London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202205064)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205064

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

28 June 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 reports of:
1. disrepair to the kitchen;
2. pests in the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord which commenced in 2000. The property is a 3-bedroom terraced house. The resident has a number of health conditions known to the landlord, including anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), and a heart condition. She has sometimes referred to experiencing panic attacks.
Some years prior to the events of this investigation, the resident installed additional units and worktops in her kitchen at her own expense. She did this because the existing kitchen contained only 2 units and insufficient worktop space. The installation was carried out with the landlord’s permission, and the resident subsequently declined its offer of a programmed new kitchen.
Between 2010 and 2021, the resident reported issues with her back door. At first she reported that the frame was bent and the door would not lock. Following work completed in April 2010, she then reported that part of the door frame was missing. In October 2012 she reported that mice were entering her property through holes in the brickwork to the rear of the kitchen. In November 2019 she reported that the door had dropped, leaving a large gap at the bottom. Although the landlord’s records indicate that repairs were carried out, the resident again reported a large gap at the bottom of her back door and mice in her kitchen in May 2021.
The resident also reported that her kitchen cabinet had been damaged by a leak in May 2020. Repairs were raised in May and October 2020, but later cancelled. In May 2021 the landlord identified that the repair had been allocated to a contractor which was no longer able to carry out work for it. The repair was raised with a second contractor, but the contractor closed the job as (according to its records) the resident said it was no longer required. When the resident chased the repair in September 2021, the landlord attempted to re-raise the job with the second contractor but experienced technical difficulties.
On 27 October 2021 the resident complained to the landlord, stating that:
1. It had taken an unacceptable length of time to complete repairs and follow-on works.
2. Some repairs had not been completed, and others were of poor quality.
3. Replacing the sink unit was not enough, as the taps were faulty and the worktops were rotten.
4. She had put in a piece of wood to hold up the rotten cabinet under the sink. For years the landlord had put sealant over this area. However, it was leaking and she had to use a bowl to catch the water. The conditions were attracting rats.
5. No follow-on works had been booked in relation to the rat infestation.
6. Rats were getting in through the gap under the back door, which opened out into the garden. The door was insecure and she thought it was too heavy.
7. She had received an email apology in 2019 for the issue, but it was still ongoing.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 29 October 2021 and contacted the resident to arrange a telephone discussion. This took place on 12 November 2021. Following the call, the resident sent the landlord photo and video evidence of the repair issues. Having received no reply to her email, she chased this on 18, 21 and 22 November 2021.
The landlord replied to the resident on 22 November 2021 and told her it would forward the photos to its surveyor. It also raised a repair for renewal of the damaged kitchen cabinet and proofing under the kitchen sink to prevent pests. Some works were marked as completed on 1 December 2021. On 22 December 2021 the landlord emailed the resident regarding further works that needed booking in.
On 6 January 2022 the resident followed up with the landlord regarding its lack of contact. She asked it to continue trying to call her if it was unable to get through, using her mobile as well as her landline.
On 7 January 2022, following a call from the resident, the landlord raised a repair to ease and adjust the back door. It also raised a repair for further works to the kitchen, requiring 2 operatives for 6 hours. The kitchen works were initially booked for 25 February 2022, but this appointment was subsequently moved.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 21 February 2022. This stated that:
1. It had booked an all-day appointment for the kitchen repair to be completed the following day (with the date incorrectly stated). This was to replace the worktop, drawer fronts and doors in the kitchen.
2. It thanked the resident for her patience while it completed the kitchen repairs.
3. Any damage to her personal belongings could be referred to its insurance team. This included any damage to the kitchen flooring. It was unable to replace the resident’s own flooring, but it could lay the type of flooring it usually used in its kitchens.
4. It offered compensation of £405, comprising:
  1. £135 for inconvenience (calculated as £15 x 9);
  2. £135 for distress (£15 x 9);
  3. £135 for time and effort (£15 x 9);
  4. £50 for lack of communication.
5. It was unable to refer back to 5 years’ worth of repairs when awarding compensation.
The resident replied the same day (21 February 2022) to query the date of the kitchen works and the calculation of compensation. She also asked the landlord to confirm that the cupboard and drawers would be replaced like for like. On 22 February 2022, the landlord apologised for its error regarding the date and confirmed that the kitchen works would take place on 23 February 2022.
Also on 22 February 2022, the landlord’s surveyor called the resident on her landline but was unable to get through. On 23 February 2022 the landlord’s operative advised that they were only able to replace the worktop with a standard worktop. The resident objected to this decision.
On 24 February 2022 the landlord apologised for its incorrect calculation of compensation. It clarified that the number 9 in its calculation referred to the number of months the kitchen repair had been outstanding. The resident replied that the repair had first been raised over 4 years ago, not 9 months ago.
Following a further email from the resident on 1 March 2022, the landlord spoke to her on 8 March 2022. It then copied her into an email in which it agreed to fit a new kitchen sink base unit, replace the sink top and taps, replace the worktops and plinths, and check for any holes behind the sink unit that vermin may be using as an access point. The works were carried out on 24 and 25 March 2022. An internal email by the landlord on 30 March 2022 noted that some aspects of the job remained outstanding, including replacement of a damaged piece of trim.
On 29 April 2022 the landlord contacted the resident to arrange an appointment for the remaining works. However, she was unhappy with the date offered (24 June 2022). She also noted that, as well as installation of an end panel, there were issues with the base unit fitted.
On 31 May 2022 the landlord liaised with its pest control contractor regarding treatment of the resident’s property. It noted that a job had been raised previously but was not completed as the resident was waiting for the landlord to fill in holes. However, it now asked the contractor to treat the property urgently as the resident was sleeping on her sofa due to presence of pests in her bedroom. A job was raised on 1 June 2022. On 8 June 2022 the landlord gave the resident the pest control contractor’s contact details, and on 10 June 2022 the resident reported that the contractor had not attended an appointment.
On 13 June 2022 the resident requested to escalate her complaint. She said that:
1. The last 2 emails she had sent to the landlord’s stage 1 responder had been ignored, despite this officer saying they were her first point of contact.
2. She felt her complaint was not dealt with correctly at stage 1, with inaccurate information being given and some of her points ignored.
3. She felt the landlord’s internal communication was “dreadful”.
4. The landlord had agreed to renew her kitchen sink unit like for like on 24 March 2022. On this date the operative did not arrive until 9.30am. They then had to go and get materials. They asked the resident which worktops she wanted, although she had previously chosen these from a catalogue and thought they would be ordered in advance. The operative asked the resident to accompany them to the supplier, which did not have the resident’s preferred worktops in stock. She was told that an available worktop was gloss effect, but it was matt. However, at this point she did not intend to complain as she was just happy the job was being done.
5. The job was booked for 2 operatives to attend, but the attending operative said only 1 was available. She had to help them carry the heavy 3-metre worktops into her property from the van. The operative then struggled to move her washing machine on their own and damaged her waterproof flooring. They rang someone and said they needed help as they could not do the work alone. A second operative arrived just after 1pm.
6. When removing her sink, the operative smashed it into the wall, breaking a tile. She had spare matching tiles in her shed so provided one to the operative, but they did not fit it. The area looked such a mess that she had since paid to have the tile replaced, as she could not wait any longer.
7. The operatives were also supposed to check for any holes where rodents could get in and repair these. They did not do this. She thought they overlooked this part of the job as things were so hectic. The operative became stressed and said there was no way they would finish that day, so it was arranged someone would return the following day.
8. The operative who attended on 25 March 2022 was supposed to put the doors and drawers back on, install trim to the ends of the worktops, and put sealant around the worktop and end panel. They were at the property for a couple of hours and said they were leaving after putting on the doors and drawer fronts on. She asked about the end panel, broken tile and sealant. The operative said they did not have time and these items were not on their list.
9. Her sons (who were carpenters) subsequently mitred and sealed the worktop. They could not secure the sink unit to the base unit as no clips had been left. When they went to put the end panel on, they found the base unit had not been fitted correctly and the end panel needed cutting. They also commented on the poor fitting of the sink unit. The drawers were not straight and no longer self-closed; one was stiff and the other did not close properly.
10. The landlord had not removed her old worktops, despite her chasing this. It also did not propose installing the end panel until 24 June 2022, 3 months after the initial repairs. She was “terrified” the delay would lead to a further pest infestation, as the operative found a dead mouse on 24 March 2022. She had called the landlord about this in tears, but it replied “Sorry, earliest we can do.” She had seen rodents in and near her property on 27 May 2022, and since then had been too scared to stay in her home alone.
11. She reported a new pest control job to the landlord on 31 May 2022, and was told she would hear in a couple of days. She did not hear anything and contacted the contractor on 8 June 2022. They told her they had only received instruction from the landlord the day before.
12. She had lived in the property for nearly 22 years and had always looked after it. She felt the landlord had completed one bad repair after another, costing her more in the long run. There had been issues going back to 2011.
13. She would like all future correspondence via email.
The landlord did not acknowledge the escalation request. On 24 June 2022, 4 July 2022 and/or 23 July 2022 it completed further works to the kitchen.
On 26 August 2022 the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord regarding the resident’s escalated complaint, asking it to provide a response within 10 working days. It acknowledged the escalation on 31 August 2022 and issued its stage 2 response on 12 September 2023. The response stated that:
1. The landlord apologised for its delay in escalating the complaint.
2. To investigate the complaint at stage 2, it had reviewed the stage 1 response and communications by its stage 1 responder as well as the resident’s escalation request. It had also inspected relevant case notes and documents and spoken to colleagues involved.
3. It had raised numerous repairs to the resident’s kitchen and back door between November 2021 and April 2022. When it spoke to the resident on 31 August 2022, she said she was unhappy with the standard of works.
4. It had arranged an inspection on 8 September 2022, following which works would be booked in to renew all door and drawer fronts to the kitchen units. The works would be booked in as soon as capacity and availability permitted. Its surveyor would manage the works and update the resident.
5. It apologised for calculating the compensation incorrectly at stage 1. Its offer should have been £455 rather than £405.
6. It recognised the time, effort and inconvenience the matter may have caused the resident. It offered increased compensation of £855, comprising:
  1. £455 offered at stage 1;
  2. £50 for its delay in escalating the complaint;
  3. £250 in recognition of the additional delay in communication, time, effort, distress, and inconvenience of taking the complaint to stage 2;
  4. £100 as a goodwill gesture to recognise any service failures, including numerous phone calls, costs incurred, and appointments made to complete the works required.
7. Its complaint compensation process did not cover damage to personal items, and the resident would need to contact its insurance team regarding this. It would then treat the matter as a public liability claim.
The same day (12 September 2022), the landlord raised a number of repairs including renewal of the resident’s kitchen door and drawer fronts. The works were completed on 10 January 2023. On 5 July 2023, an email from the resident’s daughter to the landlord stated that the kitchen works were not yet complete. She noted that:
1. While the works completed in January 2023 were of a good standard, the contractor had only priced for a standard sized end panel, which was too small. They therefore ordered a breakfast bar and cut it down. The first time they cut it messily, so they got another. The second time they put a screw through the panel. On post-inspection the landlord agreed a new end panel would be fitted and trim applied to the end.
2. One of the cupboards was not secured to the wall and had slipped. The landlord said it needed taking off and refitting to the wall.
3. The previous week the resident found a dead mouse on a glue pad while cleaning her freezer. However, as the source of the infestation in a neighbour’s property had now been addressed, she did not believe there was still a problem with pests. She would now like the bait boxes collected.
In response, the landlord arranged a further inspection which took place on 2 August 2023. On 14 August 2023, the landlord raised repairs for renewal of 2 worktop end strips and rehanging of a wall unit. These works were completed on 25 September 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The focus of this investigation is the complaint made by the resident in October 2021 and responded to by the landlord in February and June 2022. While the history and background of the complaint has been considered, it has not been possible to carry out a detailed assessment of events dating back several years. Paragraph 42c of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the member landlord as a formal complaint within 12 months of the matters arising.
Other repair issues not included in the resident’s complaint, and her more recent complaint regarding her request for a copy of her tenancy agreement, a subject access request (SAR), and service charge issues, also fall outside the scope of the current investigation. The resident may refer these matters separately to this Service for investigation once they have exhausted the landlord’s complaints process and if she is dissatisfied with its final response.

Disrepair to the kitchen

The template tenancy agreement supplied to this Service sets out the obligations of the landlord and tenant. The landlord’s obligations include keeping in good repair the structure and exterior of the property, including internal and external walls and doors. They also include keeping in good repair and working order any installations the landlord provides for water heating, sanitation and the supply of water, including sinks and waste pipes. The tenant’s obligations include reporting to the landlord any disrepair or defect for which it is responsible, and keeping the interior of the property in good and clean condition. The tenant has the right to make improvements, alterations and additions to the property, provided they obtain the landlord’s written consent and any other necessary approvals. The Ombudsman notes that the resident’s original signed tenancy agreement could not be located by the landlord at the time of this Service’s request for information.
The landlord’s repairs policy (dated March 2021) states that it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours, and complete routine repairs at the earliest mutually convenient appointment. A later version of this policy states that the landlord aims to complete routine repairs within an average of 25 calendar days. Emergency repairs include insecure external doors. The policy provides more detail regarding the landlord’s repair responsibilities. In kitchens, it is responsible for repairs to the sink taps and pipework (when leaking), tiles, grouting, silicone sealant, cupboard base and wall units and doors (when rotten or loose from walls), plinths and clips (when rotten), drawer fronts, worktops (when rotten), and floor coverings. The landlord will not install additional kitchen units, and will not replace units because they are mismatching.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will pay £10 for failure to respond to a query within 10 working days (where it is part of a complaint investigation). The policy further states that the landlord will award discretionary compensation when its mistake or failure causes a customer distress and inconvenience and/or the need to spend unnecessary time and effort in getting it to put things right. It does not provide a tariff for such awards, but confirms that it will consider the duration, impact, customer actions, and its communication.
It is relevant to note at the outset that, while the landlord said it was “not able to refer back 4 years for the award of compensation” (and there are often practical reasons why historical records cannot be inspected or fully assessed), a review of the history of the kitchen leak repair was necessary in order for the landlord to understand the circumstances of the issue. The records provided to this Service show that the resident report her kitchen cabinet had suffered leak damage on 4 May 2020 and 28 October 2020. Both repairs were cancelled without explanation, and potentially without detection at the time. This was unsatisfactory, particularly given that the issue occurred at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic when the landlord would have needed to ensure it was carrying out essential work.
It is possible that the leak damage was reported even earlier than 2020, as the resident said she was told in 2017 that the affected unit was “beyond repair”. She also said she received an apology in 2018 or 2019 from a member of the landlord’s staff who found a job “floating in the system”, at which point it had been reported 18 months earlier. This cannot be verified from the landlord’s records; however, if there had been a record keeping or system issue, this would explain the absence of any record. The Ombudsman cannot make a conclusive finding in relation to events in 2017-19, but appreciates the resident’s frustration and has taken the background of the issue into account. The Ombudsman also considers that the landlord should have assessed its actions since at least May 2020 in responding to the resident’s complaint.
A year after the resident’s report in May 2020, the landlord identified on 20 May 2021 that the repair had been “subbed out to [a contractor]” which told it “they will be sending all [landlord] jobs back as the SOR codes no longer cover the cost of materials”. It is unclear whether this explanation was shared with the resident at the time, although she later showed a good understanding of the situation. The landlord acted appropriately by assigning the repair to a different contractor, and on 24 May 2021 it documented that the new contractor would be contacting the resident that week. However, the same day, the resident asked the landlord for an update as she had been told the contractor was “not doing the job anymore”. It is unclear whether this referred to the first or second contractor. She also noted that the job was now urgent, with “only a piece of wood holding up the unit”. The landlord raised a further repair on 25 May 2021, but this was marked as complete the same day, apparently with no action. This was unsatisfactory, and given the extent of the existing delay, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have allocated a member of staff to take ownership of the repair and ensure it was progressed swiftly.
Despite a repair note dated 26 May 2021 repeating that the job had been raised to the second contractor, the works were not completed or otherwise followed up by the landlord. This again indicated a lack of sufficient oversight. No action was taken until 29 September 2021, when the resident requested an update. The landlord liaised with the contractor which advised the resident had said the works were no longer needed. As the resident disputed this, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to investigate the discrepancy, as the same issue may have affected other repairs. Depending on its findings, contract management may also have been required. The landlord attempted to reassign the job to the second contractor but was unable to do so, as the contractor no longer appeared on a drop-down list. Although the member of staff correctly sought technical support, there is no evidence that the issue was pursued further until the resident complained a month later. The resident became understandably upset when she attempted to discuss the length of the delay with the landlord and it advised that “we cannot look at these old jobs and need to start afresh”. This response disregarded her legitimate concerns and indicated an unwillingness to investigate a serious record keeping or process issue.
After receiving the resident’s complaint and discussing the issues with her, the landlord raised a new repair for the kitchen cabinet on 22 November 2021. This was marked as complete on 1 December 2021, although it is unclear what (if any) works were completed on that date. Internal correspondence on 22 December 2021 noted that further works needed to be booked in, but the repair was not raised until 7 January 2022, apparently following a further call from the resident. It is therefore unclear whether the works would have continued to progress if the resident had not been proactive in chasing updates.
The repair raised on 7 January 2022 included the item “renew the worktops” (with ‘worktops’ being plural). The works were scheduled to take place on 25 February 2022; however, on 7 February 2022 the resident was informed that they would be put back to March 2022 “due to the carpenter booking holiday”. It was only after she said this was “totally unacceptable” that the appointment was instead brought forward to 18 February 2022. The resident’s consternation that she was not previously offered this earlier appointment is appreciated; while it may not have been available at the time the original appointment was booked, in view of the situation it would have been appropriate for the landlord to offer an earlier appointment rather than a later one when it became aware it could not honour the appointment on 25 February 2022.
The eventual repairs took place across a number of appointments in February 2022, March 2022, June 2022, July 2022, and January 2023. While availability for access was not an issue, the number of appointments placed considerable demand on the resident’s time. Many of these appointments could have been avoided if coordination and communication had been improved, resulting in a consistent and unrushed approach. In particular, in February 2022, the landlord’s surveyor said they would only replace one section of the L-shaped worktop, noting “the resident’s expectations are higher than I can deliver”. The stage 1 responder also advised that the landlord would only install items of standard specification, and “as the kitchen was replaced by yourself, we are not able to service and maintain it if there has been any damage caused”. However, the repair subsequently completed on 24 March 2022 stated “replace the worktop like for like”. While it was appropriate for the landlord to exercise discretion by agreeing to replace the resident’s damaged worktops in full, using the closest possible match to her preferred design from its supplier, its communication on this topic was confusing and caused the resident avoidable anxiety and uncertainty.
The landlord also did not address – either within its complaints process or separately – a number of quality and workmanship issues that occurred on 24 and 25 March 2022. The resident was required to accompany the operative to a supplier to choose a worktop style (when she had previously made a selection from a catalogue) and assist the operative in carrying the heavy worktop into her property. The landlord’s surveyor later noted in an internal email that they would “look into the fact that the resident was carrying the worktop as this is not something that should be happening”. They also said “I’m not too happy that we took her to [the supplier] either”. However, there is no indication that these matters were pursued further or incorporated into the stage 2 resolution. The resident therefore did not receive an apology or financial redress for them. Likewise, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s concerns regarding damage caused to her tile and flooring by operatives. This damage was caused by the landlord, and was its responsibility to resolve. When doing so it should have considered that the resident installed the kitchen at her own expense, and her health needs (such as the effect on her OCD of a broken tile).
Some communication issues appeared to be a result of the landlord using the resident’s landline phone number rather than her mobile, or not leaving a message when there was a facility for it to do so. This may have been the result of an incident on 15 June 2020, when the landlord called what it believed to be the resident’s mobile number; the person who answered the call was not the resident and did not know her, so the landlord deleted the number from its system. However, it is unclear whether it informed her of this or later added a correct mobile number. It also did not always adhere to her request for communication via email, and at times after an officer left a message or missed call, they were subsequently unavailable for the rest of the day. In cases of longstanding repairs and complaints such as this, it is good practice for a landlord to confirm a resident’s contact preferences as this can substantially improve their experience of the process. Given the timescales involved in this case, the landlord could have considered allocating a named officer to update the resident at agreed individuals and using her preferred method. This would have helped to rebuild her trust, and may have prevented her from reaching a point where communication with the landlord was “too much for her” and her daughter had to step in.
The repairs completed in January 2023 still left items outstanding, meaning that the works did not fully conclude until September 2023. This was 3 years and 4 months after the resident reported the leak damage in May 2020 (and possibly much longer since her initial report). While the resident was mostly able to use her kitchen during this time, she experienced significant inconvenience through having to use a bucket to catch waste water, and incurred additional costs when she felt the need to fix things at her own expense. The overall length of the delay was excessive and at odds with the landlord’s commitment to complete repairs for which it is responsible in a “reasonable timeframe”. In addition, the repairs were characterised by poor and inconsistent communication, a lack of oversight and empathy, and inadequate consideration of the resident’s vulnerability. The landlord did not fully acknowledge its failings or offer sufficient redress to put them right. Consequently, a finding of severe maladministration has been made.

Pest issues

The landlord’s pests policy (dated October 2020) states that it is responsible for dealing with rat infestations, and also infestations of mice where this is affecting a property because of disrepair. From July 2022, the landlord’s pest control policy was archived and the information incorporated into its repairs policy.
The records provided indicate that the resident first reported issues with mice in her property in 2012. This was apparently addressed at the time. She then reported further pest issues in 2021 and 2022 in connection with disrepair in her kitchen. The landlord was correct to identify this as its responsibility, as the pest issues were associated with disrepair, included reports of rats, and (as later established) affected multiple properties. The Ombudsman appreciates that the resident sometimes asked that pest control works were deferred until the landlord completed other works to her kitchen, and it was appropriate for the landlord to accommodate her preference in this regard. A pest control job raised on 24 May 2021 was marked complete on 12 August 2021, and another raised on 1 June 2022 marked complete on 20 September 2022; these timeframes were reasonable given the nature of treatment, involving repeated treatments and periods of monitoring.
In addition to holes in brickwork behind kitchen units, a possible entry point for rodents was a gap at the bottom of the resident’s back door. This, too, was the landlord’s responsibility. The resident had reported issues with her back door dating back to 2010, and it appears from the repair logs provided that reports of the door being insecure were appropriately treated as emergency repairs in November 2019, May 2021, and January 2022. When the resident mentioned in her complaint in October 2021 that rats were getting through the gap in the back door and the area was insecure, the landlord again offered an emergency callout but the resident declined this. The next routine appointment available at the time was 3 months later. In view of this, it would have been helpful for the landlord to try to find a ‘middle ground’ by arranging a sooner appointment or offering interim measures. It could also gone further in exploring the resident’s reasons for declining an emergency callout, providing pest control advice, and signposting her to relevant resources.
Proofing to prevent entry by rodents should have been included in the works completed by the landlord on 24 and 25 March 2022. These works apparently did not go to plan, necessitating additional staff and time, and the proofing aspect of the job was missed. The resident was understandably distressed about this, with her concerns reinforced by the discovery of a dead mouse during the works. As the omission was the landlord’s error, it should have made prompt arrangements to put this right, rather than scheduling a routine appointment according to its usual process. Its response to the resident’s concerns on 29 April 2022 – as described in her escalation request – was dismissive and unsympathetic. The delay of at least 3 months in completing the works originally scheduled for March 2022 resulted in the resident feeling the need to sleep on her sofa and ask a family member to stay with her as she was too scared to be in her property alone. The landlord was made aware of these impacts but took no action in response (or did not inform her if it did so). This was unsatisfactory, and served to prolong the resident’s significant distress.
The resident told the landlord she was under the impression that, following a report she made on 31 May 2022, it did not instruct its pest control contractor until 7 June 2022. The records provided to this Service indicate that the landlord did in fact instruct the contractor on 31 May 2022, and asked it to treat the matter as a priority. This was an appropriate and proportionate course of action. However, the landlord apparently did not reassure the resident on this point or clarify the action it had taken, which would have been good practice and helped to rebuild the landlord-tenant relationship. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord offered to chase the pest control contractor on the resident’s behalf on 8 June 2022, but she preferred to contact the contractor herself.
Some aspects of the kitchen unit repairs and pest control issues were interdependent, and better communication between the landlord and pest control contractor may have enabled works to be completed sooner and improved the resident’s experience. For example, some kitchen works scheduled for 24 June 2022 could not be completed as rodent bait had been put down in the affected area. There is no evidence that attempts were made to arrange a joint visit or plan the works jointly. While it was appropriate for the landlord and contractor to accommodate the resident’s preferences regarding appointments and the nature of some works, as discussed above, the onus should not have been placed on the resident to manage the competing works and decide which actions were more urgent or important.
A finding of maladministration has been made in relation to the landlord’s handling of reported pest issues. This is because, while it did some things well, it delayed in completing proofing works that were originally planned for March 2022, did not communicate or coordinate effectively with its pest control contractor, and did not treat the resident in a sufficiently sympathetic or supportive way. It also did not demonstrate that it considered how the resident’s health conditions, such as anxiety and OCD, may have caused her to be disproportionately disadvantaged by its delays in resolving the reported rodent infestation.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Its standard operating procedure states that it will acknowledge complaints by the end of the next working day, and escalation requests within 2 working days. It will then respond within 10 working days at stage 1 and within 20 working days at stage 2. If it is unable respond within these timeframes, it will provide an explanation and revised response date to the complainant. All complaints should be investigated and decided within 30 calendar days.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint within 2 working days, which slightly exceeded its target timeframe. While it promptly made arrangements for a call to discuss the complaint issues, it did not respond at stage 1 until nearly 4 months after the complaint was made. The length of this delay was excessive and unacceptable. Between making her complaint on 27 October 2021 and receiving the stage 1 response on 21 February 2022, the resident had contact with the landlord on at least 10 occasions and expressed continued dissatisfaction with its handling of her repairs. She also referred to her open complaint, but there is no evidence that the landlord apologised for its delayed response, or provided an explanation and anticipated response date. It therefore missed opportunities to identify poor service and put this right.
The eventual stage 1 response apparently took the form of an email rather than a letter. This meant that there was no response date in the body of the response, and when subsequently copy-pasted it appeared undated. Other than the subject line of the email, the response did not explicitly refer to stage 1 or 2, although it did say the resident could “ask for the complaint to be escalated to the next stage” and included a link to the landlord’s website. The escalation process was therefore not fully transparent.
The stage 1 response was also overly brief. It did not summarise the points of the complaint or confirm what steps the landlord had taken to investigate the issues. Instead, it read as if it was a reply to a service request (“Thank you for speaking with me. The appointment has been booked…”) rather than a formal complaint communication. Though it was appropriate for the landlord to include contact details for its insurance team and award compensation, the compensation was calculated incorrectly and the basis of the calculation was not fully explained. The date of a repair appointment was also wrongly stated, which caused some obvious distress to the resident as she was away from her property at the time and thought she had to be available for an appointment the following morning. Finally, the response also did not acknowledge or include compensation for complaint handling failures. All of these things were unsatisfactory.
The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response on numerous occasions. However, while the stage 1 responded to clarify some aspects of their decision making on 23 February 2022, other communications went unanswered. The stage 1 responder told the resident they would be her first point of contact, but subsequently did not reply to her emails. Internal communication on 7 March 2022 indicated that the resident’s case had been merged and closed, without reference to where it had been merged to, resulting in actions set being unfulfilled. This again was unsatisfactory, and there is no evidence that relevant staff contacted the resident or otherwise resolved the complaint-related issue once it was identified (although the repair was subsequently progressed).
Following further expressions of dissatisfaction on 9 March 2022, 29 April 2022 and 8 June 2022, the resident formally requested to escalate her complaint on 13 June 2022. Her email was lengthy and detailed the impact of her recent experiences. However, the landlord did not respond to the email or escalate her complaint at that point. It was only following intervention by this Service, more than 2 months later, that the complaint was escalated. This is concerning and caused the resident to feel ignored and deprioritised.
It was appropriate for the landlord to confirm escalation of the complaint to the resident and to respond by its target date of 12 September 2022. The stage 2 response was more detailed and contained aspects that the Ombudsman would expect to see, such as a summary of the complaint and details of the investigation carried out. The stage 2 responder correctly arranged actions to address the substantive repair issue, outlined these, and awarded increased compensation. However, of 4 repairs presented as a resolution of the complaint, only 1 related to the repair issues included in the complaint. The response also did not specifically address the pest control aspect of the complaint. Furthermore, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the compensation awarded at stage 2 did not reflect the extent of the complaint handling failures, which went beyond delayed escalation.
Finally, it is noted that the resident requested to make a new complaint at the same time as her escalation request. There is no evidence that this request was responded to or a complaint logged. Similarly, the resident’s daughter (who had the resident’s authority to liaise with the landlord on her behalf) asked to make a “new complaint regarding same job” on 5 July 2023. The landlord responded promptly to her email but apparently did not log a new complaint, despite referring to “a further complaint” in internal correspondence on 10 July 2023. While it is possible that complaints were logged and details not supplied to this Service, the Ombudsman would highlight the importance of identifying complaints and responding in accordance with the landlord’s policy and the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code. If the landlord was unclear regarding the intentions and expectations of the resident and/or her daughter, it should have contacted them to confirm these.
An overall finding of maladministration has been made in relation to complaint handling, and additional compensation ordered which the Ombudsman considers to be proportionate to the failures identified.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of disrepair to the kitchen;
2. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of pests in the property;
3. maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. Apologise to the resident for its delays, poor communication, poor record keeping, insufficient consideration of her vulnerability, and complaint handling failures. The apology should be made in writing by a member of staff of director level or above, and should acknowledge the impact of the events of this investigation on the resident.
2. Pay the resident £2,000, comprising:
  1. £1,000 for its delays, poor communication and other failures in responding to her reports of disrepair in her kitchen;
  2. £400 for its delays, unsympathetic approach and lack of coordination in responding to her reports of pests in the property;
  3. £600 for its complaint handling failures.
3. Support the resident in making a claim to its insurer, or her own insurer, for any damage it is unable to repair itself to the required standard (such as damaged kitchen flooring) if it has not already done so. If the resident is able to proceed with an insurance claim, the landlord must cover the cost of any excess. If she is unable to proceed with a claim due to the length of time that has passed, the landlord must make an additional payment to cover the reasonable cost of items damaged by the leak and/or its staff. This is subject to the resident providing details and/or receipts. The landlord must inform this Service of its intentions regarding this order within the 4 weeks.
4. Confirm that it has the correct contact details for the resident, including landline and mobile numbers (if both are still current).
5. Provide evidence of compliance with the above to this Service.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord reviews its repairs policy and considers introducing target timescales for non-emergency repairs (as opposed to an average timescale).