London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202219217)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219217

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

29 November 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.

Complaint definition

The complaint is regarding the landlord’s handling of:
1. Water supply in the property.
2. Repairs to the resident’s kitchen.
3. The resident’s request to be rehoused to a bigger property.
4. The resident’s complaint and concerns about potential discrimination.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a housing association, which took over management of the property from an organisation which no longer exists. He has resided in the property, described as a 2-bedroom, 1st floor flat, since 2008.
The landlord has advised it has no record of any reported vulnerabilities in the household, however the resident has provided letters from his GP reporting that his wife suffers from stress, brought about by their dealings with the landlord.

Summary of events

Landlord repair records show it received reports that the resident had no water at his property either on or just before 4 November 2022. It noted there was a “large leak to (the) incoming water supply” and that the local water company had already been out to investigate but it was “not their responsibility”.
Although this Service has not seen a copy of the original email, information provided by the resident’s representative indicates that the landlord emailed the resident on or around 7 November to provide an update on the repairs. It noted that a contractor had attended the same day it received reports of a loss of water at the property (4 November), but they had noted further works were needed. It was now chasing the contractor to get those works booked in. It noted that it had offered the resident 6 litres of drinking water a day, but he had declined this. It then advised it was “closing (the) complaint”.
Records indicate a contractor had also attended on 8 November 2022 and identified that a water main had burst. It advised a “report and V/O (variation order)” would be uploaded onto the landlord’s repair system the following day. Records show the landlord then chased the contractor for this on 11 November. A “huge” variation order was then approved by the landlord on 20 November.
The resident chased updates on the repair on several occasions throughout November 2022. Repair records indicate the landlord offered to deliver drinking water to the resident on a few occasions, including on 8, 11, 24 and 25 November. However, the resident had emailed the landlord on 22 November asking for a decant. He acknowledged that bottled water had been offered, but stated this was not enough for a family of 5.
The resident contacted this Service on 20 November 2022 to outline the problems he was having with his water supply and raising concerns about the landlord’s response which included missed appointments when he had stayed at home. He advised he had asked for a decant while the repairs were ongoing, that he was incurring extra costs of between £50 and £60 per week to wash and dry his clothes elsewhere due to a lack of running water, and that he had only received one supply of drinking water from the landlord.
Records show the contractor attended on 26 November and noted that the source of the leak was not where it had expected it to be and there were further leaks affecting another property. It hoped to complete works by 28 November.
On 29 November, the landlord emailed the resident following a phone call the previous day. It provided the following updates:
1. It had spoken to its contractors who were on site to complete repairs. It would provide a further update once these were finished.
2. 10 litres of water had been delivered the previous day. He was asked to make contact when he needed more, or if he kept receipts, it would reimburse him for any further water he bought.
3. Once works were complete it would award him compensation.
The landlord sent a further email on 30 November 2022, providing him with an update. It advised:
1. The leak was not where the water company had advised it was.
2. Another contractor would be attending to advise whether it needed to “break up floors, or if (it) could run a new water main into the property”. It would be unable to provide him with a timeframe for works to be complete until it had had this discussion with the contractor.
3. In light of the current situation, it advised that it “may be faced with 3 options” for proving the resident with alternative accommodation:
  1. A short term (under 7 days) placement into temporary accommodation such as a hotel.
  2. Longer term rehousing (between 10-14 days) in a void property or serviced apartment.
  3. Or he stayed at the property while the landlord tried to “assist with regular water deliveries and reimbursement of any cost of dry cleaning, launderette and other out of pocket expenses”.
4. It hoped to provide a further update when the scope of the repair work required was clarified.
Records indicate the water supply was restored on or around 4 December 2022, although the resident continued to report issues with the water pressure and being without hot water. An entry from 7 December noted there was “no hot water, heating is OK” while a further 72 hour emergency order was raised on 2 January 2023 which noted the same.
The landlord formally raised a complaint following contact from this Service on 6 January 2023. It then emailed the resident on 19 January 2023, asking to be given additional time to provide its response.
On 6 February 2023, the landlord provided its Stage 1 complaint response. It understood that the complaint was about the lack of running water in the property for 7 weeks following a leak, the lack of hot water in the property, his requests to move to a new property due to overcrowding and outstanding kitchen repairs. It provided the caveat that it did not “usually investigate or review issues older than 6 months”, and went on to address each issue in turn:
1. No running water in the property following a leak/no hot water – it noted a repair had been raised on 4 November 2022 regarding the lack of water at the property. A plumber attended and “identified a fault to the water meter” and said a drainage specialist would be required. It had noted at the time that the resident had only “limited water available” and he was offered bottled water, which he accepted on 28 November. The local water company had also attended but decided the issue did “not fall within their responsibility”. Specialist contractors were appointed, and they identified a burst water main. An order was raised for remedial works which included a sound test and excavation of the supply pipe. The landlord said work took place over “multiple days” and was completed by 5 December 2022.
2. 2 days later, a further order was raised when the resident reported he had no hot water. This was allocated to heating contractors who attended the same day and identified that a part was required. This was ordered and the landlord stated the issue was resolved on 2 January 2022 (this is assumed to be 2023). However, a further inspection was arranged for 13 January 2023 when the landlord investigated issues relating to water pressure. It decided issues could be resolved by the removal of the property’s cold water tank and the installation of a combination boiler. An order was raised, and the landlord stated the new boiler was installed on 2 February 2023.
3. Outstanding kitchen repairs – it noted that an order had been raised on 2 February 2022 to renew the resident’s kitchen worktop and loose tiles. The landlord stated it attended on 11 March 2022, but it identified that an asbestos survey was required before it could complete any repairs. It apologised for the length of time it had taken to complete the repairs, acknowledging it was “unacceptable” but stating it was down to a backlog caused by the “reduced repairs service” that was in operation between March 2020 and April 2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic. It stated a new order had been raised on 28 November 2022 and had been uploaded to a new online platform where “reputable trades people” could take the job and contact the resident directly. It apologised for “the continued delays” and advised it had “chased an urgent update on this repair” and advised that the “delays have been reflected” in an offer of compensation.
4. Requests to move to a larger property – it advised the “(property) transfer process is resident driven” and that residents must “actively” seek a move by registering with appropriate sites and agencies. It advised it “no longer (had) an internal transfer process” as most of its properties were allocated to household nomiated by local authorities. To “increase (his) options”, it recommended registering for a mutual exchange and provided details of a national website which enables home swapping as well as the contact number for its own customer service team. It also clarified that it did not have an “obligation to provide (him) a larger home” if the size of his family increased and it was therefore up to the resident to secure a move himself.
5. Having reviewed the complaint, it offered an apology for “the issues…faced” and acknowledged the “level of service (he) received…was not reflective” of the standards it aimed to provide, particularly regarding repairs and communication. It advised it would conduct an internal review of the failings identified and “seek to implement preventative measures”.
6. Considering the service failures it had identified; the landlord offered the resident compensation of £478. This was made up of £180 for his distress and inconvenience, a further £180 for his “time and effort” (the amounts were made up of £15 x 12, although it did not advise what the “12” related to) and £118 for the loss of hot water (£10 under the Right to Repair scheme, plus £2 per day for 59 days).
The resident’s representative wrote to the landlord on 17 February 2023, stating that the resident accepted the apologies for the time taken to resolve the water supply issues but was unhappy with the amount of compensation offered. They raised the following concerns and issues:
1. The calculation of the compensation was unclear as the landlord had not stated what the “x 12” when reaching the 2 respective awards of £180.
2. His additional expenses, caused by the lack of water and hot water, had not been taken into consideration. These included:
  1. £300 spent on launderettes.
  2. £34 for a new kettle.
  3. £474.56 for 4 days’ loss of earnings during appointments with landlord staff or contractors.
  4. A further £144 for 1.5 days lost earnings incurred by his wife.
  5. Unquantifiable amounts spend on extra electricity and phone calls.
3. The compensation offered did not adequately reflect the stress and inconvenience caused by the family being without water for 7 weeks and “hot water for even longer”, particularly as this was during winter.
4. The representative stated there was a “racial overtone” throughout the case. They claimed that, while the resident’s phone calls were often either cut off or not transferred to the right person or team, the landlord responded differently when they and a separate third party, who were both of a different ethnicity, made contact.
5. They considered that compensation of £5000 “might be more in line” with their expectations, considering the “emotional distress and racial elements”. Alternatively, the landlord could offer the resident a bigger property.
The resident chased the landlord’s complaint response on 21 March 2023, noting that his representative had asked for the complaint to be escalated a month earlier. He asked it to confirm “what recompense” it proposed to offer following his “stress, distress and loss of earnings”. The landlord responded the next day to acknowledge the escalation request. It sent a further email the same day to confirm it was unable to discuss his case with the representative as it did not have his authority to do so. It went on to clarify the following:
1. It did not compensate for loss of earnings.
2. The “x12” referred to in its compensation calculation referred to the number of months the issues had been ongoing, but it was “only able to review records up to 12 months”.
3. It was happy to reimburse him for the kettle and launderette costs and asked him to provide receipts or invoices so it could process this.
4. Regarding comments about racial discrimination, it said it was sorry to hear the resident felt he had been treated unfairly but asked him to provide further evidence “to support this claim and confirm who was involved”. It stated it took the allegations “very seriously”.
5. In relation to a property transfer, it reiterated that it no longer had an internal transfer process and the number of properties it could let was reduced by the fact that, in some local authority areas, 100% of its properties went to Council register nominees. It also referred to further rehousing options.
On 29 March 2023, the resident provided the landlord with confirmation that he wanted his representative to act on his behalf in relation to the complaint and outstanding repair issues.
The landlord provided the resident with an update on 17 April 2023, citing a “high demand for complaint escalations” following changes it stated were enforced by the Ombudsman. No timeline given for response was given other than advising that a member of the Customer Relations Team would be in touch with him “as soon as possible”.
Landlord repair records indicate that on 9 May 2023 an order was raised to “replace missing tiles on (the) kitchen wall and bathroom” and the property was referred to its Compenent Team who deal with planned improvement works.
Following contact from the resident on 29 June 2023, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 30 August asking it to progress his complaint and respond at stage 2 of its procedure.
An entry against the order raised in May to replace kitchen tiles indicates that the landlord attended on or around 25 August 2023 but the resident refused to allow the works to be completed as he wanted “the whole kitchen…renewed”.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 1 November 2023 to provide an update on the complaint. It advised its response was taking “a little longer” to complete and it now aimed to provide this on 6 November.
On 9 November 2023, the landlord provided its Stage 2 complaint response. It noted the resident remained unhappy with its response to the issues previously investigated and noted that, in an undated phone call in which they had discussed the complaint further, he had also stated he was unhappy that “kitchen cupboards are hanging and have been eaten by pests” and that there were pests in the property. To resolve the complaint, it noted the resident wanted the kitchen to repaired, the pest issue to be resolved, a management transfer and further compensation for his time and effort and distress. It went on to make the following comments and findings:
1. A job regarding the resident’s kitchen tiles on 3 May 2019. It noted “further jobs” had been raised since then.
2. An order had been raised regarding his “kitchen cupboards and pests in the property” on 11 July 2019. Its records showed “further jobs were raised by operatives attending your property regarding the same issues” and it also noted there had been missed appointments on unspecified dates.
3. It noted compensation of £478 had been offered in its Stage 1 response and offered a further apology that it had “taken so long for the work to be completed in (his) home” and for his time and trouble in trying to get the work completed. It noted that “remedial works have now been scheduled”.
4. It noted the resident felt discriminated against due to his accent and said it was committed to “respecting and valuing the diversity of (its) customers”.
5. Regarding his rehousing request, it said it was “unable to offer (him) a managed move due to a shortage of houses”. It signposted him to his local authority and advised his Neighbourhood Housing Lead officer could help him with this. It also again suggested applying for a mutual exchange.
6. It made a further apology for the “service failure…received” and because it had not provided the “level of service we expect you to receive”. It apologised for the disruption caused to the resident’s family and made a further offer of compensation which it said had considered the length of time taken to respond to the complaint at Stage 2, the distress and inconvenience caused by the time taken to carry out repairs in the resident’s bathroom and kitchen. It offered the resident £2,518, which consisted of:
  1. £120 for poor complaint handling.
  2. £120 for missed appointments.
  3. £600 for “service failure”.
  4. The £478 already offered at Stage 1.
  5. £1200 for “right to repair”.
7. Regarding outstanding repairs, it advised the following orders had been raised and scheduled:
  1. Plumbers would attend to fix a bathroom leak on 8 December 2023.
  2. A “planner” would contact him to arrange a date to fix his kitchen cupboard doors and worktops.
  3. An appointment had been booked for pest controllers to attend on 15 November 2023.
8. The complaint would be left open and passed to a Customer Liaison Officer who would monitor progress of the outstanding tasks until completed.
The representative confirmed to this Service that the resident wanted us carry out an investigation into the complaint on 17 November 2023.
On 22 November 2024, in response to a request from this Service for an update, the landlord advised the following that kitchen repairs had been completed but did not clarify whether the worktop had been replaced. It stated that orders to replace broken kitchen tiles had been refused by the resident as he wanted the whole kitchen to be renewed.
The resident also provided an update to this Service, on 27 November 2024. He advised that he had had the kitchen renewed privately in January 2024 as he had lost faith in the landlord carrying out repairs. He said he paid for the renewal at his own expense and provided receipts which indicated that the works, including labour, cost around £6,000.

Assessment and findings

In correspondence with the landlord and this Service, the resident and his representative referred to health conditions affecting family members which they state had been exacerbated by stress caused by delays relating to repairs and rehousing requests. While we understand the resident’s concerns, the Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situations may have caused and how the landlord responded to these.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman assesses whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
In this case, the landlord accepted the resident had been left without hot water for a period of 59 days and that there had been delays in its handling of repairs to the kitchen. In its complaint responses, it apologised for these and provided compensation regarding both issues. This investigation will go on to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord was reasonable in the circumstances and enough to “put things right” for the resident.

The landlord’s handling of issues with the water supply in the property

In its complaint responses, the landlord accepted the resident had been left without hot water for a period of 59 days. It provided a summary of its handing of the repair, from when it initially attended on 4 November, and which included the fact that specialist works had been required, which included excavation of the supply pipe to the property. It stated that these repairs had been completed by 5 December 2023. However, 2 days later the resident had reported there was no hot water at the property. While it stated that heating contractors resolved the issue on 2 January 2023, records show there were further issues with the hot water and water pressure which did not appear to be resolved until the landlord installed a combination boiler in early February 2023.
Because of the services failures identified, its stage 1 response offered the resident £478 compensation. Of this, £118 was directly related to the loss of hot water in the property. It is unclear how much, if any, of the £360 offered related to his “time and effort” and “distress and inconvenience” (2 offers of £160 each) was related to the hot water issues. Considering the landlord’s reference to the compensation being offered in the context of delays to the kitchen repairs, it is assumed that the landlord’s stage 1 response did not offer more than £118 by way of redress for the water supply issues the resident experienced.
While it offered an increased amount of compensation in its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord did not specify that any of the increased redress was related to the water supply issues. Rather, its final offer included the £478 already offered at stage 1 and its complaint response otherwise did not make any reference to the water supply issues. The Ombudsman has therefore assumed that of the landlord’s final offer of compensation (£2,518), only £118 was ultimately related to the water supply issues and loss of hot water.
While its offer of £2 per day for the loss of hot water might have been in line with its compensation policy under Right to Repair, this did not take into account the considerable impact on the family. Nor did the landlord provide any redress for the fact the resident and his family were without water at all for at least a month between 4 November and 5 December 2022. While the Ombudsman acknowledges the loss of water did not occur due to any failing by the landlord and the repair appeared to be an extensive one which required a significant amount of work, there was evidence of delays following the contractor’s initial visit, with over a week elapsing before a variation order was provided and then approved. Its communication during this period, and the support offered to the resident and his family, should also have been better, with the resident being made to chase updates on several occasions.
In correspondence with the resident at the end of November 2022, the landlord advised there were 2 options regarding temporary rehousing, but it is unclear if this was followed up. It may have been the case that, as the water supply was restored by 5 December, the landlord no longer considered a decant to be necessary but if that was the case, this should have been clearly recorded. Following his complaint escalation request, it also clarified it was happy to reimburse his costs for a new kettle and visits to the launderette. While it asked the resident to provide receipts and the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that these were provided, it was not appropriate that the landlord did not appear to refer to this commitment again. If it ultimately declined to provide reimbursements, again this should have been properly recorded or addressed within its complaint response.
Considering the property was without water completely from 4 November to 5 December, and the landlord has calculated it was without hot water for 59 days, the Ombudsman does not consider that £118 compensation amounts to reasonable redress in the circumstances. The final offer did not accurately reflect the distress, and inconvenience caused the resident and his family during this period. The Ombudsman has therefore made a finding of service failure regarding the landlord’s response to the water supply issues in the property. As a result, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident an increased amount of compensation that better reflects the impact of the loss of water and hot water in the property. It is difficult to quantify the loss caused to the resident. However, the Ombudsman considers that a more reasonable offer would be £437.70. This consists of:
1. £227.70 (12.4 weeks x 15% of the resident’s weekly rent of £122.42, with 12.4 weeks being calculated as 56 days = 8.4 weeks for the loss of hot water, plus 4 concurrent weeks between November and December for the loss of water altogether.
2. £10 for the missed appointment on 18 November 2022.
3. £200 to better reflect the stress and inconvenience caused.
The landlord is also ordered to confirm its position regarding any reimbursements for personal expenses (such as his kettle and launderette costs) accrued while the resident while the resident had no water supply and whether it will be making any payment regarding this.

The repairs to the resident’s kitchen

In its complaint responses, the landlord again acknowledged that there had been unacceptable delays in completing repairs to the resident’s kitchen. It offered the resident an apology and £360 compensation (as detailed above) for the resident’s time and trouble and the distress and inconvenience. While the landlord advised it could only consider records going back 12 months, it should have used its discretion to expand this scope, especially considering it acknowledged in its complaint responses that repair orders relating to the kitchen repairs had been raised as far back as 2019.
It was appropriate that the landlord significantly increased its compensation offer in its stage 2 response, offering a further £2,040. This included £120 for missed appointments, £600 for unspecified “service failure” and £1200 under right to repair. While it was appropriate that the landlord attempted to provide a breakdown of its compensation award, its explanations were too vague, with the terms “service failure” and “right to repair” being too broad and not adequately explaining exactly what the failures identified were. Also, despite a further 7 months elapsing between the landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses, its final offer did not appear to take into account any further time and trouble or distress and inconvenience the resident would have been caused, despite it acknowledging that repairs remained outstanding.
From the evidence available, there are concerns regarding the landlord’s overall management of the kitchen repairs. Its records indicate that repairs were raised but not actioned and while its complaint blamed some of the delay on a backlog of work caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, this only goes so far to explaining why the works were not completed sooner. It also made reference to referring the kitchen repairs to its planned works department, but from the records seen it is unclear precisely when, or if, this actually happened and, if so, what action that team then took. Instead, further orders appear to have been raised to replace a certain number of tiles, whereas the resident was adamant that all the tiles needed replacing, along with the rest of the kitchen.
It is of concern that the landlord’s repair records do not include evidence of any formal assessment of the kitchen, to fully establish whether a renewal was necessary or not. Carrying out an assessment would have enabled it to better manage the resident’s expectations, whatever its findings or final position may have been. It is also noted that, from the records available, the landlord did make attempts to carry out repairs to the kitchen, particularly in the months prior to its stage 2 complaint response, only for the resident to refuse them as they did not match his expectations. The landlord therefore is not entirely at fault for some of the delays. Additionally, from its update to this Service prior to this determination, it is unclear if the landlord is aware the resident has since renewed the kitchen himself almost a year ago and the works no longer appear to be needed. This raises concerns over the landlord’s oversight of the repair issues as a whole.
However, while the resident’s frustration at the delays is understood, there is no indication he sought permission from the landlord, as per the terms of his tenancy agreement, before pressing ahead with the kitchen renewal and meeting those costs himself. Although there is no indication the landlord has been asked to reimburse those costs as compensation, under right to repair or any other similar scheme, the Ombudsman notes it has no obligation to do so.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, while the landlord’s revised offer of compensation went a long way towards “putting things right” for the resident, the fact it did not acknowledge the additional delays after the stage 1 response and the further time, effort and distress the resident would have been caused, means it cannot be said to constitute reasonable redress in the circumstances. The Ombudsman has therefore made a finding of service failure and orders the landlord to pay an increased amount of compensation that better reflects the detriment caused.

The request to be rehoused to a bigger property

Records show the resident applied to the landlord’s internal transfer list in 2017. He gave his reasons for wanting to move as “overcrowding”. There is no indication that the application was mishandled at this time and in any case, in accordance with paragraph 42.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this investigation will not consider complaints which have not been brought to the Ombudsman within 12 months of them occurring. This investigation will instead consider how the landlord responded once the resident again expressed his desire to move to a larger property within his complaint.
From the information available, the landlord appeared to respond reasonably. In correspondence with the resident and via its complaint responses, it provided reasonable advice regarding rehousing options and clarified that it no longer operated an internal transfer list. Its advice to register with the local authority and mutual exchange schemes was reasonable and aimed to provide alternative solutions to his overcrowding. Although the tone of its stage 1 response, which clarified it had “no obligation” to move him, could have been more empathetic, it reasonably sought to manage his expectations.
The Ombudsman notes the resident’s concerns regarding the size of his property and understands his desire to move to a larger home. However, it is also acknowledged that there is a shortage of social housing and vacant properties are hard to come by. On the evidence seen, its response to the resident’s rehousing requests were reasonable, as was the advice it provided. As such, there was no maladministration by the landlord regarding its handling of his request to move properties.

The resident’s complaint and concerns about potential discrimination

In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord offered £120 compensation for its poor complaint handling. However, this was less than the Ombudsman would have expected to see in the circumstances as there were issues with the landlord’s complaint handling throughout.
It initially appeared to treat the complaint informally, advising him by email on 8 November that the complaint had been closed, but not advising him of any rights to escalate his complaint or clarifying what stage the response was provided at. It then took a further 2 months to formally register the complaint at stage 1, following further contact from the resident, his representative and this Service. This was inappropriate.
While its stage 1 response was then issued in a timely manner, its breakdown of the compensation offer was vague (it did explain what the “x 12” related to) and it then failed to appropriately escalate the complaint when requested. Over a month elapsed before the request was formally acknowledged which was not appropriate.
Having escalated the complaint in March 2023, it was then a further 8 months before the landlord provided its stage 2 response, significantly outside its target timeframe of 20 working days. The reasons for such a delay are unclear, and it is evident that the resident was caused time and trouble in chasing its response, eventually contacting this Service who intervened on his behalf in August 2023. While the landlord did at one stage contact the resident with an update and request more time to send the response, this was already over 6 months into the process.
Overall, the landlord’s offer of £120 does not adequately reflect the level of failing in its complaint handling and does not constitute reasonable redress. The Ombudsman also has concerns regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s accusations of discrimination (relayed by his representative in the complaint escalation request). It is noted that the landlord asked for further evidence of this and for specific examples to be provided and there is no indication that any was provided above and beyond the anecdotal incidents cited by the representative in the escalation request.
However, while the landlord’s complaint response stated it took the comments seriously and it was sorry the resident felt he had been “treated unfairly”, there is no indication – either within the brief way it referred to the issue in its stage 2 response, or in the records seen by this Service – that it carried out any further enquiries or investigation into the matter.
While it is appreciated that it would be hard for the landlord to investigate when there was a lack of easily identifiable incidents reported, it should nonetheless have done more to look into the issue, so the resident could be confident that it had taken his concerns seriously. It could have spoken to him in more detail to better understand his concerns, rather than asking him simply to supply more evidence, particularly given that instances of discrimination may not be clear cut. This meant the landlord missed the opportunity to take steps that may have gone some way to restoring the landlord/tenant relationship.
Overall, while the Ombudsman has not seen indication that it did discriminate against the resident, its response to the concerns raised was inappropriate. In addition to its other complaint handling failures, the Ombudsman has made a finding of service failure and will order the landlord to pay an increased amount of compensation that better reflects the distress and inconvenience caused.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord regarding:
1. The reported issues with the water supply in the property.
2. The repairs to the resident’s kitchen.
3. The handling of the complaint and its response to concerns about potential discrimination.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration regarding the request to be rehoused to a bigger property.

Reasons

The compensation offered did not reflect the distress and inconvenience the resident and his family would have been caused by water supply issues. While the original cause of the supply issues was outside its control, its response did not adequately address the detriment and disruption this would have caused.
The delays to the kitchen repairs were significant and for the most part remain unexplained. While its final compensation offer went some way to recognising the level of failure, it did not appear to account for the additional delay that had occurred between its stage 1 and 2 responses.
The landlord appeared to address the resident’s request to move a property reasonably and provided appropriate advice regarding his options.
There were delays in progressing the complaint right the way through the landlord’s procedure, which were not adequately resolved through its final offer of compensation. Additionally, its response to the concerns raised about potential discrimination was poor and the resident would not have felt ‘heard’.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. Apologise to the resident regarding its failure to properly consider his concerns regarding potential discrimination. It should also contact him to see if he requires any reasonable adjustments regarding his chosen methods of correspondence and communication going forward.
2. Pay the resident further compensation of £767.70. This consists of:
  1. £437.70 to better reflect its handling of the water supply issues.
  2. An additional £200 to better reflect the further delays and time and trouble related to the kitchen repairs.
  3. An additional £130 to better reflect the complaint handling failings.
3. The awards are in addition to, rather than instead of, any offer previously made by the landlord during its complaint procedure.
4. The landlord will contact the resident to confirm its position regarding whether it will reimburse any costs accrued during the periods he was without water and hot water at the property, as it had said it would consider. It should also inform this Service of its position.
The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.