London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202221083)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202221083

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

8 July 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 the resident’s reports of repairs.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord in a 5 bedroom house. Her tenancy started in October 2022, as part of a mutual exchange. The landlord told this Service it did not have any recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. The evidence indicates the resident considers her son to be vulnerable, due to additional support needs.
On 12 November 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to make a complaint about the conditions of her property. She listed various repairs issues and expressed a concern that she had asked for surveyor to inspect her property, but had not heard anything. The repairs she reported were:
1. Since she had moved in there were 2 leaks from the shower.
2. The windows had no locks or safety catches, and needed replacing due to being “broken” and there were “large gaps” allowing drafts in.
3. The internal doors throughout the property had missing handles, or they were damaged.
4. Several electrical sockets were not working, and she wanted to have the electrics tested.
The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 1 December 2022, and said it had passed the electrical repair to its major works team. The team would be in touch to book the repair, “shortly”. It stated it had raised a repair for the windows, and would provide an update as soon as it had more information. It upheld the resident’s complaint.
The resident contacted the landlord on 8 December 2022 and stated she was unhappy because not all of the issues complained about were addressed in its response. The landlord contacted the resident, through her local councillor, on 30 December 2022, and offered £100 in compensation for the repairs issues, and the fact it had not completed an inspection ahead of the mutual exchange.
The resident contacted the landlord to report her kitchen worktop was “rotten” on 4 January 2023.
The landlord attended to complete repairs to the windows on 13 January 2023. The operative who attended was unable to complete the repairs, and reported the windows needed replacing. The landlord completed works to the electric sockets on 18 January 2023.
The resident contacted the landlord on 7 March 2023, and asked her complaint to be taken to stage 2. She said it was “appalling” that she had not been contacted since January 2023 about the windows, when the operative told her they needed replacing.
The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 5 April 2023. It upheld the resident’s complaint and set out its position in relation to the repairs, and said:
1. It had now completed the electrical repairs.
2. The resident had reported a leak in the bathroom in November 2022, and it fixed a radiator on 25 November 2022. It had attended to a report of “water ingress” on 16 December 2022.
3. It apologised for the delay in progressing with the window replacement, it planned to complete an interim repair on 28 April 2022.
4. It was planning to replace the “rotten” worktop in the kitchen, but it was only prepared to repair the base units, and would not replace them as the resident has requested.
5. It offered the resident a total of £250 in compensation, made up of:
  1. £100 in recognition of “lack of response” after she had raised concerns following its stage 1 complaint response.
  2. £70 for time and effort.
  3. £80 for distress and inconvenience.

Events after the complaints procedure

The resident contacted this Service on 18 April 2023 and asked us to investigate her complaint. She said that she was unhappy with the landlord’s position on the kitchen units. She was unhappy that the landlord’s final complaint response did not address the leak from her shower. She said she had been “complaining for 6 months” about the issue, and it was still leaking.
The landlord fitted new handles and latches to the internal doors on 20 April 2023. The landlord attended to complete an interim repair to the windows on 28 April 2023, and “referred the windows to planned maintenance”. It is unclear what interim repairs it completed at the time.
The landlord replaced the windows throughout the property in January 2024.
The evidence indicates the landlord fitted a new bathroom in the property in early 2024, the exact date is unclear. The resident reported to this Service that it was fitted in March 2024.
The resident contacted this Service on 11 June 2024, and stated the shower was still leaking, and she had been given an appointment for July 2024 for it to inspect the leak. She stated that she was unhappy the landlord was only sending a plumber, as she was concerned damage to the floor needed inspecting by a surveyor.

Assessment and findings

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, and keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water and sanitation. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for the drains, gutters, and external pipes of the property.
The repairs policy that the landlord provided for this investigation does not include target timeframes for responding to different repairs. The residents’ repairs handbook on its website states that it attends to emergency repairs within 24 hours and for “all non emergency repairs” it arranges a “mutually convenient appointment”.

Scope of investigation

When the resident asked this Service to investigate her complaint, in April 2023, she raised a concern that the landlord’s handling of the repairs had impacted on her health and mental wellbeing. The serious nature of this is acknowledged and we do not seek to dispute the resident’s comments. However, this aspect of the resident’s complaint ultimately requires a determination of liability for personal injury. Claims of personal injury, including damage to health, can be considered via a landlord’s public liability insurance or in a court of law. Such claims will take into consideration medical evidence and allegations of negligence. These matters fall outside of the Ombudsman’s remit.
The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim, if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.
The resident raised a separate complaint about remedial repairs to her kitchen ceiling, following a leak. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint on this matter on 31 January 2023, and offered the resident £170 in compensation following the completion of the works in February 2023. The resident accepted the offer of compensation and did not take her complaint about this particular repair to stage 2. In order for us to be able to investigate the landlord’s handling of a matter, in line with our Scheme, the landlord needs to have had the opportunity to respond as part of a complaint. We can only investigate a matter that has exhausted its complaint procedure.
As such, we have not assessed the landlord’s handling of the above issue, or the offer of redress it made. We have instead investigate the repairs the resident had complained about that have exhausted its complaints procedure.

Repairs to the windows

The evidence indicates that the landlord was on notice about repairs to the windows when she raised her complaint in November 2022. In response, the landlord appropriately passed the repair on to the relevant team to progress with an inspection. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
The landlord’s stage 1 response, of December 2022, was inappropriate in relation to the window issue. While it is noted it had raised an urgent repair to attend to the windows, which was appropriate, it offered no assessment of its handling of the matter up to that point. This was a shortcoming in its response to the issue. It is noted that landlord “upheld” the complaint. However, it gave no explanation of why it had done so, or what failings its investigation had identified. This was inappropriate.
The landlord attended to the repair on 18 January 2023, this was 2 months after it was on notice about the issue. This was an unreasonable delay that caused the resident an inconvenience. Given what was reported by the resident, a more proactive approach to the repair would have been appropriate in the circumstances. The landlord did not attend to the repair with the appropriate urgency.
The operative who attended reported that they were unable to repair the windows, and they needed replacing. We have seen no evidence to indicate that the landlord followed this up with the resident, or explained what its next steps were. This was a further failing in its handling of the matter, which increased the resident’s distress. The resident had described, in an email on 28 November 2022, that she was concerned for the safety of her children due to the condition of the windows. The operative reported that the windows had “wide gaps exposing outside elements”. That the landlord was not proactive in following up on this, given what was reported, is concerning.
The resident was cost further time and trouble, by needing to raise the issue again when she asked her complaint to be taken to stage 2 on 7 March 2023. The distress she felt is clear, as she described she was having to live through “yet another cold spell” without the issue being addressed.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, of April 2023, appropriately apologised for its handling of the window issue. It set out its position on the replacement of the windows, and that it hoped to replace them in the coming financial year as part of a programme of works. It also set out that it would complete an interim repair to improve the situation before the windows were replaced. That it sought to complete an interim repair was appropriate. However, that the interim repair was booked 3 months after it first identified the windows needed replacing amounts to an unreasonable delay.
While we welcome the fact the landlord accepted its handling of the window issue was poor, and apologised to the resident, it failed to show appropriate learning about its handling of the issue. This was inappropriate. It is noted it gave a detailed breakdown of the repair, but it did not give an explanation for the delays, or how it could have improved outcomes for the resident. The landlord missed an opportunity to reflect on its admitted failings to identify how to improve its service, and build trust with the resident.
From the evidence provided by the landlord, it is unclear whether it completed interim repairs to the windows on 28 April 2023. Its comments that it passed the works on to its maintenance team are unclear, and the records provided do not evidence what works it completed. This is a shortcoming in its record keeping in relation to the issue. While it is noted the landlord intends to replace the windows, its approach to the interim repair is of concern. Especially considering the resident’s concerns about the health and safety of her children.
It is noted that the windows were replaced in January 2024, and the matter is resolved. The resident was evidently distressed by the conditions in the property. She was cost considerable time and trouble by needing to chase the landlord to progress with the repair. We welcome that the issue is now resolved, but its approach to the interim repair, its poor communication about the matter caused the resident an inconvenience.
That the landlord replaced the windows 1 year after its own operative advised they needed replacing and described them as exposing the resident to “outside elements” amounts to an unreasonable delay.

Leak from the shower

The evidence shows that the landlord was on notice about the shower issue from November 2022, when the resident raised it as part of her complaint. It is noted that the landlord attended twice in early November 2022 due to a report of water ingress. The records are unclear if this was due to the shower, but it is reasonable to conclude it was. While it attended within an appropriate timeframe, there is no evidence to indicate it followed up on the matter, after the resident raised her complaint. This was inappropriate, as the resident had specifically asked it to investigate the matter further. The resident experienced a disappointment of raising a repair, and the landlord not investigating within a reasonable timeframe.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, of December 2022, was silent on the resident’s concerns about the leak. This was unreasonable, and the resident was left not knowing when/if it was going to investigate the matter. This caused a further detriment to the resident.
The evidence shows that the landlord completed remedial works following the leak from the bathroom (repairing the kitchen ceiling, and replacing the bathroom floor in in February 2023). What is not clear, from the evidence provided, is whether the landlord investigated/repaired the leak around that time. This is a failing in the landlord’s handling of the matter, and a shortcoming in its record keeping. Based on the information we have available, and the resident’s later comments that the issue is persisting, it is reasonable to conclude the landlord did not conduct an appropriate investigation of the leak.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, of April 2023, was also silent on the reported leak from the shower. This was despite defining this as something the resident had complained about. This was inappropriate. The landlord did not set out what repairs it had done to the shower, or give any assessment of its handling of the matter. This was unreasonable. At this point, the resident had been waiting 5 months for a response to her concerns about the leaking shower. It is noted that the landlord set out its position in relation to the tiling in the bathroom. But, again, it did not set out when it planned to do these works, or whether it was linked to the reported leak. This was inappropriate, and lacked clarity.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response set out it that it had attended to a leak on 16 December 2022. However, the repair log indicates that the reported leak was under the sink in the kitchen and not related to the shower. Its response lacked clarity and a thorough explanation of its position on the reported leak from the shower. The frustration the resident felt at its lack of explanation and investigation of the issue is evident. When the resident asked us to investigate her complaint, in April 2023, on the leak issue she said the landlord had not addressed her concerns about the leak. She said it appeared not to have a “clue” about what repairs needed doing.
The repair log indicates that the resident continued to report the issue in May and June 2023. It is unclear, from the evidence available, what action it took at the time, but the jobs were marked as complete on the same day they were reported. The lack of recorded outcome is a further shortcoming in the landlord’s record keeping. It is reasonable to conclude the lack of thorough records about the leak impacted on the landlord’s ability to respond within a reasonable timeframe.
The resident reported to this Service, in June 2024, that the leak from the shower was ongoing. It is apparent the landlord replaced the shower in early 2024, but the evidence also indicates it had not taken appropriate action to resolve the leak. Considering its evident failings in its handling of the matter, and what the resident has recently reported, we have made an order below.

Repairs to the doors

The landlord was on notice about the repairs to the doors, when the resident raised her complaint, in November 2022. There is no evidence to indicate that the landlord took any action on the reported repair at the time. This was unreasonable, and a failing in its handling of the matter. The resident was inconvenienced by this, as she reported a repair and the landlord did not respond within a reasonable timeframe.
Considering what the resident had described in her complaint to the landlord, and a later email through her local councillor, on 28 November 2022, this is particularly concerning. The resident reported that her children had been “locked in” in the bathroom due to the handle getting stuck. Given the resident had described a potential hazard, it is concerning that the landlord was not more proactive in attending to the repair.
The landlord’s stage 1 response, of December 2022, was silent on the door issue. This was inappropriate and caused a further inconvenience to the resident. She was left not knowing when, or if, the landlord planned to attend to the repair.
The landlord’s stage 2 response stated that it planned to attend to remedy the issue with the door handles on 28 April 2023. While appropriate to set out its plan for the repair, that it offered no assessment of its handling of the matter up to that point was unreasonable. This is evidence that the landlord had not investigated the matter thoroughly, and its approach lacked learning. That the landlord offered no apology for the fact it had been on notice for 5 months without attending to the repair, was unreasonable.
The evidence shows the landlord attended to the door repair on 20 April 2023, 5 months after it was put on notice. This was an unreasonable delay and concerning given what the resident had reported. That it offered no apology or redress as part of its complaint responses was also unreasonable. The resident was inconvenienced by the need to repeatedly raise the repair, and make a complaint, before the landlord took action.

Repairs to the electrics

The evidence shows the landlord was on notice about the issue with the electrics from 1 November 2022. The landlord raised a repair, and marked the job as complete on 29 November 2022. From the records provided, it is unclear what action the landlord took at the time. This is a shortcoming in the landlord’s record keeping. The evidence indicates that the issue was still outstanding at the time the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response, in December 2022, as it had raised another repair for its major works team.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, in relation to the electrics, was inappropriate. It cited that it could not provide an update, or indicative timeframe for when the repair would go ahead. Given the concerns raised by the resident it would have been appropriate for the landlord to set out when it hoped to attend to the repair. That it said it was “unable to provide” further updates about the repair, due to it sitting with a different team, was inappropriate. The resident was evidently frustrated by the issues with the electric sockets. That it did not set out when it planned to attend to the repair caused a further detriment. Its approach did little to reassure the resident it was taking the repair seriously.
The landlord completed the repairs to the electrics on 18 January 2023. This was over 2 months after it was on notice, and an unreasonable delay. Considering it said it had raised an “urgent” repair on 1 December 2022, that the repair took another 31 working days to complete was inappropriate. The evidence indicates the landlord did not treat the repair with the appropriate urgency, which inconvenienced the resident.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, of April 2023, offered no assessment of its handling of the electrics repair, and did not show appropriate learning. The response simply cited that the repair was now complete. This was unreasonable, and evidence the landlord failed to adopt the Ombudsman’s complaint handling principle of learning from outcomes. Given the length of time it took to complete the repair, it would have been appropriate to set out learning and make an appropriate offer of redress. That it did not do so was unreasonable.

Repairs to kitchen units and worktop

The records indicate that the landlord was on notice about the repair to the kitchen worktop from 9 January 2023. There is no evidence to indicate that the landlord attended to the repair at that time, which is a shortcoming in its handling of the matter. The evidence shows that the landlord did not complete the repair until 9 May 2023 (the date it marked it as complete on the repair log).
While it is noted that there was a requirement to measure up and order a replacement worktop, a 4 month delay to replace the “rotten” kitchen worktop was unreasonable.
The landlord used its stage 2 complaint response, of April 2023, to outline its position on the repair to the worktop and units. It explained that it was not prepared to replace the units and it was of the view it could repair them. While the resident was evidently disappointed with this decision, the landlord clearly set out its position and explained its reasons to the resident. This was reasonable in the circumstances. It is noted that the landlord later decided to fit a new kitchen.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response did not set out when it hoped to complete the repairs to the units and replace the work top. This was inappropriate. Neither did it give a meaningful assessment of its handling of the matter up to that point. This was inappropriate and a further shortcoming in its handling of the issue. The resident was inconvenienced by not having her concerns about its handling of the issue addressed in any detail.

Repairs redress

Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the role of this Service 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 we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles of: be fair (follow fair processes and recognise what went wrong), put things right, and learn from outcomes.
The landlord accepted that its handling of the repairs was poor and the resident had to escalate her complaint for it to progress with some repairs. The Ombudsman welcomes the fact the landlord offered the resident compensation in order to try and put right its admitted failings. The landlord offered the resident a total of £250 for its handling of the repairs. £100 of which it offered for its failure to inspect the property ahead of the mutual exchange. It offered a further £150 at stage 2 for the “distress and inconvenience” caused by its handling of the repairs. It is not possible to determine how the compensation offered was calculated against individual repair issues. As such, this investigation has considered the overall offer of compensation and whether it fully put things right for the resident, as a whole.
We have determined its offer of £250 did not full put things right for the resident. This is because:
1. The evidence shows there was a lack of appropriate investigation into the reported leak from the shower, and at the time of its offer of redress the matter was outstanding.
2. There was a failure to identify failings in its handling of the door repair, shower leak, and electrics, in its complaint responses.
3. The lack of learning shown in its complaint responses in relation to the repairs.
4. Its silence on repairs issues raised as part of the complaint, particularly at stage 1.
Given the identified failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs, we have made a determination of severe maladministration in this complaint. The landlord’s handling of the reported leak from the shower, and repairs to the windows, are of particular concern. These matters appear to have been outstanding for a significant period of time without appropriate action being taken.
The Ombudsman considers it appropriate to require the landlord to provide financial redress which recognises the resident did not have full enjoyment of the property for a substantial period due to the various repairs. A 10% amenity loss calculation has therefore been applied. The period considered for this calculation is 12 November 2022 (when the landlord was first put on notice) to 5 April 2023, (when it issued its stage 2 complaint response). This period covers 31 weeks.
During the period covering her complaint, the resident was paying a total of £175.65 per week in rent. We have calculated 10% of the rent for the 31 week period was £544.52, and have ordered the landlord to pay that amount in recognition of the loss of amenity. While the Ombudsman acknowledges that this is not a precise calculation, this is considered to a be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation taking all of the circumstances into account.

Special investigation

The Ombudsman completed a special investigation, in July 2023, into the landlord using its systemic powers under paragraph 49 of the Scheme. It found the landlord responsible for a series of significant systemic failings impacting residents. This included findings about the landlord’s handling, including but not limited to:
1. Appointments were missed or duplicated as the landlord has no idea who had visited properties.
2. The landlord raised the same repairs on multiple occasions, often closing an issue as resolved only to reopen it when the resident got back in touch to say the issue was not resolved.
3. Residents were not kept informed of the progress of their repairs leading them to chase and complaint about issues.
Our special investigation also identified systemic failings in the landlord’s complaint handling which included not responding to all aspects of the complaint, not identifying all failings, not showing appropriate learning.
The Ombudsman required the landlord to make changes including improvements to its complaint handling and approach to repairs. Many of the failings identified by this complaint mirror the issues noted by the special investigation. As such, and in view of the age of this complaint, this Service does not make any wider order.

Complaint Handling

The landlord’s complaint policy states it operates a 2 stage procedure. Stage 1 complaint responses will be sent within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaint responses will be sent within 20 working days.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, of 1 December 2022, was sent 14 working days after it was made. This was outside of the timeframes set out in the landlord’s policy, and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), and a shortcoming in the landlord’s complaint handling. While not an excessive delay, it did not acknowledge or apologise for the delay in its response, which was inappropriate. The resident was inconvenienced by a delayed complaint response without appropriate the recognition, or redress.
The shortcomings of the content of the landlord’s stage 1 response are set out above. In summary, it failed to address all aspects of the resident’s complaint and failed to show the appropriate level of learning. This is evidence its stage 1 investigation lacked the appropriate thoroughness and it failed to adopt the complaint handling principles set out in the Code, which states a landlord must respond to all aspects of the resident’s complaint.
The resident emailed the landlord on 8 December 2022, and expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response. She said that she was unhappy the landlord had not responded to all aspects of her complaint. That it did not open a stage 2 complaint investigation at that stage was unreasonable, and a failing in its complaint handling. The resident was inconvenienced by a hard to access complaints process. The resident was cost time and trouble by needing to seek assistance from this Service, in March 2023, in order to get the landlord to open a stage 2 investigation.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was sent 82 working days after the resident first expressed dissatisfaction with its stage 1 response. It is noted that it sent its response within 20 working days of this Service asking it to open a stage 2 complaint. However, the evidence shows the resident experienced an unfair and hard to access complaints procedure.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response appropriately apologised for the lack of response following its stage 1 complaint, and offered the resident £100 in compensation. However, the complaint response failed to show an appropriate level of learning, in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles of learning from outcomes. The landlord failed to acknowledge that the resident needed to seek assistance from this Service to get a response to her stage 2 complaint. It also failed to acknowledge the shortcomings, and lack of detail, in its stage 1 response. We have therefore determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Instruct a director to apologise, in person, to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £1,744.52 in compensation. The landlord’s £350 compensation offer can be deducted from this total if already paid. The orders for compensation are broken down as follows:
  1. £544.52 in recognition of the loss of amenity caused by its handling of the repairs.
  2. £1,000 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the repairs.
  3. £200 in recognition of the inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by its complaint handling.
3. Instruct an appropriately qualified operative to inspect the resident’s property in relation to her ongoing concerns about the reported leak from the shower.