London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202213537)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202213537
London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)
20 February 2025
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 resident’s report of repairs needed in the property.
- The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.
Background
- The resident has been an assured tenant of the property since 2 January 2023. The property is a 2 bedroom house. The resident has mobility issues.
- The resident reported various repairs in her property after she moved in, these included no radiator in the kitchen, fallen bricks off the front of the property, gaps around the windows, new glazing in her door, an issue with the stair banister and lack of water pressure in the bathroom.
- It is not clear from the evidence provided when a plumber attended to inspect the shower but following the visit the resident raised a formal complaint on 6 April 2023 about the issue as the plumber told her due to having a gravity fed system designed for a bath, it would be unable to do anything to improve the shower pressure. The resident said she had disabilities and therefore found a shower easier.
- The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 6 April 2023. It said it would be unable to fix the shower pressure due to it being a gravity fed system and therefore to resolve the issue the resident would need a new system. It confirmed it considered the bath functional it would be unable to replace the system, but the resident could request adaptations, and it gave details of the process through which she could do that.
- The resident contacted this Service on 30 May 2023 to say that she had made a complaint about the condition of the property and the outstanding repairs but had not received a response. The Ombudsman asked the landlord to respond to the resident.
- The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 10 July 2023. It reiterated its stance at stage 1, that it would be unable to fix the water pressure in the bath due to its design and it would be unable to install a new system as it considered the bath was functional. It again directed the resident towards its adaptation process and explained the steps the resident would need to take for it to consider the request. It offered compensation for the lack of communication made up of £50 for time and effort and £100 for its complaint handling.
- The landlord provided a further response on 20 July 2023 which included the repairs the resident had raised to this Service. They key points were as follows:
- It had replaced and repaired the banister on 17 July 2023.
- It had replaced the bathroom window hinges on 23 May 2023.
- It replaced the backdoor on 8 June 2023.
- It completed the brickwork outside on 2 February 2023.
- It had referred the request for a new radiator and decoration to the relevant department.
- It reiterated the information given previously about the shower.
- It offered compensation to the resident of £400, made up of the following:
- £50 for time and effort.
- £100 for complaint handling.
- £50 for its delayed response.
- £200 for distress and inconvenience.
- In referring to this Service, the resident remained dissatisfied that repairs were still outstanding, and the compensation had been paid into her rent account.
Assessment and findings
Policies and procedures.
- The landlord’s repair policy states that it will respond to emergency repairs within 25 days and emergency repairs within 24 hours.
- Its vulnerable resident’s policy sets out that it identifies a vulnerable resident as someone at risk in their home or at risk of being able to follow their tenancy requirements.
- The landlord’s Vulnerable Residents Policy says that its wider suite of policies and procedures reflect the need to tailor services to the different needs of residents, including vulnerable residents. There are many ways in which it can support vulnerable residents, such as:
- Communications – provide materials in a range of formats.
- Service adjustments – providing minor health and safety repairs at no cost and priority repairs for health and safety repairs.
- Aids & Adaptations – providing minor and major adaptations to support our residents to live safely and independently in their homes.
- In-house support– referring residents to our Tenancy Sustainment Team as well as other commissioned services which can help address issues of financial vulnerability and exclusion.
- External referrals or signposting to statutory agencies and other external support organisations.
- The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. It will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days. Any extension needed would not exceed 10 working days.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of repairs required in the property.
- The resident first reported the issue with the having no radiator in the kitchen on 25 January 2023. Although this was not a repair, the landlord did not provide a response on the issue until the stage 2 complaint response in July, 7 months after the resident had first requested one. While the landlord may not have been bound to provide a radiator, it would have been appropriate for it to communicate with the resident whether it was willing to provide one or not to manage her expectations. Not doing so caused her to raise a formal complaint about the lack of communication.
- It is unclear from the evidence provided what date the resident first reported that bricks had fallen off the front of the property, but the landlord attended on 2 February 2023 to undertake a repair. Given that the resident had moved into the property on 2 January 2023, the landlord completed the repair within it repairs policy timescales, and therefore reasonable in the circumstances.
- The resident reported an issue with the glazing in her door on 15 March 2023 which meant the door needed replacing. The landlord did not complete the repair until 8 June 2023. This was 57 working days after the resident had reported the issue and therefore outside of the landlord’s published repairs timescales. Landlords need to ensure they have effective systems in place to track and monitor repairs to ensure it completes them on time.
- The issue with the bathroom window and gaps around it was reported on 27 February 2023 yet the landlord did not complete the repair until 23 May 2023. This was 58 working days after the resident had reported the issue and therefore not within the landlord’s repair timescales. This is a further example of a lack of an effective system to track and monitor repairs and showed a disregard to the resident’s situation.
- The resident reported the issue with her stair banister on 4 April 2023. The landlord did not replace this until 17 July 2023. Again, this is a further example of the landlord’s lack of effective system to track and monitor repairs to ensure it completes them within its published repair timescales.
- Furthermore, the resident told the landlord that the banister was lose when coming down the stairs. The landlord was aware the resident had mobility issues and having a lose banister is a safety issue. Therefore, it was inappropriate that the landlord did not complete the repair until 3 months after it became aware of the issue. The lack of action showed a complete disregard to the resident’s safety in the property.
- Furthermore, the landlord has provided no evidence to show it communicated regularly with the resident to manage her expectations throughout the duration of these repairs. Where there are delays in completing a repair, they may not necessarily be seen as unacceptable if a landlord keeps in regular contact with a resident to ensure they are aware of the status of the repair and provided with a timebound action plan.
- With regards to the shower pressure, it was reasonable of the landlord to attend to inspect the shower pressure and satisfy itself that the issue was not one it could resolve without a complete system overhaul.
- In the landlord’s stage 1 response, it helpfully explained the reasons why it could not replace the resident’s system due to her having a functional bath. Furthermore, it explained that the resident could apply for adaptations to her bathroom and explained the process the resident would need to follow if she wished to go down that route. Landlords do not have finite resources and therefore, it was reasonable of it not to replace the shower system at the time as the bathroom was considered functional.
- The landlord reiterated this point in its stage 2 response and provided further details on how the resident could get an occupational health report done and explained its reasoning for not replacing the system without the request to its adaptations team for major works to be completed. The landlord followed its policy with regards to this issue and that was therefore reasonable in the circumstances.
- The landlord’s response to the repairs was at times delayed and the evidence provided suggests a significant lack of communication with the resident during the period which we reported the issues leaving her in a property that she could not fully enjoy.
- The landlord acknowledged and identified its failings in this case and apologised to the resident for the service it provided. While this investigation considers that the landlord’s handling of the situation could have been improved, through its offer of compensation of £300, it has recognised the impact on the resident and has taken steps to put things right. As such, an offer of reasonable redress has been made in the circumstances.
The landlord’s complaint handling.
- The resident raised a formal complaint on 6 April 2023 and the landlord responded at stage 1 on the same date. Given that a landlord must respond within 10 working days, this was reasonable in the circumstances.
- It must be noted however that the landlord has not provided this Service with a copy of letter sent to the resident only the details of its response. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out that a landlord must keep a full record of a complaint including all correspondence with the resident and any supporting documentation. While in this instance the Ombudsman has been able to consider the contents of the response, it highlights a lack of effective record keeping.
- The resident reached out to this Service for help with her complaint on 30 May 2023 as she had not received a response. Following contact with the landlord from this Service, internal evidence suggests the landlord had agreed with the resident to pause the complaints process due to a bereavement. However, the landlord has provided no evidence to confirm when it made this agreement with the resident or the details of the arrangement. This is a further example of poor record keeping with regards to the landlord’s complaint handling.
- The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 10 July 2023 and a further review on 20 July 2023. However, the Ombudsman had to chase the landlord 3 times before it provided a response. This is not appropriate; landlords need to ensure they provide complaint responses within the published timescales set out both in its own complaint policy and in the Code. Not doing so caused the resident to reach out to this Service for help.
- Furthermore, the landlord has provided no evidence to show that it communicated the delay to the resident. The Code sets out that where a landlord cannot meet the complaint deadline, it must communicate that to a resident and set out when it would provide a complaint response. The landlord’s lack of communication in these circumstances was unreasonable and showed a disregard to the resident’s complaint.
- Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint was delayed and not in line with its own policy and the Code. Its lack of communication during the process was not appropriate. While this investigation considers that the landlord’s handling of the situation could have been improved, through its offer of compensation, it has recognised the impact on the resident and has taken steps to put things right. As such, the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress in the circumstances.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in relation to its handling of the resident’s report of repairs needed, which resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
- In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in relation to its complaint handling, which resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
Recommendations
- As a finding of reasonable redress has been made based on the landlord’s offer compensation, the landlord should pay the compensation offered to the resident if it has not already done so.