London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202233154)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233154

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

26 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The request for remedial repairs to the kitchen extractor fan.
2. The replacement of the kitchen sub floor.
3. The request for replacement of the shower cubicle in the downstairs bathroom.
4. The request for replacement windows.
5. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy was assigned to the resident, by way of a mutual exchange, on 26 November 2012. The property is a 3 bedroom house. The resident has health issues including muscle problems, kidney issues, and lesions on his brain following a stroke. He lives in the property with his teenage son.
The resident has given permission for an advocate to act on his behalf. For the purposes of this report both the resident and his advocate will be referred to as ‘the resident’.
The resident is a joint tenant of the property, although the other joint tenant does not currently live in the property with the resident. The resident did not live in the property for a period of time when it appears that some alterations were made to the property by the joint tenant, including the downstairs bathroom.
The evidence shows that the resident reported an issue with his kitchen floor in March 2020. However, the job was suspended due to the restrictions relating to COVID-19. On 12 April 2021, the resident asked for the job to be re-booked. He also reported the issue with the extractor fan at the same time.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 18 June 2021, in relation to the outstanding repairs to the extractor fan, kitchen floor, and other repair issues. He continued to chase the repairs with the landlord until his complaint was closed on 30 April 2022. The resident did not escalate the complaint to stage 2, therefore, it is not part of this investigation.
The resident raised a further formal complaint with the landlord on 1 June 2022. He said:
1. The landlord installed a kitchen in 2017/2018. At the time of the installation the landlord’s contractors incorrectly installed a cooker hood that he had purchased. The landlord had originally agreed to complete the required remedial work. However, it had since changed its mind and said the work fell under ‘home improvements’ and was therefore his responsibility.
2. He noticed a problem with the kitchen flooring a few months after it had been installed. The landlord sent a contractor out who said they could not put new flooring down because the wood on the floating floor underneath was rotten and needed to be replaced. However, the work was still outstanding.
3. He had reported a broken shower cubicle door in the downstairs bathroom in September/October 2021. The landlord inspected and said it had ordered a new door. In May 2022, the landlord said it would not replace the shower cubicle door as it was a wet room and the shower cubicle had not been fitted by the landlord.
4. The landlord replaced some rotten windows. However, it only replaced half the windows when it could have replaced all the windows at the same time.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 8 June 2022. It upheld the resident’s complaint and said:
1. A job was raised on 18 April 2021 for the kitchen extractor fan wall hole repair to be completed on 28 April 2021. The appointment was rescheduled to the 6 May 2021, when the operative advised follow on works should be carried out. On 16 July 2021, it noted that the repair was the resident’s responsibility. On the 29 May 2022 the maintenance supervisor reiterated that the repair was the resident’s responsibility.
2. On the 20 May 2021 a job was raised for repairs to the kitchen sub floor to be carried out on 7 July 2021. On attendance, the operative noted that the work should be completed under ‘major works’. On the 12 January 2022 the job was issued to a subcontractor. They advised there were unable to carry out the repair due to the location. The job had been assigned back to the landlord and an update would be provided.
3. On the 14 October 2021 a job was raised for window repairs to be completed on 13 January 2022. It was agreed that the front windows and 1 side window would be replaced. The work was completed on 7 April 2022.
4. It was sorry for the inconvenience and distress experienced due to the delays in repairing the floor. In recognition of the inconvenience and delay, compensation would be assessed upon completion of the kitchen sub flooring repair.
The resident contacted the landlord on 8 June 2022, as he was unhappy with the landlord’s response. He told the landlord that it had failed to address his complaint about the shower cubicle in its stage 1 response.
The landlord contacted the resident on 23 June 2022. It said, in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in completing the sub flooring repairs, it offered £500 compensation. However, as the flooring repairs were not due to be completed until 15 February 2023, the landlord contacted the resident again on 19 December 2022 and offered an additional £150 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the further delays.
The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 22 February 2023 via a third party, as the work to his flooring had still not been completed. He also disputed that the work to the cooker hood and shower cubicle were home improvements and believed that all windows should have been replaced. The resident sent a further escalation email on 24 June 2023.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 31 August 2023. It said:
1. It was the resident’s responsibility to complete the repairs to the cooker hood on installation.
2. It offered a repair service only and would only install new windows if the current windows were beyond repair. However, as agreed, a surveyor would be carrying out a survey of the property and any required repairs would be passed to the relevant team.
3. Its system showed that the downstairs bathroom was once a wet room. It had been unable to locate a home improvement form on its system to authorise the installation of a new bathroom. Therefore, the repair/replacement of the shower cubicle would not fall under its remit.
4. The works to the kitchen floor required 2 operatives and 8 days to remove all kitchen base units and all flooring down to the concrete, replace the insulation and boards with vinyl, refit the kitchen units, and lift and renew the floorboards in the hall.
5. It apologised for the delay, miscommunication, and the stress and inconvenience the matter had caused. It offered the resident additional compensation of £1,430.
As far as this Service is aware, all works subject to the complaint, including the works to the kitchen/hallway flooring are still outstanding to date.

Assessment and findings

The request for remedial repairs to the kitchen extractor fan

The landlord is not disputing that the kitchen extractor fan was fitted by its contractors during the kitchen refurbishment. However, even though it initially raised a repair and attended the resident’s property on 6 May 2021, it was only when the follow up work required was established, that the landlord deemed the work to be the resident’s responsibility on 16 July 2021. This was on the basis that the original agreement to fit the extractor fan was solely between the resident and its contractors. This decision was re-iterated in both the stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses.
It is unclear from the evidence provided whether the landlord was aware that its contractors had offered to fit the resident’s own extractor fan during the kitchen refurbishment. Although there is no evidence to suggest that it was not. It is also unclear as to whether the resident was made aware at the time of the kitchen refurbishment that he would be responsible for any repairs to the extractor fan once it had been installed.
In any event, the evidence suggests that the extractor fan was fitted incorrectly by the landlord’s contractors at the time of the kitchen refurbishment as they tiled over the outlet vent, which in essence is not a repair but an issue with the initial installation itself. Therefore, as the landlord’s contractors tiled over the vent outlet, which meant that the extractor fan could not be vented externally from the outset, the landlord’s refusal to rectify the issue and correctly install the extractor fan was unfair and unreasonable. As a result of the failure, which adversely affected the resident, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord in this case.

The replacement of the kitchen sub floor

In line with the landlord’s obligations under s11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the tenancy agreement says that the landlord will keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the property including internal walls and floors.
It is evident from the information provided that the issues relating to the resident’s kitchen sub floor have been ongoing since at least March 2020. It is not disputed that there have been significant delays in the landlord completing the required repairs. The issue was that the sub floors were rotten and crumbling following a suspected leak, which initially appeared to be coming from under the kitchen sink. As a result, the floors were uneven and the vinyl flooring could not be replaced.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response dated 8 June 2022, confirmed that a job was raised on 20 May 2021, and that the work was passed to its major works team on 7 July 2021, following an assessment of the work required. However, it also confirmed that the work was still outstanding on the date of the stage 1 response. This was over 2 years since the first report, and over a year from the date the job was raised in May 2021. The landlord did not provide any resolution to the issue within its stage 1 response. However, it did offer the resident compensation of £500 for the delays on 23 June 2022.
The resident contacted the landlord on 2 September 2022 to report that the kitchen floor had deteriorated further. The landlord informed the resident that the repair had been moved to a date in 2023. Understandably, the resident was not happy with the landlord’s response. He told the landlord that the rotting wood had started to smell and he had a child living in the property.
The landlord’s repairs policy (dated 6 April 2021) says it will aim to complete routine day to day repairs in an average of 25 calendar days. In addition to this, under common law the landlord must carry out repairs within a reasonable period of time once they have been notified of the problem.
As the kitchen sub floor repair issues had been ongoing from at least March 2020, and were still outstanding on 2 September 2022, with no plans to undertake the required works until at least 2023, it would be reasonable to conclude that the landlord had not acted in line with its obligations under s11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, its obligations under the tenancy agreement, or its obligations under common law. Its inaction, which caused an unreasonable delay, was inappropriate in the circumstances.
The landlord contacted the resident on 19 December 2022, to provide an update. It said an operative would attend his property on 14 and 15 February 2023, to complete the repairs to the kitchen and hallway flooring. It also offered an additional £150 compensation for the further delay.
The landlord attended the resident’s property on 14 February 2023, to complete the work. However, the work could not be completed as the operatives concluded that the whole floor would need to be replaced, which meant that the kitchen cupboards would need to be removed. The operatives placed tape over the holes in the vinyl flooring in an attempt to reduce the risk of the resident and his son tripping.
A surveyor attended the property on 29 March 2023, and concluded that the kitchen units could be refitted following the replacement of the sub floor, although the kickboards and end plinths should be replaced. This was reasonable in the circumstances, as there was no evidence of water damage to the carcasses.
The landlord noted on 12 April 2023 that it could not progress with the work as the resident did not want the kitchen to be refitted after the works to the kitchen floor were complete. He wanted a full kitchen renewal. However, there is no evidence to suggest that there were any reasonable discussions or negotiations held between the landlord and the resident to agree a way forward.
On 17 August 2023, the landlord provided the resident with the contact details for its insurance team so that he could make a public liability claim for damaged goods and belongings. The landlord advised the resident that its insurers would investigate and make a decision as to whether the landlord was at fault. It also advised that compensation was not guaranteed and was dependent on the outcome of the claim. It was appropriate for the landlord to refer the matter to its insurers, and by doing so it acted reasonably and fairly in the circumstances.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord apologised for the delays in the repairs to the kitchen sub floor and for the stress and inconvenience caused. It offered additional compensation of £1,390 made up of £50 for miscommunication, £140 for time and effort, and £1,200 for distress and inconvenience. It did not offer any resolution other than booking in a further inspection on 7 September 2023. It did not refer to the dispute between the landlord and resident in relation to the refitting of the original kitchen following the works to the floor or offer any resolution. It also did not show that it had learnt from the complaint. This is not in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
On 18 December 2023 the landlord’s contractors said that the leak affecting the kitchen and hall sub-floor was coming from the ground floor shower waste pipe, which had been installed by the joint tenant. The landlord concluded on 21 December 2023 that the resident would need to arrange to have the leak repaired before it could proceed with the repair to the sub-floor. The evidence provided would suggest that the resident has been informed of its decision. However, it is unclear from the evidence provided as to the resident’s response.
The landlord’s repairs policy (dated 6 April 2021) says it will only carry out repairs that are the resident’s responsibility when there is a significant health and safety risk or non-repair would cause further damage to the property. If repairs are carried out that are the resident’s responsibility the landlord may charge the resident for the costs incurred.
Therefore, in these circumstances, and in line with the landlord’s repair policy, it would be reasonable for the landlord to repair the leak to the shower waste pipe at the same time it repairs the kitchen and hallway sub-floor. The resident has already endured the worsening damage to the kitchen and hall sub-floor and numerous inspections and surveys over a period of 4 years. To delay the work any further would be inappropriate, unfair and unreasonable.
In summary, the landlord delayed unreasonably in completing repairs to the resident’s kitchen and hallway sub floor. It failed to comply with its obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the common law and failed to comply with the timeframes set out in its complaints policy. It has behaved in an unfair and unreasonable manner and it is understood by this Service that the issues have not yet been resolved. Although it did offer the resident compensation for the delays at stage 2, this amount was insufficient, particularly as the repairs are still outstanding.
As a result of these failings, and the level of detriment caused to the resident by the delay in completing the required repairs to his floors for a period of 4 years, the Ombudsman finds that there was severe maladministration by the landlord in this case.

The request for replacement of the shower cubicle in the downstairs bathroom

The information provided suggests that when the resident first moved into the property in November 2012, there was a wet room downstairs. At some point, whilst the resident was not living at the property, it appears that the joint tenant made alterations to the wet room and fitted a shower cubicle. The landlord has no record of the joint tenant making a request for permission to make alterations to the wet room, or of permission being granted. The landlord’s records show that the property still has a wet room.
It is unclear from the information provided exactly when the resident reported an issue with the downstairs shower cubicle. However, he chased the work order on 13 October 2021. At this point he was told by the landlord that the replacement shower cubicle was on order and that he would be contacted to arrange the next available appointment once the order had been received. The resident contacted the landlord again on 21 January 2022 for an update. The landlord confirmed that the date for the installation of the new shower cubicle would be 17 February 2022.
On 17 February 2022 the resident was informed that the date of installation had been rearranged to 31 May 2022. On 30 May 2022, the landlord cancelled the repair. On 31 May 2022, the landlord left the resident a voicemail message informing him that the replacement of the shower cubicle was his responsibility as it had not been installed by the landlord. The resident submitted a complaint on 1 June 2022.
The landlord’s stage 1 acknowledgement confirmed that the complaint included the wet room/shower cubicle repair. However, the stage 1 response on 8 June 2022, failed to address the issue.
The landlord’s stage 2 response said that the bathroom appeared as a wet room on its system. It also said it was unable to locate a home improvement form on its system that would have authorised the installation of a new bathroom. Therefore, the repair/replacement of the shower cubicle did not fall under its remit, as it would be the resident’s responsibility to replace it. The complaint did not address why the landlord originally agreed to replace the shower cubicle, or why it took over 7 months to inform the resident that it would not be carrying out the repair.
Although the repair/replacement of the shower cubicle may fall under the responsibility of the resident, it was unfair and unreasonable of the landlord to agree to complete the required works, confirm that the shower cubicle had been ordered, and then inform the resident over 7 months later that it was the resident’s responsibility to replace. As a result of the failure, which adversely affected the resident, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord in this case.

The request for replacement windows

The landlord replaced the resident’s downstairs living room window, kitchen window and bedroom window on 13 January 2022. Although the windows were referred to in the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response dated 8 June 2022, it only clarified the date the windows were replaced and suggested that the resident report any further repairs to its repairs service.
The landlord clarified, in an email dated 21 February 2023, that it offered a repairs service only, and would only replace the windows if the current ones were beyond repair, unless the work was part of a planned programme of works. It further clarified that the resident’s property was not on the list for window renewals in 2023/2024, and there was no timeframe it could provide.
The landlord’s stage 2 response dated 31 August 2023 said a job had been raised to replace the front windows and one side window as the windows could not be repaired. A further job was raised to measure up and renew the window by the front door, the two ground-floor windows, the kitchen windows, and the three windows on the first floor in the bedroom. The work was confirmed as complete on 7 April 2022. The landlord also re-iterated that it offered a repairs service and would only carry out renewals if the windows were beyond repair, or through a programme of major works.
In line with the landlord’s obligations under s11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the tenancy agreement says that the landlord will keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the property including windowsills, window catches, sash cords and window frames, including necessary painting and decoration. ‘Keep in repair’ means the landlord must maintain the standard of repair throughout the tenancy. Under common law, a landlord is not obliged to replace an item where it is possible to repair.
Therefore, the landlord acted in accordance with the terms and conditions of the tenancy agreement, and in line with common law, by only replacing the windows that were beyond repair and its actions were appropriate in the circumstances. This was fair and reasonable. As a result, the Ombudsman finds that there was no maladministration by the landlord for this complaint point.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Stage 1 complaints are responded to within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints are responded to within 20 working days.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 1 June 2022. His complaint was about the installation of the extractor fan, the kitchen flooring, the replacement shower cubicle and windows. The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response on 8 June 2022. This was within the landlord’s timeframe of 10 working days set out within its complaints policy. However, the landlord did not address the issue of the replacement shower cubicle within its stage 1 response.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) (April 2022) says, at paragraph 5.6, “landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate”. Therefore, by not addressing the resident’s complaint about the replacement of the shower cubicle in its stage 1 response, the landlord did not act in accordance with the Code and its inaction was inappropriate in the circumstances. This was unfair and unreasonable.
The resident contacted the landlord on 8 June 2022. He asked it to add the issue of the replacement shower cubicle to the complaint response, as it had been missed. The Code says, at paragraph 5.9, “if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage one it must be progressed to stage two of the landlord’s procedure, unless an exclusion ground now applies”. Although the resident did not directly request that his complaint was escalated to stage 2, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to assume the requirement to escalate the complaint had been met, as it was clear that there was no resolution to the shower cubicle issue at stage 1. At the very least, the landlord should have contacted the resident to understand his wishes and confirm how he wished to proceed.
The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 22 February 2023, via a third party (due to the resident’s dyslexia), as he felt that the landlord had not adequately addressed his issues. However, as the request had been sent via a third party and there was no “disclosure authority” in place, the landlord did not escalate the complaint. It did say that once the authority was in place, it would need further instructions to proceed to stage 2. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to contact the resident at this point, and fair, given the resident’s vulnerabilities, to confirm his escalation request rather than prolong the matter any further.
The resident sent a further escalation request to the landlord on 24 June 2023 following advice from this Service. The landlord sent the resident emails on 19 July 2023 and 21 July 2023, which explained that there was a high demand for the landlord’s complaints service which meant it was taking longer to respond than the standard response times.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 31 August 2023. This was over 6 months from the initial date of escalation to stage 2 (22 February 2023), and over 2 months from the second request for escalation to stage 2 on 24 June 2023, and significantly outside of the timeframe of 20 working days set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. Therefore, by delaying the stage 2 response, the landlord did not act in accordance with its complaints policy and its actions were inappropriate in the circumstances.
The landlord did recognise its complaint handling failures in its stage 2 response and it offered the resident compensation of £40. However, this only took into account the delays from the second escalation request and did not recognise the detriment, distress, and inconvenience caused to the resident due to the overall delay from his first escalation request.
In summary, the landlord’s complaints process was protracted and confusing. The landlord failed to escalate the resident’s complaint in February 2023, and delayed unreasonably in providing a stage 2 response following the resident’s second request to escalate his complaint. The landlord failed to comply with the Code and failed to comply with the timeframes set out in its complaints policy. Although it did offer the resident compensation for the delays at stage 2, this amount was insufficient. As a result of these failings, and the level of detriment caused to the resident by the delay in logging his escalation request, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord in this case.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the request for remedial repairs to the kitchen extractor fan.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the replacement of the kitchen sub floor.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the request for replacement of the shower cubicle in the downstairs bathroom.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the request for replacement windows.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of the report, the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report (the apology should be offered by the landlord’s Chief Executive in writing).
2. Pay the resident total compensation of £3,450 (the landlord can deduct from the total any amount it has already paid) made up of:
  1. £400 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the request for remedial repairs to the kitchen extractor fan.
  2. £2,300 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the replacement of the kitchen sub floor.
  3. £400 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the request for replacement of the shower cubicle in the downstairs bathroom.
  4. £350 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
  5. The landlord must pay the compensation directly to the resident.
3. Arrange and complete the required repairs to correctly install the resident’s kitchen extractor fan.
Within eight weeks of the date of the report, the landlord must:
1. Produce a full schedule of works, with timeframes for completion, to ensure the completion of the necessary repairs to resolve the root cause of the leak affecting the kitchen and hallway sub-floors and the full replacement of the affected areas of the sub-floor. This includes the replacement of the kitchen vinyl floor covering.
2. The landlord must provide this Service, and the resident, with a copy of the schedule of works.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.