London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202228094)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228094

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

21 June 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 is about the landlord’s handling of repairs following a disrepair claim from the resident.
The Ombudsman has also considered:
1. The landlord’s complaint handling.
2. The landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat. The landlord’s records show that the resident is an older person, with mental health needs.
The resident instructed solicitors who sent a letter of claim to the landlord, under the Pre-action Protocol for Disrepair Claims, in March 2021. The letter claimed that defects with the structure of the property was causing disrepair within the property.
The disrepair claim was settled by the parties’ solicitors on 3 June 2021, on terms. The landlord paid £1,200 in damages and committed to completing agreed repairs within 90 days. The resident told the Ombudsman that the landlord was initially slow to start the agreed works. The landlord’s contractor stopped attending the property in November 2021. All repairs were not completed.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 18 June 2022. The resident stated that he rang the contractor multiple times after works stopped. The contractor did not respond to any of the messages he left. The resident said that the landlord should have told him if its contractor was not going to finish the work. It should have arranged for another contractor to complete the repairs as soon as possible. The landlord had left him without any kitchen units since November 2021. The resident stated that this was unreasonable. To remedy the complaint the resident said the landlord should complete the outstanding repairs. The Ombudsman understands the remaining works included:
1. Kitchen: Installation of a perko (which the Ombudsman understands to be a concealed door closure), a heat detector, and a new kitchen. New flooring and decorations.
2. Bedroom: Sealing of the walls and decorations.
3. Bathroom: New flooring and a replacement bath panel.
4. Living room: Plaster repairs and decorations. Removal of gas fire.
5. Front door: Renewal of a foam strip to resolve drafts and repairs to the door stile.
6. External: Sealing of walls following pointing works.
The landlord sent a stage 1 acknowledgement on 27 June 2022. The landlord stated that its surveyor would make contact with the resident as soon as there was an update. The landlord has stated that it issued the stage 1 response on 22 July 2022. The landlord’s records show that it issued the resident with a £25 shopping voucher around this time.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 9 August 2022, because he had received no response from the landlord’s surveyor. The resident stated that the landlord had not abided by its own complaint policy.
The landlord logged the stage 2 complaint and sent an acknowledgement on 18 August 2022. It committed to providing a full response within 20 working days. The landlord issued a further stage 2 acknowledgement on 10 May 2023, following intervention from the Ombudsman.
The landlord issued the stage 2 response on 23 May 2023. The landlord:
1. Apologised for its delay in issuing the stage 2 response.
2. Stated that it was unable to comment on some aspects of the resident’s complaint, as these related to the resident’s legal disrepair case. It said, legal matters could not be considered under the landlord’s complaint process.
3. Said it was evident that many of the issues surrounding the complaint were due to communication problems. It noted that the resident and its surveyor both felt there had been significant difficulties in contacting one another.
4. Commented that its contractor had been disappointed by the number of missed appointments. It suggested this had delayed completion of the works.
5. Recognised that there had been discrepancies with the sizing of the kitchen cabinets and the countertop during the installation of the new kitchen, but its surveyor had come to an agreement with the resident about this. It understood that the resident had been satisfied with the outcome of the kitchen. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns that delays completing the repairs to the kitchen had caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
6. Clarified that as of May 2023, around 90% of the repairs had been completed. The remaining repairs would take around 2 days to complete. It said, all that was now required was for the resident to arrange an appropriate time for the final contractor to attend. Its surveyor would oversee completion of the remaining repairs.
7. Noted that the resident had asked the landlord to give him 24 hours’ notice before carrying out repairs. The landlord said it was unfeasible to “only provide a 24-hour timeframe”, due to the way it allocated repairs. This would also be unfair to its contractors, who required adequate notice for scheduling repairs and allocating resources.
8. Recognised that the resident had described himself as vulnerable. It empathised how stressful it must have been for the resident to manage the situation on top of his mental health needs. To support the resident, it would put a flag on the resident’s file, which would ensure that higher priority was allocated to future repairs.
9. Noted that the resident had been offered a £25 shopping voucher as compensation for his experience at stage 1. To remedy the complaint, the landlord offered a further £280 compensation, which was broken down as follows:
  1. £40 compensation in recognition of the distress caused to the resident arising from delays completing repairs to the property.
  2. £40 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused to the resident arising from delays completing repairs to the property.
  3. £100 in recognition of the resident’s time and effort progressing the substantive matters of complaint.
  4. £100 compensation in respect of complaint handling delay.
The resident told the Ombudsman on 11 June 2024, that the outstanding repairs were completed in June 2023, with the exception of some works to the external wall. The resident has stated that he remains dissatisfied with the amount of compensation the landlord offered.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs following a disrepair claim from the resident.

Issues with the landlord’s approach to repairs was highlighted in the Ombudsman’s July 2023 special report on the landlord. This case predates the special report. During its investigation, the Ombudsman noted similar issues with the landlord’s handling of repairs in this case, to those issues noted by the Ombudsman in the special report. The Ombudsman is aware that the landlord has since put in place an action plan to improve its approach to repairs handling.
According to the memorandum of agreement signed by the parties’ solicitors on 3 June 2021, the landlord was required to complete agreed repairs within 90 days. The evidence shows that the landlord raised several works orders between March 2021 and August 2021, referenced “legal disrepair”. The resident has told the Ombudsman that there was a long delay between the settlement being reached and the landlord starting the repairs. The resident claims that once the works began, they initially progressed well. The landlord carried out regular inspections of the works, which was likely to have given the resident reassurance.
The resident states that the landlord found a new patch of damp behind the kitchen units in November 2021. To treat the damp, the landlord removed the kitchen units, leaving him with just a cooker, a fridge, and a table for a kitchen. The contents of his kitchen had to be stored in the living room due to limited space within the property. The resident claims that the landlord’s contractor told him that once the plaster had dried, it would return to redecorate, install the kitchen units, and complete the remaining works, but the landlord’s contractor never returned.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 6 December 2021, stating that damp works to the kitchen was now underway. The landlord stated that the kitchen would be out of action for the duration of the works and during refurbishment. The landlord stated that these works would take about 8 to 12 weeks to complete, during which time the resident had agreed to stay with friends and family. The landlord also commented that the resident had agreed to provide access to its contractor on a daily basis.
The landlord’s records between 7 December 2021 and 20 April 2022 are silent, which has restricted the Ombudsman’s ability to establish exactly what happened and when. The resident states that over this period, he contacted the landlord’s contractor multiple times asking for updates. He never received a response. The resident stated that he was left without a fully functioning kitchen, the contents of his kitchen in the living room, and uncertain as to when the works would be completed. This was unfair. Given the terms of the settlement, the Ombudsman would have expected to have seen evidence of the landlord tracking the outstanding works, to ensure their timely completion. There was no evidence that the landlord attempted to expedite the repairs until mid-April 2022. This was troubling and suggests that there was an inadequate level of oversight by the landlord over completion of the works.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 25 April 2022, explaining that a different contractor would be making contact, who would arrange to complete the outstanding repairs. The evidence suggests that the landlord’s contractor tried phoning the resident, but the resident did not respond. The landlord has not evidenced what attempts its contractor’s made to book an appointment with the resident. This has prevented the Ombudsman from being able to assess the extent of any unavoidable delay.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, if the landlord was aware that its contractor was struggling to make contact with the resident, the landlord ought to have taken some decisive action and contacted the resident itself. As a minimum, it could have fixed an appointment date and confirmed this in writing to the resident. As the landlord suspected that the resident was not in occupation of the property, it might have considered attending the property unannounced and leaving a calling card. If the resident did not respond, the landlord could have considered appropriate next steps.
The resident contacted the landlord several times between 18 June 2022 and 22 July 2022, asking the landlord to confirm when the works were likely to resume. On each occasion, the landlord told the resident that it had passed the resident’s queries onto its surveyor who would phone him back. It would have been reasonable to have expected the landlord’s surveyor to have called the resident back, rather than delegating this task to another member staff several days later, who then left the resident a voice mail.
The resident emailed the landlord on 31 July 2022. The resident said that he had tried to call the landlord’s surveyor back several times and had left messages. Its surveyor had not called him back. He explained that he was still storing his kitchen contents in the living room while he waited for the landlord to fit the kitchen units. This was making the room difficult to navigate and was also affecting his mental health. The resident pointed out that the landlord had not inspected the property to see the conditions that he had been left in. He hoped that someone would at least replace the kitchen units, so he was able to function properly. He suggested that he was being ignored and said he was in despair of the situation. There is no evidence that the landlord responded. Again, this is a concern.
After the resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint on 9 August 2022, the landlord’s complaints team apologised for the inconvenience caused and stated that it would ask its surveyor to get back to him. There was no evidence that the landlord’s surveyor contacted the resident. Instead, the landlord’s surveyor sent an email the same day to its contractor, asking it to email the resident to set a date to complete the works. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not provide an update itself. This suggests a lack of empathy for the resident’s situation and further compounded the resident’s feeling of being ignored.
It was further noted, that in its email to its contractor on 9 August 2022, the landlord commented that the resident had been phoning in every day. The Ombudsman has been unable to verify this from the landlord’s records. Either the landlord did not provide evidence of all its communications with the resident, or there was an issue with its record keeping.
The resident emailed the landlord on 18 August 2022, expressing further concern, that despite promises made, its surveyor had still not phoned him back. The resident said he was angry, frustrated, depressed, and felt fobbed off. The landlord responded to the resident 7 working days later, stating that its contractors had been trying to make contact with him by phone, email, and letter, but he had not responded. After the resident refuted this, the landlord’s contractor confirmed that the landlord had instructed it not to send any letters, because it suspected that the resident was not occupying the property. The Ombudsman is concerned that the landlord appears to have given misleading information to the resident regarding its attempts to set an appointment date.
The resident emailed the landlord on 26 August 2022, confirming that he had now spoken to its surveyor, who told him that it would arrange for its contractor to phone him in 5 minutes to arrange an appointment. It would have been better had the landlord secured an appointment date from its contractor itself, which could have been agreed later with the resident. The resident said that its contractor did not phone him, which he found frustrating.
The landlord’s contractor told the landlord on 31 August 2022, that it had tried to call the resident several times but there had been no answer. The landlord’s surveyor responded constructively, by emailing the resident and asking him to book a date for the remaining works. In view of the continued communication issues between the parties, the landlord ought to have considered fixing a date for the works and then given the resident fair notice.
There was an email exchange on 1 September 2022 between the landlord’s contractor and the resident. The resident confirmed that he was living at the property. The resident suggested that its contractor set a date and a time, and he would make himself available. He just needed 24 hours’ notice. The resident asked for all future communications to be by email, which would afford both parties with a clear record of their contact. Following this, the landlord’s contractor emailed the resident, stating that it would attend the property on 10am on 19 September 2022.
The resident emailed the landlord on 5 September 2022, suggesting that there was a lack of urgency by its contractor to complete the repairs. He asked the landlord to bring the appointment forward, in view of the length of time he had already waited for the works to be completed. There is no evidence that the landlord responded. Again, this is a concern.
The resident claims to have tried to contact the landlord and its contractor to check if the appointment would go ahead on 19 September 2022, after a national bank holiday was announced for the Queens funeral. The Ombudsman has been unable to verify this from the evidence seen. The resident has stated that neither the landlord nor its contractor responded.
The landlord’s contractor informed the landlord that it was unable to access the property on 19 September 2022. It did not confirm what time it attended. The resident later told the landlord that he had waited in until 12 noon. He said when its contractor did not arrive, he assumed the appointment had been cancelled. Since the appointment was booked for 10am, the Ombudsman considers it reasonable to conclude that the contractor may have been late for the appointment.
The landlord’s contractor later informed the landlord that it had no further interest in completing works to the property, due to confusion about appointments, contact, and missed appointments. This was unfortunate and added further delays. The landlord’s records show that it tried to expedite completion of the works by raising a new works order with a different contractor on 4 October 2022. The resident was notified of this in a timely manner. But again, the landlord left responsibility for fixing an appointment date with its contractor and the resident. Given the history, this was a risk.
The landlord’s records are silent between 7 October 2022 and 1 December 2022. The Ombudsman notes that work to the property resumed in December 2022.
The evidence shows that the landlord raised a work order with its heating contractor on 2 December 2022, to remove the gas fire. The Ombudsman notes that it was 12 weeks before the landlord made enquiries with its heating contractor about the progress of the job. Its contractor confirmed that it had been phoning the resident, but it had not received a response. While it was positive that the landlord was monitoring completion of the works order, the landlord ought to have sought an update from its contractor in a timelier manner. Had it done so, it would have realised that it had not told its contractor that the resident’s preferred method of contact was by email. Ultimately, this led to unnecessary delay arranging agreed work.
The resident emailed the landlord on 4 December 2022, stating that its new contractor could not complete the work to the kitchen, as the landlord had not ordered enough kitchen units. The evidence suggests that there was some dispute between the parties over how many kitchen units should have been ordered. It was positive that the landlord’s surveyor inspected the property on 12 December 2022, to resolve the matter.
According to the resident, the remaining works resumed during the week commencing 30 January 2023. However, a new water leak in the bathroom and new patch of damp in the kitchen had to be resolved before works could be completed. This was unfortunate and was likely to have created unavoidable delay in the landlord completing the agreed works. However, it has not been possible to quantify from the evidence seen, the extent to which any subsequent delay may have been unavoidable. The resident also claimed that several appointments arranged to complete the outstanding repairs were not honoured. Again, the Ombudsman could not verify this from the available evidence.
The resident told the Ombudsman that the landlord completed all the agreed repairs on 13 June 2023, with the exception of some follow-on works to the external wall. The landlord’s contractor issued a completion report on 16 June 2023. The works were post inspected by the landlord on 12 July 2023. The resident refused to sign the completion report. However, the landlord’s notes reflect that the resident “was not 100% happy but was still very happy”.
Contrary to the terms of the settlement agreement, the landlord significantly exceeded the 6-week window for completing the agreed works. The Ombudsman accepts that the landlord identified new patches of damp and mould and new leaks in the property which needed to be treated and resolved before all the works could be completed. The Ombudsman also accepts that difficulties contacting the resident would have had a bearing on the speed at which the repairs were completed.
However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was an inadequate level of oversight by the landlord over completion of the works and its contractors. There was a lack of proactive effort by the landlord to ensure that the works were progressed in a timely manner. The landlord’s communication with the resident was inadequate, which caused the resident continued distress and uncertainty. The resident was left without a fully functioning kitchen for around 18 months, despite the resident repeatedly explaining the impact this was having on his mental health. During this time, the resident lost some enjoyment and amenity of the kitchen and living room. The resident found himself having to repeat himself over and over again to different staff and contractors before the repairs were eventually completed.
On balance, when considered cumulatively, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs following a disrepair claim from the resident. The landlord has acknowledged some failings and has made an attempt to put things right, but the offer of compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified by the Ombudsman’s investigation.
As a remedy, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation, which reflects the resident’s inconvenience, and the impact caused to the resident arising from the loss of enjoyment and amenity of the kitchen and living room. The Ombudsman has calculated the compensation payable to be based upon 30% of the estimated rent between December 2021 and June 2023. The Ombudsman makes a separate order for compensation, in recognition of the impact caused to the resident from inadequacies in the landlord’s communications over the same period.

The landlord’s complaint handling

Issues with the landlord’s complaint handling was also highlighted in the Ombudsman’s July 2023 special report. The Ombudsman has identified similar issues with the landlord’s complaint handling in this case, to those identified in the special report. The Ombudsman is aware that the landlord has since put in place an action plan to improve its complaint handling.
The landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with a copy of the complaint policy that was in operation at the time the resident raised the stage 1 complaint. However, the Ombudsman’s 2022 Complaint Handling Code (the Code), states that landlords must acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and provide a full response within 10 working days of the landlord’s acknowledgement.
The landlord has provided the Ombudsman with a copy of its complaint policy dated February 2023, which states that the landlord will acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 2 working days. It will issue a full response at stage 2 within 20 working days of its acknowledgement. The landlord’s complaint policy was revised in August 2023. This complaint policy stated that the landlord could not consider matters where a claim form or particulars of claim had been filed at court.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint within expected timescales under the Code. While the landlord claims it issued the stage 1 response on 22 July 2022, communications between the resident and the landlord around this time do not support this. If the landlord did issue a stage 1 response, a copy of this was not shared with the Ombudsman.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 18 August 2022, after being chased several times by the resident. This was 5 working days outside of the landlord’s own expected timescales under its policy. The landlord did not issue the stage 2 response within 20 working days of its acknowledgement. It is noted that the landlord did not issue the stage 2 response until 9 months later, after intervention from the Ombudsman. During this time the substantive matters of complaint remained unresolved, which was inappropriate.
The Ombudsman is troubled by several aspects of the landlord’s stage 2 response. For example, it stated that the resident wanted the landlord to give him 24 hours’ notice before completing repairs to the property. The landlord said that it was unable to offer the resident this option, due to the way it allocated repairs to its contractors. It is the Ombudsman’s understanding from the evidence seen, that the resident was in fact asking the landlord to fix a date to complete the repairs. Provided that he was given at least 24 hours’ notice, he would make himself available. The Ombudsman suggests that the landlord’s complaint handler misinterpreted the resident.
The landlord told the Ombudsman within its evidence bundle, that its contractors did not always give notice. This was a concern, since landlords are required under Section 11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, to give reasonable notice before entering a property to carry out repairs. Reasonable notice is usually considered to be at least 24 hours unless access is required in an emergency. The Ombudsman was encouraged to see the landlord’s website now states that it will give a resident at least 48 hours’ notice before completing repairs.
The landlord also said that it was unable to consider parts of the resident’s complaint, in view of his legal disrepair case. Yet the landlord’s complaint policy, in operation at the time of the stage 2 response, did not state that this was a reason for not considering a complaint. In addition, the resident’s claim for disrepair had been settled more than a year and a half prior to this, outside of any legal proceedings. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord has since updated its complaint policy to reflect the requirements of the Code.
The Ombudsman is also committed to highlighting good complaint handling practices. In this case, the landlord recognised during its stage 2 investigation, that the resident declared himself to have vulnerabilities and sought advice from its safeguarding team. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord responded proactively by adding an alert onto its housing management system, highlighting the nature of those vulnerabilities. The Ombudsman was encouraged by this.
The landlord does not dispute that there was delay in its complaint handling. The landlord has apologised for this and offered to put things right by awarding compensation. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s offer of compensation in respect of its complaint handling was not proportionate to the failings identified by the Ombudsman’s investigation.
When considered cumulatively, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s record keeping

Issues with the landlord’s record keeping was also highlighted in the Ombudsman’s July 2023 special report. The Ombudsman has identified similar issues with the landlord’s record keeping in this case, to those identified in the special report. The Ombudsman is aware that the landlord has since put in place an action plan to improve its record keeping.
While the Ombudsman was able to determine this case based on the evidence provided, there were noticeable gaps and omissions in the landlord’s records, as highlighted throughout this report. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contact and evidence of its actions relating to each casefile, which can be provided to the Ombudsman upon request.
Landlords who fail to create and record information accurately, risk missing opportunities to identify that its actions were wrong or inadequate and contribute to inadequate communication and redress. Overall, the landlord’s record keeping, and information management was inadequate, which made the Ombudsman’s investigation more difficult.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs following a disrepair claim from the resident.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

The landlord must write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
The landlord must pay compensation of £3,179 directly to the resident. This compensation is reduced to £2,899, if the landlord has already paid the £280 compensation it previously offered. This compensation had been determined in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and is broken down as follows:
1. £2,619 compensation, in recognition of the loss of enjoyment and loss of amenity caused to the resident, arising from delays in the landlord completing agreed repairs.
2. £360 compensation, in recognition of the inconvenience and uncertainty caused to the resident by inadequacies in the landlord’s communications.
3. £200 compensation, in recognition of the resident’s distress, time and trouble, caused by failures in the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord must arrange to inspect the external wall of the property, to establish if any further works are necessary to seal the wall. The landlord must write to the resident explaining its findings. Where additional works are identified, it must set out a timeline for completing the works. Works must be completed within a reasonable timeframe.
The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above orders, within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.