling procedures, with particular focus on the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles when providing the resident with a final complaint response.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman is currently reviewing the Complaint Handling Code. When it is published on 1 April 2024, it is recommended that the landlord reviews its current complaints process against the new Code.