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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202301154)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301154

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

26 September 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:
    1. Handling of the resident’s reports of no gas heating or hot water at the property.
    2. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of a 2 bedroom flat on the third floor of the block where he lives with his wife. The landlord owns the freehold. The landlord has no health vulnerabilities recorded for any member of the household.
  2. The resident expressed dissatisfaction to the landlord on 15 December 2022. He said there had been no heating or hot water for 3 days. The landlord advised him the communal district heating system was affecting multiple properties. It said it had closed the resident’s individual complaint and it would treat the issue as a scheme complaint. It said it would investigate the cause of the fault and provide a response to all residents. 95 households in total.
  3. The landlord wrote to all resident’s on 9 January 2023. It apologised for the gas heating and hot water loss between 13 to 14 December 2022. It offered £45 compensation, made up of £30 for the loss of service and an additional £15 for the increase in electricity used at this time.
  4. On 16 January 2023 the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the reported issues. He said the landlord had not included all dates where he was without gas heating and he considered its offer of compensation insufficient. The landlord advised all resident’s it was reviewing its compensation offer.
  5. The landlord provided the resident with a stage 1 complaint response on 17 January 2023. It repeated that the issue had affected multiple residents at the site. It said it had escalated the matter as a “scheme complaint.” As such it had closed the resident’s individual complaint.
  6. The landlord wrote to all residents again on 20 January 2023. It increased its offer of compensation to £152.64. Made up of £120 for the loss of service for 4 days, and £32.64 for the additional cost of using electricity. It also advised of a change of heating contractor for the site to “ensure that future issues can be addressed promptly.”
  7. The resident asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaints process (ICP) on 4 January 2023 and 7 February 2023. He said the landlord should respond to him separately and not part of a scheme response. He said the landlord’s compensation offer was “unfair” and he had experienced losses longer than 4 days. He said he had requested compensation for 3 separate periods of time and expected the landlord to respond to each separately.
  8. The landlord provided its stage 2 final complaint response on 1 June 2023. It was satisfied with how it had responded to reports of heating and hot water outages. It was also satisfied with its original decision to close the resident’s complaint in favour of providing a scheme wide response. However, the landlord acknowledged its communication to the resident could have been better. It offered £190 compensation. Made up of a £50 goodwill gesture, £60 for the distress and inconvenience, and £80 for the resident’s time and effort.
  9. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response and brought his complaint to the Ombudsman. He said the landlord had failed to consider all losses of heating and hot water. He said these had taken place on 2 to 3 December 2022, 13 to 17 December 2022, 10 to 11 January 2023, and 8 to 14 April 2023. He also referred to service disruptions between 2021 to 2022. The resident said he had lost income from employment due to repair appointments. He said the loss of heating and hot water had affected his and his partner’s health and finances. He considered the landlord should offer compensation of £1,500 for the distress, discomfort, inconvenience, and poor communication.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. We note within the resident’s correspondence to the landlord and to us, he said the loss of heating and hot water and the actions of the landlord had affected the health of members of the household. He also said he had lost 5 days’ work due to the landlord’s handling of the matter which had affected his personal finances.
  2. While we are an alternative dispute resolution service, we are unable to establish legal liability on whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health or finances. Nor can we calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider any personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. A court or insurer would decide liability. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if he wants to pursue a claim for damages for any adverse effect on his health and finances.
  3. We note that the resident has raised a variety of complaints since the start of his tenancy. This includes similar issues with the temporary loss of heating and hot water in 2021 to 2022. Which there is evidence the landlord responded to and offered compensation, which the resident accepted. While these outages would understandably have caused upset, these took place prior to the resident’s complaint. They will not form part of this investigation.
  4. A key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint on 15 December 2022, through its ICP. This is to ensure that the landlord took reasonable steps to resolve the complaint within its 2 stage process. This investigation is based on whether the landlord’s formal complaint responses provided reasonable redress for this particular complaint. Our investigation focusses on the landlord’s responses between 15 December 2022 to 1 June 2023.
  5. In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint, we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine the complaint by reference to what is, in our findings, fair in all the circumstances of the case. Where we identify a failure by a landlord, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

Handling of the resident’s reports of no gas heating or hot water at the property

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy confirms it is responsible for fixing shared and communal heating and water systems. Paragraph 4.8 of the landlord’s repairs policy says it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours and within 4 hours for emergency works that occur out of hours (OOH). It will make safe any issues and lower the immediate risks to the resident.
  2. The landlord does not dispute that the communal heating system serving the resident’s property had a fault on 14 December 2022. It acknowledged it affected all resident in the block for 4 days. The landlord provided its repair and communication records for this time. However, it is unclear who reported the fault, when precisely, or the timescales of the landlord’s attendance. While we acknowledge the landlord’s decision to replace its heating contractor at this time, the gaps in the landlord’s evidence demonstrates a record keeping failure. This has affected our ability to accurately assess the incident and the landlord’s actions.
  3. Without good knowledge and information management (KIM) a landlord is unable to deliver its services efficiently and effectively. It is imperative that a landlord maintains accurate records to keep both the property and the resident safe now and in the future. The landlord’s inability to provide these records demonstrates its failure to effectively monitor its heating contractor prior to it replacing it. It is therefore unclear how the landlord assessed the affects of the outage on the resident individually. The evidence indicates the landlord took a blanket approach that all households were affected equally. The resident disputes this. He says he experienced further disruptions which the landlord did not address.
  4. In or around December 2022 to January 2023 there is evidence the landlord acknowledged the system fault on 14 December 2022. It was reasonable that the landlord apologised that “certain residences” continued to experience heating and hot water outages and drops in temperature for several days. While it said the data for communal heating loss differed to the reports received by the resident, it increased its offer of compensation from £45 to £152.64. It calculated this based on information from its contractor and an outage of 4 days. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s offer.
  5. However, this showed the landlord took steps to act on the resident’s reports and improved its offer of compensation. Furthermore, there is evidence the landlord acknowledged that the service provided by its first heating contractor “had been unsatisfactory.” As such, it apologised and arranged for an alternative contractor to attend and restore services. The new contractor offered temporary heaters where required. This further demonstrated the landlord’s commitment to put things right.
  6. The landlord has a responsibility under the housing health and safety rating system (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks. The landlord has a responsibility to keep a property free from hazards, including excess cold. The fault to the communal district heating system would understandably have caused an inconvenience to the resident. However, we note on 14 December 2022 the resident informed the landlord that he had switched on electric heaters in the flat to keep warm. This shows the household was not without a source of heating. Therefore, there was no evidence the landlord failed to meet its obligations under HHSRS.
  7. The resident says he reported other outages of gas heating and hot water to the landlord on 2 December 2022 and 10 January 2023. While we do not doubt his comments, neither party has supplied evidence which shows how he made these reports to the landlord. Furthermore, the landlord refers to having no reports from the resident or its new heating contractor who took over on 22 January 2023. While we would expect the landlord to act on any reports of repairs, it is reasonable that a landlord is only in a position to complete a repair if it knows about it.
  8. That said, while we are unable to identify any reports of outages made by the resident on 2 December 2022, there is evidence on 11 and 17 January 2023 where he emailed the landlord. In which, both emails refer to his desire to make separate complaints for other outages. These covered 2 to 3 December 2022, 13 to 17 December 2022, and 10 to 11 January 2023. It was therefore reasonable that the resident believed he had reported the separate incidents. It is unclear why there is no evidence in the landlord’s records which showed how it responded to these comments. This caused the resident time and trouble raising matters with the landlord and us.
  9. We note the resident raised a separate complaint on 11 April 2023. He says a communal heating outage affected the property between 11 to 14 April 2023. This did not form part of the resident’s original complaint nor the landlord’s stage 2 response. As the landlord has treated this as a new complaint, it does not form part of this investigation.
  10. While we recognise the inconvenience the gas disruptions would have caused, the resident had a secondary source of heating. The resident’s correspondence confirms he was able to use electric heaters, and temporarily use a local gym for showers. Therefore, there is no evidence that the landlord left him without any source of heating.
  11. The landlord took steps to offer redress to cover any additional utility costs and replaced its heating contractor due to unsatisfactory service delivery. This demonstrated the landlord took decisive steps to learn from outcomes and put things right.
  12. However, while it is reasonable to have expected the resident to report issues as a repair need, he clearly communicated instances directly to a member of the landlord’s staff. The landlord did not demonstrate passing this information to its repairs team or contractor or investigating these reports. We may have made a finding of reasonable redress but for the landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s later reports of disruption to his heating and hot water supply. Therefore, we find service failure with the landlord’s handling of this matter.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. It states it will provide a stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days and within 20 working days at stage 2.
  2. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 1 April 2022 sets out our expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. A landlord should acknowledge a resident’s complaint within 5 working days. It should provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the complaint. It should provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days from a resident’s request to escalate a complaint. We identified that the landlord’s relevant policy was appropriate and in line with the Code.
  3. Paragraph 1.2 of the Code states a complaint must be defined as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents.
  4. There is evidence the resident expressed dissatisfaction about the loss of heating and hot water on 15 December 2022. The landlord’s response on 16 December 2022 was an acknowledgement of his dissatisfaction. This was appropriate and in line with the expected timescales, as set out in the landlord’s complaints policy and the Code.
  5. The landlord’s decision to investigate the resident’s reports as a scheme complaint was initially reasonable. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the expertise of its contractor that the outages had affected all properties. The landlord showed it identified the need to address the matter for all 95 households in the block. This demonstrated the landlord’s actions to consider the effects of the fault on all resident’s and its steps to put things right for everyone.
  6. However, we note the resident continued to express dissatisfaction with the landlord’s decision not to respond to him individually. Paragraph 5.9 of the Code says if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, it must be progressed to stage 2 of the landlord’s procedure.
  7. The resident’s request to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s ICP happened on 7 February 2023. However, there is evidence the resident requested this by email on 4 January 2023. The landlord simply reiterated on 17 January 2023 that it had closed the resident’s complaint to address matters as a scheme complaint. This did not demonstrate a landlord acting in line with the expectations of paragraph 5.9 of the Code. Had the landlord discussed the matter directly with the resident, it may have been able to assess his circumstances better. That it did not do this caused the resident time and trouble to raise his individual circumstances to it again.
  8. There is evidence on 11 January 2023 and within the resident’s stage 2 escalation request on 7 February 2023, where he refers to other losses of heating and hot water in December 2022 and January 2023. His emails clearly refer to him making separate complaints. It is unclear from the evidence if the landlord responded to these issues.
  9. Paragraph 5.7 of the Code says, where residents raise additional complaints during the investigation, the landlord should incorporate them into its stage 1 response if they are relevant and the stage 1 response has not been issued. Where the stage 1 response has been issued, or it would unreasonably delay the response, the landlord should log a new complaint.
  10. Given the resident expressed dissatisfaction before the landlord’s stage 1 scheme complaint response, it should have addressed this matter. Had the landlord considered it would have unreasonably delayed its response, it should have opened a separate complaint and investigated it in line with its ICP. That it did not do this demonstrated a training need.
  11. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 escalation request on 5 May 2023. Given the resident made his first request on the 4 January 2023, this was not appropriate. This was 80 working days beyond the expected timescale for it to provide an acknowledgement.
  12. The landlord provided its stage 2 final response to the resident on 1 June 2023. This was not appropriate as this was 82 working days beyond the expected response timescale. While it was satisfied with its decision to manage the complaint as a scheme complaint, it recognised it could have communicated this better with the resident. It accepted its explanation had been “vague” and apologised for any confusion caused. It offered £190 compensation.
  13. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  14. It was fair for the landlord to apologise for its communication failures. This demonstrated the landlord recognising that its service delivery had fallen short of its expectations. The landlord’s delays to provide the resident with a stage 2 acknowledgement and response adversely affected the resident. These complaint handling failures amount to maladministration. It was therefore reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to recognise its failures and award compensation.
  15. The landlord’s offer of £190 compensation demonstrates it taking steps to offer redress to put things right. This sum was reasonable and in line with our remedies guidance for maladministration, in the range of £100 to £600.
  16. However, the landlord did not demonstrate how it addressed his additional complaints for the same issues on 2 to 3 December 2022 nor 10 to 11 January 2023. That it did not, is a failure to demonstrate learning from outcomes. We order the landlord to ensure it provides a response to the resident about these matters. The compensation for complaint handling failures was reasonable. However, we consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint would have been reasonable redress, but for the failures identified. Therefore, we find service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Review of policies and practice

  1. The Ombudsman has previously found maladministration (including severe maladministration) following several investigations into complaints raised with the landlord involving its record keeping and complaint handling practices. As a result of these, the Ombudsman issued a wider order to the landlord under paragraph 54.f. of the Scheme. This is for the landlord to review its policy or practice in relation to the service failures identified, which may give rise to further complaints about the matter.
  2. Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to the cases already determined. The landlord has demonstrated compliance with our previous wider order so we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case, which would duplicate those already made to landlord. The landlord itself should consider whether there are any additional issues arising from this later case that require further action.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of no gas heating or hot water at the property, including the level of compensation it offered.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
    1. Pay the resident £492.64, made up of:
      1. £302.64 for the time and trouble caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of no gas heating or hot water at the property, including the level of compensation it offered. The landlord can deduct the sum of £152.64 offered at stage 1 of its ICP if already paid.
      2. £190 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling. £190 offered at stage 2 of the landlord’s ICP can be deducted if already paid.
    2. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, we order the landlord to contact the resident. If it has not already done so, it should investigate and provide a complaint response which addresses his dissatisfaction due to his individual reports of heating and hot water outages on 2 to 3 December 2022 and 10 to 11 January 2023. The landlord should provide a copy of its responses to us.