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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202230100)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202230100

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

20 December 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 the cleanliness and condition of the communal areas.
  2. The landlord’s complaints handling has also been considered.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the property, the landlord is a housing association. The resident has been the leaseholder since 10 December 2014. The property is a 2 bedroom flat within a block, the block has a communal entrance, hall way, and bin storage. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 4 August 2022 upon receipt of the landlord’s final service charges statement. The resident stated she had some queries about some items included in the service charge, in particular the charges for bulk waste collections, management fees, and communal cleaning. The resident complained that:
    1. She had contacted the landlord several times to report fly tipping but the landlord has not investigated who is responsible in order to charge that individual rather than the whole block for the bulky waste removal.
    2. The block does not have an appointed manager which means there is no one for residents to report repairs to and communication is poor.
    3. The communal cleaning is poor and the cleanliness of the outside space at the block is “appalling”. The resident provided photos of the cleanliness of the block.
  3. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 16 August 2022. It stated that there was no CCTV on site so it was unable to determine who was responsible for the fly tipping which meant the cost fell to all residents. The landlord advised the resident that the management fee did not just cover the cost of a housing manager for the block, but that one was now in place and a site inspection would take place in September. The landlord advised the resident that communal cleaning should occur on Thursdays, if this is not happening the resident should report this to the landlord.
  4. The resident responded on the same day and provided photographs of the communal areas to demonstrate the standard of cleanliness in the block. The resident stated:
    1. There is CCTV in the block and residents were charged for the installation of this.
    2. The landlord does not respond to the resident’s contact and she is not receiving the service the management fee covers.
    3. The communal cleaning is poor. In particular, the carpets are covered in urine and faeces from another resident’s dog.
  5. The resident sought an update on her complaint in November 2022 and provided further photographs of the communal area. The resident reiterated that the cleaning was poor, on occasions the cleaner attends to sign the cleaning record but does not clean.
  6. On 18 November 2022, the landlord wrote to all residents of the block regarding the dog nuisance and fly tipping. It provided a diary sheet and asked residents to record if and when they saw any of these actions so the landlord could check the CCTV.
  7. The resident wrote to the landlord on 9 February 2023 to report that communal cleaning had not happened for 2 weeks in a row. There was dog faeces and urine in the communal area, and the dog had urinated on the resident’s parcel. The resident asked for her email to be considered a complaint. The landlord responded on 14 February 2023 advising it would contact the cleaning contractor and dog owner, and confirmed it accepted the resident’s contact as a complaint.
  8. The resident contacted the landlord via social media and email on at least 3 occasions in February and March 2023 to report nonattendance by the cleaner, fly tipping, and rubbish in the car park. The landlord noted it attended on or around 24 May 2023 and the cleaning was in good order.
  9. On 20 May 2023, this Service contacted the landlord and requested it respond to the resident’s complaint by 27 June 2023.
  10. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 23 June 2023. It apologised for the delay in its response and cited an IT issue. It stated:
    1. It had visited recently and there was no evidence of fly tipping, the cleaning was in good order.
    2. It had tried to contact the Neighbourhood Lead for the block to ask for cleaning records and information about the monitoring of the CCTV, but it had not received a response.
    3. It acknowledged that there had been a period of time where there was no Neighbourhood Lead or manager for the block.
    4. Service charges are calculated based on previous actual expenditure plus inflation. The communal cleaning costs are based on information received from the estate services team because that is who is responsible for procuring cleaning contracts.
    5. Any further delivery issues or complaints should be reported to and investigated by the Neighbourhood Lead.
  11. The resident escalated the matter to this service because she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her concerns.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Although it is noted that there are historical reports by the resident about the cleanliness of the block to the landlord, this report will focus on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports throughout 2022 and up to the landlord stage 2 response, as this is what was considered during the landlord’s recent complaint responses.
  2. It is understood that part of the resident’s complaint is that she does not feel she is receiving value for money for the service charge paid for communal cleaning and management services. The Ombudsman cannot review complaints about or determine whether service charges are reasonable or payable. However, we can review complaints that relate to the collection of service charges or how information about service charges was communicated. This is in line with paragraph 42 .e. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states we may not consider complaints that concern the level of service charge or rent or the increase of service charge or rent.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the condition and cleanliness of the communal areas.

  1. The resident contacted the landlord on several occasions to report issues with the cleaning and condition of the communal areas of the block. She provided photographs and regular updates to the landlord. The landlord’s responses were often vague and did not reassure the resident that it was taking her concerns seriously. The evidence provided shows the matter being discussed internally by the landlord, but updates were not passed to the resident which caused frustration.
  2. The cleaning of the block is carried out by the landlord’s contractor. The resident alleged that the contractor would sign the attendance sheet but not complete the cleaning, or not attend at all. On 1 occasion, the contractor reported they did not have access to the block so could not complete the cleaning. While the actions of the contractor are outside of the control of the landlord, the landlord should have taken steps to assure itself that the contractor’s cleaning had been completed to the appropriate standard.
  3. The resident reported that another resident’s dog was urinating and defecating in the communal area in August 2022, and reiterated her concern on at least 3 occasions. The landlord wrote to other residents in the block in November 2022 regarding the issue but the resident’s reports show that this did not resolve the matter. It is not clear from the evidence provided what steps the landlord took to identify the resident and resolve the matter which caused inconvenience and distress to the resident. The landlord’s failure to act further was inappropriate.
  4. While the landlord did provide diary sheets to residents and asked them to log instances of fly tipping or dog fowling, there is no evidence that it reviewed any responses it received or took steps to act further. This was a failure of service.
  5. The resident had asked the landlord to use the CCTV to identify who was fly tipping in the block. The landlord’s assertion that there was no CCTV in the block was inappropriate. The landlord’s response was factually incorrect and caused distress to the resident. Internal correspondence provided to this Service by the landlord shows that it does not know who monitors the CCTV in order to view it. The landlord missed its opportunity to investigate and resolve the resident’s reports of fly tipping and dog fouling and did not demonstrate it was taking the matter seriously. The landlord’s failure to manage the CCTV in the block is a failure of service.
  6. The resident expressed frustration that there was no appointed manager for the block which meant it was difficult to report repairs and communicate with the landlord. The resident stated that there was a management fee as part of the service charge and she did not feel she was getting value for money. The landlord stated that this fee covered several elements of the management of the block but did not elaborate in order to reassure the resident or provide further information about the charge. This response was inappropriate and it is evident that it caused distress to the resident who was unhappy with the service she was receiving.
  7. In its stage 2 response, the landlord set out how it calculated the service charge and advised the resident she would need to raise any concerns about the delivery of services under the service charge to the neighbourhood manager. The landlord failed to recognise the impact on the resident of there not being a neighbourhood manager in place at the time of the resident’s first complaint which caused inconvenience and distress. It is also concerning that when the landlord reached out to the neighbourhood manager regarding this complaint, it did not receive a response.
  8. The landlord did admit its failings in its complaint response and offered the resident compensation of £130, broken down as £50 for inconvenience, £50 for service failing, and £30 for time and effort. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this sum is not sufficient to recognise and redress the failures identified in this report.
  9. The Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of resident’s reports of the cleanliness and condition of the communal areas.  The reason for this is the landlord failed to provide appropriate consideration of the distress of the resident or the level of failures identified.  The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £200 which is inclusive of the £130 previously offered.  This in line with this Service’s remedies guidance which is available on our website.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case the landlord’s complaint process lacked customer focus and took too long.
  2. The landlord’s complaint policy outlines that it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days. Where it requires more than 10 working days, it will communicate this to the resident. Stage 2 complaints will be responded to within 20 working days. Where more time is needed, the landlord will let the resident know why and when a response will be provided.
  3. The resident first complained to the landlord on 4 August 2022 and the landlord responded on 16 August 2022. This was 8 working days which was within the landlord’s policy time frames for a stage 1 response.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 16 August 2022, the landlord responded on 23 June 2023 which is 213 working days. The resident contacted the landlord on several occasions to ask when a response would be provided. On 9 February 2023, the resident requested to make a further complaint about the same issues as above because she had not received a response. The landlord acknowledged the new complaint on 14 February 2023 but no response has been recorded.
  5. Failure to adhere to timeframes for responses is a failure of service. This Service acknowledges that on occasions there will be circumstances that mean a complaint response cannot be provided by the initial time given by the landlord. In these cases, it would be reasonable to expect that a landlord would contact the resident to explain in detail the reasons for the delay. The landlord is also expected to provide a new timeframe whereby the resident would expect to receive a response. This response was unreasonable.
  6. It is particularly concerning that the landlord did not respond to the complaint until this Service had intervened on the request of the resident, to ask the landlord to provide its stage 2. The landlord missed the opportunity to demonstrate to the resident that it was taking her experience and complaint seriously.
  7. The landlord addressed the resident’s complaints in turn and set out its position. It stated that its stage 2 was delayed due to IT issues. It did not provide any learning to prevent the same issues happening again or to show it had taken the resident’s concerns on board.
  8. The complaint handling failures had a detrimental impact on the resident, including having to chase the landlord for a response and reach out to this Service to facilitate the complaint. The resident was evidently distressed by not receiving the complaint responses on time.
  9. The landlord identified what had gone wrong and put the issue right. It did not provide any learning or set out how it would prevent the same thing happening again. The landlord offered £100 for the delay in providing its stage 2 complaint. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this is not sufficient to recognise and redress the inconvenience caused to the resident by not receiving her complaint response and needing to chase the landlord for a response.
  10. The Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. An award of £150 has been made below which is inclusive of the £100 previously offered.  This is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance which is available on our website

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the cleanliness and condition of the communal areas. 
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord must apologise to the resident in writing for the failures noted in this determination. A copy should also be provided to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of this determination.
  2. Within 4 weeks of this determination, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total compensation of £350. £230 of the landlord’s previous compensation offer can be deducted from this total, if already paid. The compensation is broken down as follows:
    1. £200 to acknowledge and redress the failures identified in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the cleanliness and condition of the communal areas. 
    2. £150 in recognition of the complaint handling failures.

Recommendations

  1. Within 6 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should write to the resident to confirm the presence of CCTV in the block and outline how it will manage and monitor it.