London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202218563)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218563

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

17 September 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of delays in installing adaptations in his home.
   2. Associated formal complaint.

Background

2. The resident is the assured tenant of a 3-bedroom house, owned by the landlord. He moved into the property in January 2022 following a mutual exchange. The landlord was aware of the resident’s mobility concerns.
3. The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord, via this Service, on 17 November 2022. This related to outstanding shower repairs, which resulted in the collapse of the kitchen ceiling.
4. In its stage 1 response on 24 November 2022, the landlord outlined its proposal to repair the shower and kitchen ceiling. It also said that adaptation works could not be progressed for the ramp and wet room until it had received an occupational therapist (OT) report. It closed the complaint following an offer of £800 compensation on 8 December 2022.
5. The resident raised a further complaint to the landlord on 5 June 2023. He was unhappy with the lack of communication and feedback in relation to his application for adaptations. He said that he had been chasing these since September 2022 and had been unable to shower since then. The lack of shower facilities, and ramp access, was impacting his quality of life.
6. The landlord provided a stage 2 response, on 11 August 2023, following this Service’s intervention. It had spoken with its aids and adaptations team, and it was clear that it had not followed its processes. It apologised for its service failure and impact the delays had on the resident. Its direct maintenance service would deal with the changing of the WC. It would use a different contractor for the ramp, due to the nature of the work. It had sent an amended pro-forma to its aids and adaptations team in relation to the wet room. It offered compensation totalling £1,300. This comprised:
   1. £50 for the delay in sending its stage 2 letter.
   2. £100 for complaint handling.
   3. £220 for time and effort.
   4. £440 for distress.
   5. £220 for inconvenience.
   6. £100 for service failure.
7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought his complaint to this Service. He said that it had agreed the adaptations in March 2023. The installation of the wet room had taken place on 29 December 2023, however, the ramp remained outstanding. He wanted it to install the ramp and increase its compensation offer.
8. The resident gave an update to this Service on 4 September 2024. He said that the landlord had installed the ramp on 3 September 2024. He also said that it had re-opened the complaint in February 2024 and he received further compensation of £1,160, some of which was offset against his rent account.

Assessment and findings

9. In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances.

Scope of investigation

10. In the resident’s correspondence he advised that the delay in implementing the adaptations had impacted his mental health and affected his quality of life. This Service can consider any inconvenience or distress caused, as a result of any service failure by the landlord. However, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health, nor can it calculate or award damages. Ultimately this would be a matter for the courts.
11. Our position is in accordance with paragraph 42.f. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. Should the resident wish to pursue matters of health further, he can consider this via the courts.
12. The landlord’s evidence, provided to this Service, was limited. While additional information was requested and provided, the records referred to the previous occupant and other adaptations such as grab rails. This has affected our ability to accurately assess the timeline of events. This investigation has, therefore, relied on the evidence provided to determine this case.
13. The role of the Housing Ombudsman is to assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint through its internal complaints process. This is to ensure that it takes reasonable steps to resolve complaints in its 2-stage process. Therefore, this investigation has focussed on the events leading up to its final response on 11 August 2023. Any events following its stage 2 response, including further offers of compensation, are mentioned in this report for context purposes only.

Reports of delays in installing adaptations

14. The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy states that:
    1. Minor adaptations enable residents to maintain or regain the ability to live in their homes. These include flashing doorbells, grab rails, internal door threshold ramps, and lever taps. These are often requested by an OT, but an OT report is not required for them to be installed. It will normally fund minor adaptations without the need to apply for a disabled facilities grant (DFG).
    2. Major adaptations must be based on the assessment and recommendation of an OT. Examples include stair-lifts, level-access showers, and wet rooms.
15. It is not disputed that there were delays in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for adaptations. In its stage 2 response, it apologised, said that it was clear it had not followed its processes, and awarded compensation.
16. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, this Service will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation and offer to complete repairs) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, this Service takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
17. The date of the resident’s original request to the landlord, for a wet room and ramp, is not known. However, the evidence shows that the landlord raised a works order on 13 September 2022 to install a ramp. It refers to this being a minor adaptation with a completion date of 11 October 2022. The landlord wrote to the resident the same day confirming the details of the works order.
18. In the landlord’s complaint response of 24 November 2022, it said that the works for the wet room and ramp were on hold until it received an OT report. This suggests that the resident requested the wet room around the same time.
19. It is appropriate for landlords to consider whether adaptations are necessary, appropriate, reasonable and practical, and for its decisions to be guided by a suitably qualified OT. It is therefore reasonable for a landlord to decline requests where a referral has not been made.
20. However, the aforementioned works order classed the adaptation as minor, thus not requiring an OT report, as outlined in its aids and adaptations policy. This demonstrated that the landlord failed to classify the adaptation appropriately and, therefore, failed to manage the resident’s expectations having written to him with a timescale for the work.
21. The landlord’s records of 5 June 2023 show that the resident called the landlord concerning the works to the shower and ramp. He said that he had the report from the OT and would forward it the same day. It confirmed that it had received this and had sent it to its major works team. He asked to raise a formal complaint the same day.
22. In its stage 2 response the landlord set out a timeline of when the resident had chased the works and for a complaint response. It apologised for not following its processes and for its service failure. Its response also included as follows:
    1. Its direct maintenance team would oversee the WC works. It had arranged to attend on 17 August 2023 to carry out an assessment.
    2. It gave the name of its contractor, appointed to oversee the ramp works, and said that if he had not heard from it, by 17 August 2023, to let it know.
    3. While it was unable to provide a specific start date for the ramp works, it hoped the visit would be the first step of the process and that he could begin to feel more comfortable in his home.
    4. It provided the name of its contractor, appointed to complete the wet room, and said that its manager had personally chased this. He would receive an update as the repairs progressed.
    5. It apologised for the impact the delays had and offered compensation comprising:
       1. £220 for his time and effort in chasing the works. Calculated at £20 per month for 11 months.
       2. £440 for distress. Calculated at £40 per month for 11 months.
       3. £220 for inconvenience. Calculated at £20 per month for 11 months.
       4. £100 for overall service failure.
23. The landlord’s response acknowledged its failings, apologised, and set out its proposal to complete the adaptations. Its compensation offer was appropriate and exceeded this Service’s remedies guidance, in the range of £100 to £600, for maladministration. While its response was reasonable, it failed to demonstrate any learning from the complaint. It did not say what measures it would put in place to ensure it followed its processes or prevent delays occurring in the future.
24. The resident told this Service that he had been given the landlord’s insurance department details should he wish to consider pursuing a claim in relation to health. It would have been helpful for the landlord to have included this information in its response.
25. The landlord’s records of September 2023 show that the resident continued to chase for an update in relation to the adaptations. It had contacted its contractor who had advised that the ramp was not feasible, and a structural engineer would need to attend to suggest a way forward. In October 2023 an order was raised for the ramp, and in November 2023 it sought a further quotation. There was no explanation or evidence provided as to why there were further delays in installing the ramp.
26. The resident told this Service that the wet room was installed on 29 December 2023, 4 months following the landlord’s stage 2 response. He also said that the complaint had been re-opened in February 2024 and he received a further compensation payment in June or July 2024 of £1,160. This Service concludes that this further offer of compensation was appropriate in acknowledging the delays.
27. The resident confirmed that the ramp was installed on 3 September 2024, over 1 year following the landlord’s stage 2 response. This Service considers the further compensation offer as having accounted for the further delays. Nonetheless we note that it offered no apologies for not completing the works until September 2024.
28. While this Service appreciates that the delays would have been distressing for the resident, the landlord’s apology, offer of compensation, and offer to complete the adaptations was appropriate up to its stage 2 response. The landlord has not disputed making a further offer of compensation of £1,160, as stated by the resident. This amount was appropriate in acknowledging the further delays he experienced. As stated above however, it failed to demonstrate any learning from the complaint as it did not offer apologies for the further delay. This Service, therefore, finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of delays in installing adaptations.

Associated formal complaint.

29. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Stage 1 complaints are acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints are responded to within 20 working days.
30. The resident raised his complaint on 5 June 2023. Following multiple failed contacts to the landlord to get a response, he contacted this Service. It failed to acknowledge the complaint until 4 August 2023. It did, however, provide its response on 11 August 2023, which was the deadline given by this Service following our second request. This was 49 working days later, and 29 working days later than its complaint policy timescale.
31. In its stage 2 response the landlord accepted that it had failed to acknowledge his complaint and outlined the multiple times he had chased a response. It also acknowledged that he had made contact with this Service as he had not received a stage 1 or 2 response. It offered £50 compensation for the delay in responding and £100 for its complaint handling failures.
32. The landlord’s apology, acknowledgment of its failings and offer of compensation was appropriate. Its compensation offer exceeded this Service’s remedies guidance in the range of £50 to £100 for service failure. This Service, therefore, finds that the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

33. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of delays in implementing adaptations in his home.
34. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

35. The landlord is ordered to pay to the resident, and not offset against any arrears, the sum of £2,460 for distress and inconvenience for the delays in installing adaptations. This comprises the £1,300 offered in its stage 2 response, and further offer of £1,160. (If not already paid).
36. The landlord is ordered to send a written apology, by a senior member of staff, for the failures identified in this report.
37. Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord must provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

38. The landlord should pay the resident £150 offered in its stage 2 response for its complaints handling failures if not already paid.
39. The landlord should ensure that its records accurately reflect the position with its repairs and adaptations processes.