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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202221177)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202221177

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

24 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of several repair issues including the windows, garage door, fence, and boiler.
  2. The landlord’s handling of the complaint has also been considered.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, living in a house with her children.
  2. The resident raised a complaint on 21 February 2022 relating to several repair issues. She said the fence, garage door, and windows were rotten, and the windows whistled. She said the garage floods and had damaged sentimental property. There had been multiple repair issues with the boiler, and she had been left without heating or hot water. The landlord had not replaced the electrics as it advised.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 6 December 2022. It said the resident had a legal disrepair case ongoing and it had raised a job to test the electrics, but the contractor had not been able to access the property or contact the resident, so it was closed. It had re-opened the work order. It had attended to assess the garage doors and windows on 27 October 2022 and apologised it had not provided her with any updates. It had approved the quote the previous day and would contact her to arrange an appointment. It attended on 11 October 2022 to assess the whistling windows but found no faults. The complaint handler said they did not handle complaints about boilers and asked if the resident wanted to raise a new complaint. It said it had ordered the required boiler parts and it would complete the works on 8 December 2022.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 8 December 2022. She said issues had been ongoing in the property for 12 years which had caused her significant stress. She also had to redecorate and replace items numerous times due to the ongoing repair issues. She had tried to pursue the window repairs several times.
  5. On 16 January 2023 the landlord sent its stage 2 response. It said the window and electric repairs were subject to a legal disrepair case, and it was unable to consider the issues in its complaint response. The resident had subsequently reported the windows were whistling and it completed repairs on 5 April 2022. It had raised a new work order to assess the windows and it would act on the findings. It replaced the boiler gas valve on 19 December 2022. It had raised a further work order as the resident reported she had to reboot the boiler several times a day due to a recurring error code. It apologised that work orders raised in October 2022 to the garage door, garage windows, and fencing were incomplete. It was awaiting materials and would contact the resident to arrange the appointment. It offered £100 compensation for the failure to log the stage 2 complaint and the delayed response, £80 for distress and inconvenience, and £20 for time and effort.
  6. The resident referred her complaint to the Service as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s poor repair service, which had led her to stop reporting new repairs. She said the issues with the garage door and windows remained outstanding. She wanted the landlord to quickly complete required repairs and to issue an apology.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Although it is noted that there is a long history of repair reports by the resident, this investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports that were considered during the landlord’s complaint responses. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
  2. This is in line with paragraph 42c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which states we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.
  3. The resident also reported additional repair issues including plastering, the chimney breast, and a leak in her daughter’s room, which were not raised as part of her complaint. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of the Service. This is in line with paragraph 42a of the Scheme which states we may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.
  4. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.

The landlord’s handling of several repair issues including the windows, garage door, fence, and boiler

  1. In accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy, it is responsible for repairs to the structure of the property, fixtures and fittings for water, gas, electricity, heating and sanitation, and communal areas. This includes repairs to the hot and cold-water supply, heating systems, boilers, electrical wiring and sockets, window frames and sills, unsecure windows, garage doors, and boundary fences. Its policy states it will complete repairs at the earliest mutually convenient appointment.
  2. On 5 October 2022 the resident reported that the boiler kept turning off and showing an error code, and the landlord’s repair records noted it completed the repair on 10 October 2022. It is unclear what work it completed due to the limited information retained in the repair records.
  3. The resident subsequently stated in her complaint on 2 December 2022 that there had been multiple repair issues with the boiler, and she currently had no heating or hot water. She said the contractor said it was unable to repair it for a week. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it had replaced a gas valve on 19 December 2022 and had raised a further work order as the resident reported the error code was ongoing and she had to reboot the boiler several times a day. It would complete a survey if the contractor determined a replacement was necessary.
  4. It is of concern that there are no corresponding repair records to reflect the resident’s report, the repairs, or the survey. As such, it is clear there are record keeping issues. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. The Service’s knowledge and information management (KIM) report outlines that records should include all relevant information about what happened, when, and why. If the landlord does not create the information correctly, including a complete absence of information, or inaccurate and partial information, it has less integrity and cannot be relied on. In this case, there is insufficient evidence to confirm the landlord took reasonable steps to resolve the boiler repairs in full or that it correctly followed its repairs policy.
  5. The resident told the Service that a contractor subsequently identified a leak on the boiler but did not correctly raise the follow-on work, which delayed resolving the issue. She said it later condemned the boiler and completed further repairs. The landlord’s records show it attended an appointment on 23 February 2023, but there are no details about the completed works. The resident has confirmed the boiler issues are now resolved. Due to the insufficient evidence, the Service is unable to establish a clear timeline of the repairs, but it is evident the issues were ongoing for a minimum of 4 months, which is an unreasonable timeframe, particularly as the resident reported periods of no heating and hot water. The landlord’s failure to promptly act therefore caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience.
  6. On 5 October 2022 the resident reported that the living room and bedroom window frames were whistling and letting in a draught. In its complaint response the landlord said it attended on 11 October 2022 to assess the windows and did not find any faults. The landlord raised a further work order on 11 January 2023 as the resident reported the issue was ongoing despite the vents being closed and sealant being applied. The repair records show the landlord completed the job on 24 January 2023, but it is unclear what work it did to resolve the issue. As referenced above, without detailed repair records, the Service is unable to assess whether the landlord has fulfilled its repair obligations.
  7. The landlord raised a further work order on 24 November 2023. The repair records noted the previous contractor told the resident to cover the vents, but this did not resolve the issue. While such advice may have been reasonable as a temporary resolution, it does not appear the landlord addressed the underlying cause. As such, the issue was ongoing for several months. The landlord completed a further repair on 3 December 2023 to secure the loose plinth on the lounge window.
  8. It does not appear the resident chased the repairs between January and November 2023, so the landlord would not necessarily have been aware that the issue was ongoing. Nonetheless, it should have taken steps to satisfy for itself that the repair was resolved in full. The KIM report states that failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress. Due to the lack of detail in the repair records, the landlord may have missed the opportunity to identify that further works were required. This meant the repair issue was outstanding for over a year, which was an unreasonable delay.
  9. The landlord told the Service that it had scheduled window repairs for 25 June 2024. It did not provide any details of what the work entailed or how it established that further works were required. It is therefore unclear whether this was a result of a new issue or a continuation of the original repair issue. As the outcome of the appointment is unclear, an order has been made below for the landlord to provide evidence that the repairs have been completed in full or provide the resident with a clear schedule of works if any further repairs are required.
  10. The resident also reported rotting windows and doors in the garage and the landlord raised a work order on 19 October 2022. It marked the repair as completed on 31 January 2023, but again, it did not include details of the works. The resident re-raised her concerns as part of her complaint in December 2022, indicating the landlord had not put in place a full resolution. It was appropriate that the landlord apologised that it had not provided the resident with any updates following an appointment on 27 October 2022. It said it had approved the quote for the necessary work and would arrange an appointment. However, there is no evidence to confirm whether it did.
  11. The landlord raised a further work order on 22 June 2023 as the garage door was not sealing or closing properly so rainwater was entering the garage. It then completed works on 28 June 2023, 8 months after the resident initially reported the issue, which was an unreasonable delay. The resident told the Service that the issues with the garage doors and windows are outstanding. Due to the lack of detailed repair records, the Service is unable to determine whether the landlord has taken appropriate steps. An order has been made below for the landlord to address the repair. It is evident the issue has caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident, particularly as she reported the flooding had damaged her sentimental belongings.
  12. The resident also raised concerns in her complaint about fence repairs. In its stage 2 response, the landlord recognised that the repairs to the fencing were raised in October 2022, but remained outstanding. The landlord has since told the Service that it cancelled the repairs to the fence as it does not lead onto the public area. This was reasonable as it is in line with its repairs policy which states while the landlord is responsible for boundary fences, residents are responsible for repairs to dividing fences. However, the delay in identifying that the repairs fell within the resident’s remit would have delayed her from completing the necessary work.
  13. The resident told the Service that she has not further pursued the garage repair issue and additional new repair issues, as she felt exhausted with the process due to the landlord failing to promptly progress multiple repairs. This highlights why it is important to have an effective repairs service to maintain a good landlord-tenant relationship. It is recognised that landlords may not be able to meet its repair timeframes in some instances for various appropriate reasons. In such cases, the landlord’s primary focus should be on taking clear and appropriate steps to resolve the issue in a reasonable timeframe (i.e. as soon as possible), arranging temporary fixes in the interim (if possible), keeping the resident appropriately up to date, and managing their expectations. As the landlord has failed to take such steps in this case, it has had a detrimental impact on the resident’s trust in the landlord.
  14. Based on the available evidence, the landlord has failed to demonstrate that it has appropriately handled the resident’s reports of repair issues. It is evident that the landlord has not completed the required works in a reasonable timeframe. The landlord has also failed to demonstrate that it has provided regular updates to the resident or managed her expectations.
  15. The landlord acknowledged that repairs to the garage door and windows, and fencing were outstanding at the time of the stage 2 response. It offered £100 compensation, comprised of £20 for time and effort and £80 for distress and inconvenience. However, this is not proportionate due to the extensive delays identified in the report, the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and the time and trouble she spent pursuing the issues. In line with the Service’s remedies guidance, compensation of £100-£600 is appropriate in cases where the landlord has acknowledged its failings but failed to address the detriment or make a proportionate offer to the resident. As such, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident an additional £400 compensation.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The landlord recognised delays in issuing its stage 2 complaint response and offered £100 compensation. The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 8 December 2022 and the landlord issued its response on 16 January 2023, which was 4 days outside of its response timeframe. As the delay was not excessive, the compensation more than adequately compensated for the delay.
  2. The landlord stated in its stage 1 response that it was unable to assess complaints about boilers, and it asked the resident if she wanted to raise a new complaint. In accordance with the Service’s complaint handling code, landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions. The landlord’s handling of the boiler issue was therefore unreasonable as it delayed resolving the matter. It is recognised that different staff members may specialise in different complaint matters, but the landlord should have internally referred the issue to the correct department to address, before issuing its response.
  3. Furthermore, as it included the boiler issue within its stage 2 response rather than a new complaint, it only went through 1 stage of the complaint process. The resident therefore did not have the opportunity to comment on the landlord’s response or raise any additional concerns.
  4. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said the issues relating to the windows and electrics were subject to a legal disrepair case, so were not covered by its complaint process. The Service’s complaint handling code states an acceptable exclusion to the complaint process is when legal proceedings have started. This is defined as details of the claim, such as the Claim Form and Particulars of Claim, having been filed at court. The landlord has not been able to provide such evidence and told the Service that the claim was withdrawn. It was therefore unreasonable for it to exclude the matters from its complaint process, and this may have prevented resolving the issue.
  5. The landlord did not address the resident’s concerns about the damaged items due to the garage flooding in its complaint response. In line with the complaint handling code the landlord should address all points raised in the resident’s complaint. As it failed to do so, the issue is still outstanding.
  6. Although the landlord acknowledged its delays, it failed to recognise its failings in handling the resident’s complaint about the boiler repair issues, electrics, windows, and items damaged by the garage flooding. In line with the Service’s remedies guidance, an additional £250 compensation is warranted as the landlord failed to acknowledge its failings or made an attempt to put things right.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the way the landlord handled the resident’s reports of several repair issues including the windows, garage door, fence, and boiler.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the way the landlord handled the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. In addition to the £200 compensation already offered, the landlord must pay the resident:
    1. £400 for the identified failings in its handling of the repairs.
    2. £250 for its complaint handling failures.
  2. It should provide the Service with evidence of the total payment of £850.
  3. The landlord should issue an apology to the resident for the failings identified in the report. It should provide the Service with a copy of the correspondence.
  4. The landlord must inspect the garage door and windows and complete any identified repairs to resolve the issues reported by the resident. It should provide the Service with clear repair records explaining how it has resolved the repairs in full.
  5. The landlord should write to the resident to address her concerns about the items damaged by the flooding in the garage and confirm its position on the matter. It should provide the Service with a copy of the correspondence.
  6. The landlord should write to the resident and confirm whether she wants to raise a new complaint about any of the issues incorrectly excluded or not properly addressed within its complaint process, including the electrics and garage flooding. It should provide a copy of the correspondence to the Service and commit to responding to any new complaints within its complaint timeframes.
  7. The landlord should provide evidence to the Service that it has complied with the orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should review its record keeping practices to ensure it keeps full records of repairs, including the dates they are raised, attended, and completed, and details of the works completed. It should also review the Service’s KIM report.
  2. The landlord should review its staff training requirements in relation to complaint handling to prevent the issues in this case recurring, including incorrectly excluding complaint points, not addressing all matters of the complaint, and not addressing all complaint issues at both stages of its process.