London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202223130)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223130

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

3 February 2025

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 defects in her new home.
   2. Complaint.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant and she lives in a 3 bedroom flat with her children. The landlord is a housing association which owns and manages the resident’s home.
3. The property was newly built when the resident moved in around 24 January 2022. Between 31 January 2022 and 6 December 2022, the resident reported:
   1. Draughts from the front door and under her kitchen units.
   2. A smell of sewage in her bathroom.
   3. Low water pressure affecting her heating and hot water.
4. The resident complained on 3 January 2023 saying there had been issues with draughts, low water pressure and smell of sewage since she moved in.
5. On 13 January 2023, the landlord gave its stage 1 complaint response which said it had raised orders with its contractor.
6. The Ombudsman asked the landlord to escalate the resident’s complaint on 26 May 2023. On 16 June 2023, the landlord gave its stage 2 complaint response which said:
   1. Her home was still under the builder’s warranty and it had asked the builder to resolve the draughts and smell of sewage.
   2. It understood that the low water pressure had been resolved.
   3. It was sorry for the delay in recognising her complaint and offered £100 compensation for this and £305 compensation for the delayed repairs.
7. The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate. She said the defects had not been resolved. She wanted the landlord to resolve the issues and pay her compensation for the further delays.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of defects

8. The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for repairing the structure of the property, and any installations and fixtures it provides. This means the landlord is responsible for repairing the walls, front door, kitchen units and drainage pipes.
9. The landlord’s repair policy says that its new homes are covered by the builder’s warranty for 2 years. During this time, the landlord will communicate with the builder to make sure any defects are resolved.
10. After 2 years, its new homes are covered by the National House Building Council’s (NHBC) warranty for up to 10 years. Under this warranty, the landlord can claim for repair work needed due to defects arising from a property’s construction.
11. It is important to note that any warranty period does not replace the landlord’s obligations. The landlord remains responsible for keeping the property in repair during the warranty period.
12. The landlord sent us its repair log for the resident’s home. It gives a list of the dates orders were raised, a brief description of the work required, the status of the orders, and dates when orders were completed. It does not include details of when contractors or the builder attended or what work, if any, was done.
13. We have relied on the resident’s account of events and correspondence exchanged between her and the landlord to establish what work the landlord did and when.
14. The evidence shows the landlord followed its policy in referring most of the resident’s reports to the builder during the warranty period. Sometimes, the landlord asked its contractor to investigate before it referred defects to the builder. For example, it asked its contractor to investigate the sewage smell in October 2022 and January 2023. It was reasonable that the landlord wanted to make sure the issues reported were defects before referring them to the builder.
15. However, the landlord has not demonstrated that it followed its policy in respect of all the resident’s reports. For example, on 23 May 2022, the resident emailed reporting the draughts and sewage smell. The email was not recorded on the landlord’s contact log at the time and there is no evidence it responded or took any steps to deal with the issues. As such, there were failings in the landlord’s handling of the report and in its record keeping.
16. The evidence suggests a reactive approach where the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports in isolation. For example, the resident reported the draughts and sewage smell 3 times between 30 September 2022 and 5 December 2022. The landlord raised orders with its contractor to investigate. However, there is no evidence that it recognised the resident had made previous reports or that the issues had been ongoing for some time.
17. After the resident complained, on 12 January 2023, the landlord raised further orders for its contractor to investigate the draughts and smell of sewage. The contractor later told the landlord:
    1. The front door was draughty because the threshold bar was faulty and needed replacing.
    2. The draughts in the kitchen were due to plasterboard not being installed behind the units during construction.
    3. The smell could be being caused by a defective joint on the communal drainage system.
18. The landlord again referred the defects to the builder. This suggests that the landlord considered the issues to be defects which the builder should rectify.
19. There is no evidence of the landlord actively overseeing progress in resolving the defects it referred to the builder. We saw no evidence the landlord contacted the builder at any point to check progress or find out what work had been done. This was a failing as the landlord has obligations to keep the property in repair and should have made sure that any defects were resolved.
20. In its stage 2 complaint response of 16 June 2023, the landlord said it would escalate the issues of the draughts and sewage smell if the builder did not respond by 15 July 2023. There is no evidence the landlord did so despite the resident emailing on 24 July 2023 saying no work had been done. This was a further failing.
21. We would have expected the landlord and/or builder to inspect the resident’s home at the end of the builder’s warranty period. This is common practice to make sure that defects are resolved before the warranty ends. In this case, there is no evidence that such an inspection was done.
22. We acknowledge that the builder resolved the problem with the low water pressure around February 2023 and had previously repaired the front door in February 2022 which temporarily resolved the draught problem.
23. However, there is no evidence that the reports of the draughty door, draughts in the kitchen and sewage smell from 23 May 2022 were resolved. Nor is there evidence that the landlord repaired the resident’s ceiling after an intrusive inspection done by its contractor in March 2023. As such, the landlord has not demonstrated that it has fulfilled its repair obligations. We have made an order below for the landlord to carry out any necessary work.
24. The landlord’s failings amount to maladministration because there is no evidence it resolved the issues of the draughts and sewage smell. Further, its records do not evidence that it took reasonable steps to fulfil its repairing obligations.
25. The resident has explained the distress and inconvenience caused to her. She did not invite guests to her home because of the smell and her children complained it made them feel sick. The draughts caused discomfort and it was inconvenient to have to make multiple reports and chase progress.
26. The landlord paid £305 compensation through its complaint process. This does not reflect the distress and inconvenience since June 2023 from its continued failure to resolve the draughts and smell.
27. Having carefully considered the Ombudsman’s policy and guidance on remedies, we have ordered the landlord to pay £450 in further compensation. This appropriately recognises the distress and inconvenience for the 18 months since June 2023.
28. We have not made any orders or recommendations relating to the landlord’s record keeping failures in this case. This is because, following our special investigation in July 2023, the landlord has made changes to its approach since the events in this case. 

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

29. Under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords must:
    1. Acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days.
    2. Give a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement.
    3. Give a stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledging the escalation request.
30. On 3 January 2023, the resident contacted the Ombudsman saying she had complained to the landlord but it had not responded. It is not clear from the evidence when the resident had complained. In its later stage 2 response, the landlord concluded that it should have logged a complaint on 15 December 2022.
31. It was reasonable that the landlord acknowledged its failure to log the complaint sooner. It gave £100 compensation which the Ombudsman considers was reasonable under the circumstances.
32. After logging the complaint on 3 January 2023, the landlord gave its stage 1 response within the timescale required by the Code. Its response appropriately addressed the matters complained about and explained what the landlord would do to resolve them.
33. Similarly, after the resident escalated her complaint on 26 May 2023, the landlord gave an appropriate stage 2 response within the timescale required by the Code.
34. It appears that there was a complaint handling failure in the landlord not recognising the resident’s complaint in December 2022. The landlord acknowledged this during its complaint process and paid compensation which the Ombudsman considers was reasonable redress in the circumstances.

Determination

35. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of defects.
36. In accordance with paragraph 53. of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of her complaint which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

37. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with the following orders:
    1. Pay the resident £450 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to resolve the defects she reported. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears.
    2. Write to the resident to confirm how it intends to resolve the draughts and sewage smell. The landlord should have due regard to the findings from its contractor’s previous inspections that we have referred to in paragraph 17 of this report. It must specify the work it intends to do, including repairing the resident’s ceiling, and the timescales it will work to.
38. The landlord must use its best endeavours to complete the repairs, including repairing the resident’s ceiling, within 10 weeks of the date of this report. It should keep adequate records to show how it has done all it could reasonably do in the circumstances to comply with this order.