London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202301306)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301306

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

23 July 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of heating repairs (including concerns about the adequacy of the heating).
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 3-bedroom flat on the 1st floor. The landlord is a housing association. The tenancy began in January 2012. The residents say they have experienced issues with the heating since they moved into the property.
The landlord is not the freeholder of the building. The landlord is the leaseholder of several flats (including the resident’s) as well as the common areas servicing the flats. The freeholder and its managing agent manage the rest of the building, including the communal heating and hot water system (the ‘communal system’).
The resident’s property was inspected on 16 September 2021. This inspection noted the resident advised that the radiators in the property were not working properly. It also noted there was a badly corroded towel rail radiator that would need replacing by the landlord. That inspection report is dated 10 November 2021.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 26 November 2022 to raise a stage 1 complaint. They said:
1. The landlord had repeatedly promised to sort the heating problem and change the rusty radiator but had not done this.
2. They and their wife suffered from arthritis and other health conditions which were made worse in the cold weather. They also stated the ongoing situation was affecting their mental health.
3. They were having to use electric heaters to stay warm and this was costing a lot.
4. An engineer, who had previously visited the property, had told them the landlord would need to change the communal system to solve the problem. They said the engineer suggested fitting a separate boiler in their flat could be a solution.

The resident wrote to the landlord on 4 December 2022 and 20 December 2022 to chase a response.

On 18 May 2023 this service wrote to the landlord. We said the resident had had made a formal complaint to the landlord but had not received a response. We asked the landlord respond to the resident’s complaint.
On 7 July 2023 the resident re-submitted their complaint to the landlord. They also advised that the landlord had now replaced the towel rail but had not connected it to the communal system.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 18 September 2023. It apologised for the delay and explained that it had originally allocated the complaint to the wrong team. It said:
1. It had reviewed its repair records which showed all repairs (both general maintenance and heating-specific) had been completed.
2. Its repair records confirmed the resident had raised faults on multiple occasions. It gave dates of 16 August 2022, 11 December 2022, and 14 December 2022.
3. It raised an order to connect the towel rail and booked an appointment for 30 June 2023. It said its contractor sent the resident a letter confirming this had been cancelled due to no access.
4. It offered £580 in compensation. This comprised:

a. £120 for 6 repair appointments where it had not completed the expected work.

b. £140 for 38 days (from 11 December 2022 to 18 January 2023) where the resident had no heating.

c. £100 for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint.

d. £220 for distress, as well as the resident’s time and effort communicating with the landlord to get a resolution.

It would be willing to reimburse the resident for the extra electricity they had used to keep their property warm when the heating was not working. It asked the resident to provide copies of their bills so it could compare the resident’s costs between when the heating was and wasn’t working.

The resident escalated their complaint to stage 2 of the process on 20 September 2023. They said:
1. At least 2 of the radiators in their property had not worked since they moved in. They stated the other radiators only got ‘10% warm’. They disputed it was only 38 days they had not had heating.
2. They believed the only resolution would be for the landlord to fit a separate boiler within their property.
3. The towel rail had only been fitted to the wall and not connected to the communal system. They stated the towel rail replacement was due to it having rusted and was not a fix to the issues with the heating.
4. They disputed the contractor’s claim that it had sent a letter about a cancelled appointment. They queried why the landlord (or its contractor) did not have access to the communal system or was not able to turn off the water to their property.

They stated they had needed to use electric heaters since they moved in. They provided copies of electricity bills from 2012 and 2013 to show their bills had always been high.

The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 escalation on 16 October 2023. As part of this acknowledgement, it stated it had no responsibility for repair or maintenance of the communal system. It also advised that it could not fit a separate boiler in the resident’s property.
On 14 December 2023 the landlord issued its final response. It reiterated that the communal system was the responsibility of the freeholder, and it was not permitted to carry out any repairs to the system. It said:
1. It had reached out to the freeholder who had agreed to send an engineer to assess the heat pump.
2. It had agreed to a joint inspection of the resident’s property with the freeholder. It said it would be contacting the resident separately to arrange a suitable appointment.
3. It would monitor the case until all appropriate actions had been taken. If the problems were not resolved in a reasonable time, then its legal team was on hand to implement any needed actions.
4. The resident should make any claims for damages to personal belongings or injuries to their home contents insurer. Alternatively, if they felt the landlord was legally at fault, they could make a claim against the landlord’s insurance.
5. It had revised its previous compensation offer and was now offering £1000. This comprised:

a. £240 for distress caused by the failure to recognise the impact due to the resident’s vulnerabilities.

b. £240 for inconvenience caused by the failure to recognise the impact due to the resident’s vulnerabilities.

c. £240 for the resident’s time and effort in getting the complaint resolved.

d. £160 for poor complaint handling.

e. £120 for appointments where it had not carried out repairs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has stated that the lack of adequate heating in their property has been an ongoing issue since the start of their tenancy. The evidence provided to this service indicates that, in April 2020, the residents of the building, the landlord, and the freeholder agreed a settlement. As part of this settlement, all parties agreed that the freeholder would replace the air source heat pump in the communal system. All parties also agreed that damages in respect of the communal system, as well as any disrepair within their properties, would be paid to the residents.
If the resident has any specific concerns about the landlord’s compliance with the settlement, the Ombudsman considers that it would be fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. While this investigation will not review the settlement (or events leading to it), it is (in the Ombudsman’s opinion) relevant to note the context in which the resident raised their complaint.
This investigation will focus on the landlord’s actions from September 2021. This is when the property inspection identified the issues with the resident’s heating.

The landlord’s handling of repairs

The landlord has supplied a copy of a repair report for the resident’s property. This is a list of work orders which, for each order, indicates the date the landlord raised it, the status, the date the landlord completed it, and a brief description.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
There are 4 repair orders in the report relating to issues with the heating and raised between September 2021 and July 2023. The landlord has not provided details, other than the information described in the previous paragraph, for any of these orders. Three of the orders are marked as complete and one is marked cancelled. However, it is not possible for the Ombudsman to determine what actions, if any, the landlord took in relation to those orders.
The landlord raised an order on 26 October 2021 with the description ‘Whole property – radiators are working adequately – hot water not affected’. It is unclear why the landlord raised this order, but it may have been a result of the September 2021 inspection. It is also unclear whether the description is incorrect or if the landlord had updated it following completion of the order. It would be unlikely that a repair would be necessary for radiators that were working adequately and where there was no issue with the hot water.
The landlord raised orders dated 27 July 2022 and 18 August 2022 to attend the resident’s property to inspect the storage heaters and radiators. The landlord marked the July 2022 order as cancelled, but there is no explanation for this. The landlord had assigned the August 2022 order to a different contractor. While the landlord marked the later order as completed, there is no evidence an inspection took place.
The landlord raised the last of the 4 orders on 11 December 2022 with the description ‘**72HRS** corridor – Boiler – no heating’. The landlord has marked the order as completed on 13 December 2022 which is within the timescale given in the description. The Ombudsman would normally consider this to be a reasonable action. However, the landlord’s stage 1 response indicates it did not complete this repair until 18 January 2023. It is also unclear what this repair related to as the resident does not have a boiler.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have attended the property and satisfied itself that all the radiators (including valves), as well as any pipework or additional heating controls, inside the property were in good condition and working correctly. It also would have been reasonable for the landlord to have investigated the temperature of the flow and return heating pipework in the property. This may have provided an indication as to whether any potential issues were due to the equipment in the property or the communal system.
There is no evidence the landlord considered contacting any of its other tenants in the building to ask whether they were having issues with their heating. This would have been a reasonable step to have taken and may have also provided a further indication as to the most likely cause of the resident’s issues.
It was reasonable for the landlord to have advised the resident that it would not be able to install a separate boiler and heating system within their flat. This is not something the landlord would be obliged to do as part of its tenancy agreement with the resident.
The available evidence indicates that the landlord was aware, during the handling of the stage 2 escalation, that it might have been able to take steps to force the freeholder to carry out repairs to the communal system or carry out the works itself if the freeholder did not do so. There is no evidence that it followed up on this or sought specific legal advice to clarify the situation.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have obtained legal advice about whether it had any legal obligations to carry out the repairs itself, even when it did not lease the part of the building containing the heat pump. It is possible, given the easements within the landlord’s lease, that section 11(1A)(b) of the Landlord and Tenancy Act 1985 could apply and oblige the landlord, under section 11(1)(c) of the same act, to carry out the repairs. The landlord should have sought advice on this.
In any event, it was appropriate for the landlord to have contacted the freeholder to request its assistance in resolving the resident’s concerns. It was reasonable for the landlord to agree to a joint inspection of the resident’s property. Nevertheless, the timeliness of the landlord’s overall actions from September 2021 to date is indicative of a significant failure to resolve these matters with finality.
While contacting the freeholder was reasonable, there is no evidence to indicate whether the landlord had considered taking this step earlier or, if it had, why it did not consider it was appropriate to make contact. The Ombudsman considers it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have made the freeholder aware of a potential issue with the communal system at the earliest possibility. Taking this step would place the freeholder on notice that it may be required to act and may minimise any delays if that later becomes necessary.
The landlord’s repair report shows it raised a repair order on 6 December 2023. The description for this order is ‘communal – no heating or hot water – not heating up – electric’. The order status is outstanding. As the landlord provided its evidence to this service on 24 May 2024, the Ombudsman considers it is reasonable to conclude that the resident’s heating issues are still ongoing.

Summary and conclusions

It is the Ombudsman’s opinion, having considered all the circumstances, that there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of heating repairs at the resident’s property. Due to the lack of adequate records, it is not possible for the Ombudsman to determine:
1. Whether the landlord had inspected the property to determine the extent of the issues with the resident’s heating and whether the cause was likely to be internal or external to the property.
2. Whether the landlord took all reasonable steps to meet its repair obligations under the tenancy agreement and section 11 of the Landlord and Tenancy Act 1985.
3. Whether the landlord obtained legal advice to confirm:

a. It had no legal responsibility to undertake any required repairs to the communal system.

b. What actions it could take to ensure the freeholder met its repair obligations under the lease.

c. When it would be appropriate to take legal action.

d. If it was entitled to enter the required areas of the building and make repairs in the event the freeholder failed to act.

The landlord’s failure to handle the repairs in a reasonable or appropriate manner has resulted in the resident’s situation remaining unresolved for nearly 3 years. The resident has made it clear in their correspondence with the landlord that the ongoing situation has impacted on their mental wellbeing, as well as their financial situation.
It was reasonable for the landlord, in its stage 1 response, to offer to reimburse the resident for the extra electricity costs caused by them needing to use electric heaters. It was appropriate for it to ask the resident to provide evidence of their costs.
The landlord did not repeat this offer in its final response, nor did it address the resident’s comments that it was not possible for them to provide electricity bills showing their costs when the heating was working and when it was not. These would have been reasonable actions for the landlord to take.
In its final response, the landlord offered £840 in compensation for its identified failures. Having considered the circumstances of the case and the additional failures identified in this report, the Ombudsman does not consider the offered sum was appropriate to address the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This is because the impact on the resident is likely to have been significant. The resident clearly explained that their arthritis was made worse in winter months and that the cost of heating the home, at a time during a cost-of-living crisis, was expensive.

The landlord’s complaint handling

There is no dispute that the landlord failed to issue either its stage 1 or final complaint response within the timescales set out in its policy or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the ‘Code’).
The landlord’s stage 1 response advises that the delay in responding was due to it having allocated the complaint to the wrong team. However, the available evidence indicates this allocation took place on 18 May 2023. There is no explanation for the delay between 26 November 2022 and 18 May 2023. The Ombudsman has noted that the resident emailed their complaint to the landlord’s complaint email address on 4 December 2022, 20 December 2022, and 13 July 2023. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint on 20 July 2023. On this basis, the Ombudsman considers there was a failure by the landlord to appropriately identify or prioritise complaints.
The Code states that:
1. Landlords should assess the evidence needed to fully consider the issues.
2. Where a key issue relates to legal obligations the landlord should clearly set out its understanding of the obligations.
While the landlord’s stage 1 response indicates it had assessed its repair records, this appears to have been a cursory inspection to confirm the status of repair orders. The Ombudsman does not consider, given the circumstances raised in the complaint, that this was a sufficient assessment to fully consider the issues that the resident had raised.
There is no evidence the landlord fully considered or clarified its legal obligations during the stage 1 handling. The key issue in the resident’s complaint relates to the landlord’s legal obligations and how far it was obliged to repair the heating within the resident’s property and the wider block. It was a failure by the landlord to not set out its understanding of its legal obligations.
The landlord did not provide any explanation in its final response letter for the delay in responding. It is unclear from the available evidence why there was a delay of 18 working days to acknowledge the resident’s stage 2 escalation request or a further delay of 43 working days to issue a final response. It appears that the landlord had taken no action to investigate the stage 2 escalation until this service wrote to it on 8 December 2023. This was a failure by the landlord.
The landlord’s final response explains what steps it will be taking to try and resolve the resident’s issues. However, it would have been reasonable for it to also have examined the evidence and provided an explanation for why it had been unable to remedy the issues sooner. This should have included details of the actions it had taken, or attempted to take, and explanations for why those actions had been unsuccessful in resolving the resident’s heating problems.
For the reasons set out above, the Ombudsman considers there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
The level of compensation offered (£160) is not commensurate to recognise the time and trouble of having to raise and chase the complaint, as well as the time taken to respond to it.

The landlord’s record keeping

The Ombudsman considers the matters within paragraphs 17 to 19 are all evidence of inadequate record keeping by the landlord. The landlord’s record keeping has affected the Ombudsman’s ability to understand why some repairs were raised and what action, overall, has been taken to resolve them. Proper record keeping is vital for landlords to be able to show that they have complied with their legal and regulator obligations. Without proper records landlords are placed in a vulnerable position whereby they can be regularly found responsible for fault. Based on this, and the evidence in this case (as set out above), the Ombudsman finds the landlord responsible for maladministration in its record keeping.

Paragraph 49 investigation

It has been noted that the landlord was the subject to an investigation by the Ombudsman under paragraph 49 of the Scheme. This investigation made recommendations to the landlord which have been met. However, the issues raised in this complaint took place before the investigation and compliance with the recommendations.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there has been severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of heating repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there has been severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the landlord is responsible for maladministration in its record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord must within 28 days of the date of this determination:
1. Provide the resident with an apology for the failings outlined in this report. This written apology must be from the landlord’s Chief Executive.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £1,710 which is comprised of:

a. £1,500 for distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of heating repairs to the property.

b. £210 for the time and trouble of having to raise a complaint together with the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

This award replaces any offer made to date by the landlord through its internal complaints process. The landlord is entitled to offset against this sum any payments already made to the resident. All payments must be paid directly to the resident and not credited to the rent account unless otherwise agreed by the resident.

The landlord must:
1. Within 28 days of the date of this determination, contact the resident to request they provide copies of their electricity bills from September 2021 to the date of this determination.
2. Within 56 days of the date of this determination, decide an appropriate level of contribution to make towards the resident’s electricity costs. It must provide the resident and this service with confirmation of its decision and an explanation of what factors it has considered when reaching that decision.
The landlord must:
1. Within 28 days of the date of this determination, instruct an independent surveyor to inspect and report on the heating system within the resident’s property. The survey must be carried out by an independent surveyor with expertise in communal central heating systems. Both the survey and the report must be completed within the above timescale and must be provided to the resident and this service.
2. Within 28 days of receiving the independent survey, and by no later than 56 days from the date of this determination, the landlord must obtain legal advice in relation to its repair obligations. If necessary, the landlord must then seek legal advice in relation to ensuring the freeholder carries out any of its own repair obligations. The landlord must provide this service with evidence of this in order to comply with this order.