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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202217396)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217396

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

24 October 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of leaks and water ingress at the property.
    2. Response to concerns about the installation of bird spikes at the property.
    3. Communication and complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder. The resident’s property is a flat. The building contains at least 2 other flats.
  2. The resident reported water ingress into the property in September 2021, which the resident said appeared to be entering the property from above the window of bedroom 1. The resident complained on 30 October 2021, saying that no repairs or communication had resulted from the report. As the cause remains unknown, it is referred to in this report as “Ingress A”.
  3. On 1 November 2021, the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It stated that the resident’s concerns about the roof had been “passed on” and that a roof inspection would be carried out, followed by any necessary repairs.
  4. On 4 February 2022, the resident escalated his complaint, prompted by a contractor having attended on 2 February 2022, but not having the equipment necessary to survey the roof. The resident had been told that scaffolding was required.
  5. On 15 August 2022, the resident complained that he was unhappy because he had been charged, as part of his annual service charges, for the installation of bird spikes at the property; the resident disputed that spikes had been installed.
  6. On 8 November 2022, the resident reported a new, separate leak to the roof of the property. This is referred to as “Leak A” throughout this report. The issues reported previously remained unresolved, so the resident approached this service for assistance in reaching a resolution.
  7. In response to the resident’s escalation request of 4 February 2022, and his further expressions of dissatisfaction until late November 2022, the landlord issued a stage 2 response on 1 December 2022. The landlord:
    1. Apologised for the delays in dealing with the roof leak;
    2. Apologised for poor communication and that it had not responded to the resident’s escalation request of 4 February 2022;
    3. Stated that the bird spikes had been installed in September 2021, but that the contractor had advised they could “come off due to wear and tear”;
    4. Offered £1,680 in compensation, consisting of £240 for delays in complaint handling, £120 for time and effort, £120 for communication issues and £960 for distress and inconvenience.
  8. The resident and landlord continued to correspond throughout December 2022. The resident explained that scaffolding had been erected, but was in position to deal with only Leak A; Ingress A could not be accessed from the scaffold. The landlord agreed to extend the scaffold on 7 December 2022. It resolved that:
    1. Roofing contractors would be attending to fix both Leak A and Ingress A;
    2. It would investigate the missing bird spikes, replacing any that were found to be missing, free of charge.
  9. The resident then raised further concerns. The landlord issued a “stage 2 resolution letter” on 30 December 2022. It confirmed its position, but added that it was sorry for the poor communication experienced by the resident, giving the resident contact details of specific members of staff.

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles states that landlords should seek to ‘be fair’, to ‘put things right’ and to ‘learn from outcomes’.
  2. 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 certain complaint handling and record keeping failures. The Special Report contains a number of 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’.

Handling of leaks and water ingress at the property

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that when a resident reports an emergency repair, the landlord will attend within 24 hours. The resident first reported Ingress A in September 2021. The landlord was right therefore to offer an apology, alongside compensation, when it issued its stage 2 response in December 2022, because the repair remained outstanding at that time. The evidence shows that some small delays could be expected, because scaffolding was required to access the leak, for which a Section 20 consultation was needed. However, from the resident’s first report in September 2021, and complaint on 30 October 2021, the landlord had not sent a contractor to inspect until February 2022. The landlord then reported that a quote required from a second contractor was not forthcoming, causing further delays. There is no evidence to support this. It is unclear why the delays occurred, however the landlord acknowledged after the stage 2 response that there was “no good reason that the emergency repair works were not carried out in September [of 2021], despite a Section 20 consultation being needed”.
  2. The landlord resolved that “roofing contractors will be attending to carry out the emergency repair” in December 2022. This related to both Ingress A and Leak A, which was first reported in November 2022. However, the resident reports that although the repair logs show that some work has been done at the property, these were ineffective. It appears from the repair logs that the resident raised multiple repairs to the roof in February and March 2023, for which the landlord carried out “temporary repairs”; the leaks, however, quickly recurred. By 17 April 2023, the roof repairs remained outstanding. On 22 June 2023, the resident chased the landlord again. The landlord realised that the contractor had been waiting for the landlord to respond to its request to visit the site, since 17 May 2023; it could not continue the works until this had been done. It is unclear why the landlord did not respond until prompted by the resident on 22 June 2023.
  3. On 7 September 2023, the resident reported to this service that he believed Leak A had possibly been fixed, but that the landlord had not confirmed this or replied to the resident’s requests for information. The resident explained that he believed Ingress A had still not been fixed, but without speaking to the landlord, was unable to confirm this definitively. The scaffolding remained in place at this time.
  4. The landlord’s compensation offer of 1 December 2022, in the opinion of the resident, was an adequate reflection of the adverse effect he had experienced. The resident explained that his chief concern was at that time, and remains now, that the work be completed as soon as possible, as the landlord had promised. Therefore, had the work been completed within a reasonable timescale following the stage 2 response, the finding of this investigation would likely be that the landlord has offered “reasonable redress” to resolve the complaint. However, despite the landlord’s assurances, there is no evidence that the remedial work was completed. There is evidence to suggest that some of the delays after this time were within the landlord’s control to resolve, which it failed to do until prompted by the resident. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of leaks and water ingress at the property.
  5. Although the resident was compensated for the delays until December 2022, no further compensation has been offered in respect of the additional ten months of delays, time and trouble, and distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident. The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance states that where the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right, but failed to address the detriment to the resident proportionately, £100 – £600 is due. Orders are made below to ‘put things right’.

Response to concerns about the installation of bird spikes at the property

  1. The landlord maintains that bird spikes were installed at the property on 21 September 2021. However, the resident disputes this. The landlord evidenced its installation of the bird spikes by quoting a job number, and stating that “a treble ladder was used for access and 13 meters of bird spikes installed”. However, the resident reports submitting photographs of the property to the landlord, showing that no spikes were present.
  2. The landlord was right therefore to commit to investigating the current condition of the spikes at the time of the stage 2 response. It also explained that should they be found to need replacing, this would be done and that residents of the building would not be charged. This was an appropriate resolution to offer, as the landlords repairs policy states that it is responsible for the repairs and maintenance of existing bird spikes. Whether or not the resident is correct that the spikes were never installed, or if the landlord’s suggestion that the bird spikes may have disappeared from the property due to wear and tear, is unclear.
  3. The resident’s first report about the bird spikes in August 2022 should have constituted a service request for the spikes to be inspected and repaired, in line with the landlord’s repairs policy. The landlord’s repairs policy states that routine repairs are aimed to be completed within “an average of 25 calendar days”. The resident reported to this service that in September 2023, spikes remained absent from the property and that birds continue to roost. The resident reports that he has chased this with the landlord via the contact instructions given during the stage 2 response, but has not received a reply. It is clear therefore that these timescales have been significantly exceeded. The resident told this service that although he was unhappy with the landlord’s assertion that spikes had been installed, he was otherwise satisfied with the resolution that the landlord offered at stage 2; to investigate and replace the spikes, at no cost to the resident. However, the landlord has provided no evidence that it followed through on its commitments. As a result, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to concerns about the installation of the bird spikes at the property.
  4. The resident has also expressed concerns that when the landlord does install the spikes, it should ensure they are present in the problem areas. Due to the communication issues reported by the resident, he feels it is important he is able to show the contractors where the spikes would be most effectively placed. This is reflected in the orders made below.
  5. The evidence also shows that the resident went to significant time and effort to chase the landlord during this time, and take additional steps, such as to approach this service. Although the landlord compensated the resident in its stage 2 response of December 2022, there is no indication that the delay in investigating and rectifying the concerns about the pigeon spikes were considered. Orders are therefore made below to ‘put things right’.

Communication and complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that the landlord should respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days, and a stage 2 complaint within 20 working days. The resident first complained on 30 October 2021. After the landlord responded at stage 1 on 1 November 2021, and raised a service request which failed to resolve the leak, the resident escalated the complaint on 4 February 2022.
  2. The landlord reported that on 3 March 2022, it emailed the resident to apologise for the delay. The resident disputes that he ever received this email. There is no evidence to support the landlord’s account that it sent this email. The landlord did apologise to the resident on 20 May 2022. However, despite chasing the landlord on multiple occasions, the landlord did not issue its stage 2 response until 1 December 2022; the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy were significantly exceeded. The resident reports chasing the landlord by telephone on multiple occasions during this time, however the landlord later explained that “not all calls were recorded” and records were only kept “for a period of three months”.
  3. The landlord acknowledged that the service it provided had “fallen short of acceptable standards”. It offered £240 for the delays in complaint handling, £120 for delayed communication and further awards for time, effort and inconvenience. The resident explained that this offer of compensation was reasonable at the time, when coupled with the resolutions offered. The stage 2 response also suggested that the landlord was seeking to ‘be fair’, to ‘put things right’ and to ‘learn from outcomes’. However, as assessed above, many of the resolutions offered during the complaint process remain outstanding ten months later. The resident has reported that since the stage two response, he has again experienced poor communication and that the service he has received has not improved. As such, it is clear that any learning the landlord intended to take was ineffective, and that the landlord was unable to follow through on resolutions it offered. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s communication and complaint handling.
  4. The resident has told this service that as a leaseholder, it is important he is given clear information and details about any and all works completed at the property. The resident believes that work may have been completed at the property “within the last 8 weeks”, due to evidence that contractors have worked upon the scaffold, however the information he reports having requested about this work has not been forthcoming. The resident remains unsure if the scaffold currently in place is there because more work remains outstanding, or because the landlord has forgotten it is there. As such, orders are made below.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of leaks and water ingress at the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to concerns about the installation of bird spikes at the property.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s communication and complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Provide evidence to both this service, and the resident, that both Leak A and Ingress A have been resolved. This timescale may be extended to eight weeks, in the event that the scaffolding currently in place no longer fit for use.
    2. Provide the resident with a full breakdown of all works and repairs completed at the property after 1 September 2021. This should also contain information about any works due to be completed in the future at the property.
    3. Inspect the bird spikes at the property and make repairs/reinstallations as necessary, as per its resolution offered at stage 2. It should ensure it consults all residents regarding the location of these spikes.
    4. Pay to the resident an addition £650 compensation, made up of:
      1. £450 for the additional delays experienced in resolving the leaks/water ingress;
      2. £100 for the delays in inspecting/repairing/reinstalling the bird spikes;
      3. £100 for the additional time and trouble the resident went to following the stage two response.
    5. Apologise, in writing, to the resident for the failings highlighted in this report. This should be made by an executive member of staff.