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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202303364)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303364

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

23 August 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:
    1. Heating repairs.
    2. Bedroom window repairs. 
    3. The resident’s formal complaint.

Background

  1. The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a third-floor, one bedroom flat. The tenancy began on 26 November 2021.
  2. The resident reported that the electric radiators did not work on 29 November 2021, shortly after he moved in. The landlord raised the repair the following day with 2 different contractors. One repair was cancelled (unclear when) and the other was marked complete with no action taken on 30 December 2021.
  3. The resident emailed the landlord to report further repair issues which included a draughty bedroom window and an electric radiator not working on 5 January 2022. The landlord said a radiator repair for the living room and bedroom radiators was booked with its contractor for 20 January 2022. The evidence suggests there were a couple of failed appointments (20 January 2022 and 2 February 2022) before the contractor attended on 9 February 2022. Following the visit, the landlord emailed the contractor to ask what was wrong with the radiators and whether they all needed replacing.
  4. The resident called and emailed the landlord on 21 February 2022 for an update and said its contractor attended a few weeks ago. The landlord replied the same day and said its contractor had provided a quote to replace the radiators. It is not clear exactly why, but it then said it chased its contractor for an urgent update.
  5. On 2 March 2022 the resident emailed the landlord and said: he was at the end of his tether; 5 out of 6 radiators did not work; the bedroom window had not been repaired after 4 months; and he had no option but to withhold rent until the repairs were completed. The landlord emailed its contractor a second time to chase a response the following day.
  6. The contractor emailed the landlord on 7 March 2022 and said none of the radiators worked. It said it “tried to set them up, but still nothing”. The landlord asked it for a second opinion, as it did not believe all the radiators were faulty.
  7. An internal landlord email dated 31 March 2022 said it had spoken to the resident regarding rent arrears. He said he regularly stayed at his girlfriend’s house due to the cold, and he had raised the repairs when he moved in.
  8. It is not clear if or when the contractor attended a second time. However, it emailed the landlord on 4 April 2022 and said it checked the radiators on its visit and they had power and were controlled by a thermostat. However, it said they were old and did not work when the thermostat was bypassed. The landlord asked what had been done to each radiator and whether it had called the manufacturer.
  9. The resident raised a formal complaint the same day. He said: a number of radiators did not work; the property was freezing and he had stayed at another property he owned outside of London; a bedroom window repair had been booked for 29 March 2022, but nobody turned up; and he had paid “a fortune in electricity to keep the property vaguely warm, but he could not actually live there as it was so cold.”
  10. The landlord issued its stage 1 response the same day when it said a radiator repair had been raised and it had spoken to its contractor that day. It would monitor the repair so it could be addressed as quickly as possible. It had also raised a bedroom window repair (which was completed the following day). It apologised for the delays, and said it had experienced a high demand for repairs as the pandemic eased, and there was a longer wait for non-urgent work.
  11. The resident escalated the complaint on 14 April 2022, saying the radiator repairs had not been completed and he could not believe this still had not happened. The landlord replied the same day and said it had to wait for a repair quote from its contractors, which it had chased. As soon as it received the quote it would approve the repairs.
  12. The contractor did not respond until 26 April 2022. It is not clear whether it provided the repair quote, but it said the radiators did not have a model number, did not heat up, and there were no accessible parts. The landlord requested further information the next day. It said it was hard to believe they were all faulty and there was no information or data plates. The contractor provided the radiator brand to the landlord on 18 May 2022. It said there was no serial or model number; they were all faulty; and they all had power but some turn on but did not give out heat, and others did not turn on at all.
  13. The landlord raised follow-on work with its contractors in relation to 6 radiators on 8 June 2022. The resident emailed the landlord on 14 June 2022. He said 2 contractors had visited and confirmed the radiators needed replacing, and the landlord’s electrical manager also visited as he did not believe the contractor.
  14.  The resident chased the repair again on 21 June 2022. The landlord raised a further repair to remove the thermostat on 28 June 2022 which was completed 7 days later pending installation of new radiators and thermostat.
  15. The follow-on work in relation to the radiators was marked completed on 3 August 2022, but there are no records to confirm if the contractor attended. It then amended the job on 19 August 2022 and noted “this is for one heater, however we need the complete heating system replaced and radiator hub installed”.
  16. On 4 October 2022 the landlord booked the radiator repair for 12 October 2022. In an email to the landlord on 12 October 2022, the resident said installation had been booked for 2 days earlier but the contractor did not arrive. A further repair was raised for the draughty bedroom window the same day as the resident reported the sealant had worn away.
  17. The contractor emailed the landlord on 18 October 2022 to confirm the radiator work had been completed. The bedroom window repair was marked completed on 20 October 2022, but a second repair was raised the next day for the same issue with a different contractor. The second repair was completed on 10 January 2023.
  18. An internal landlord email from 26 January 2023 said the resident had escalated the complaint to stage 2. However it had not been assigned, so no action had been taken for 9 months. A further internal landlord email 6 weeks later said no further action had taken place in relation to the complaint and the arrears balance was £17,050. The stage 2 complaint was assigned the next day.
  19. The landlord called the resident on 13 March 2023 to discuss the complaint and issued its stage 2 response on 30 March 2023 as follows:
    1. It had kept the complaint open until all repairs had been completed, and it said there was a backlog of stage 2 complaints.
    2. It apologised for the length of time the repairs had taken and acknowledged the frustration and inconvenience caused.
    3. It offered compensation totalling £2,828 broken down as;
      1. £110 for the delay between the stage 1 and 2 responses.
      2. £380 for the kitchen sink repair (not within the scope of this investigation).
      3. £180 for distress, £180 for inconvenience, £20 for missed appointments and £100 for time and effort.
      4. £338 for loss of heating from 26 November 2021 to 13 October 2022, £660 for distress, £660 for inconvenience, and £200 for time and effort.
      5. In line with policy, the compensation would be offset against the rent arrears.
  20. The resident emailed the landlord on 14 April 2023. He said £1,858 was not enough to make up for barely having heating for 11 months and the length of time taken to resolve the repair. He said he expected 6 months worth of rent (£9,300). However, he was happy with the suggested compensation for the kitchen sink and bedroom window repairs. The landlord replied by email the same day and said it awarded compensation in line with policy and would only compensate for heating loss between 1 October and 30 April.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

  1. The landlord issued a Notice of Seeking Possession in April 2023 (exact date unclear) before the resident issued his notice to leave the property on 19 June 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Between January and June 2023, the Ombudsman carried out an investigation into the landlord under paragraph 49 of the Scheme, which allows us to conduct investigations beyond individual complaints to establish whether there is evidence of a systemic failing within a landlord. It reviewed findings of complaints made to the landlord between March 2019 and October 2022 and identified common points of failure such as repairs handling and complaints. The report made recommendations for improvements to be made and was published in July 2023 and can be viewed here London & Quadrant P49 Report (the report).
  2. The events in this case took place during the period covered by the report, and some of the findings are relevant to this case and are referred to herein. We have not made any orders or recommendations which would duplicate those already made to the landlord in the Ombudsman’s report. Since 1 August 2023, following the publication of the report, this Service has investigated 87 complaints about the landlord, with less than half now resulting in a finding of some level of maladministration, which suggests the landlord has made improvements.
  3. The Ombudsman acknowledges that there were additional issues within the property including a leak under the kitchen sink which affected the dishwasher, and a door issue. These matters have been responded to by the landlord at various stages. The resident accepted that the compensation offered for the leak was reasonable and, as a result, has not raised this complaint point with the Ombudsman. The landlord has not yet had a proper opportunity to investigate the issue with the door through its complaints process, so this matter is also not considered further in this report.
  4. While the resident accepted that the compensation offer for the bedroom window was also reasonable, in an email to the landlord of 14 April 2023, he has confirmed that he would still like the Ombudsman to consider this point of complaint. Therefore, this report is focused solely on those issues which have exhausted the landlord’s complaints process, and which the resident remains dissatisfied with.

Heating repairs

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy says it is responsible for heating. The policy states it will arrange a mutually convenient appointment to attend all (non-emergency) repairs, but does not give an expected timeframe when the repair should be completed.
  2. In relation to repairs, the report identified that “residents suffered excessive and unexplained delays” and there was “no tracking of repair progress, contributing to excessive delays.” The evidence showed this was the same in this case.
    1. The landlord raised the heating repair on 30 November 2021, but there is no evidence its contractor attended until 9 February 2022, 72 calendar days after the repair had been reported. This was despite the resident escalating the issue and reporting further repairs on 5 January 2022.
    2. Following the visit, the landlord initially acted promptly and asked its contractor for its findings. It is not clear what action the landlord took having received a repair quote from the contractor. However, the evidence suggests it took no action until the resident emailed for an update 9 days later, which was not reasonable. It then took a further 2 emails to the contractor before it finally responded on 7 March 2022.
    3. After delays initially attending, and a month delay waiting for the contractor to respond, the landlord then asked the contractor for a second opinion on 7 March 2022, but again there was no evidence this was chased up.
    4. The landlord asked the contractor for further information a second time on 4 April 2022, but there was no evidence this was chased up. The contractor did not respond to the request until 26 April 2022, 22 calendar days later.
    5. A further delay was caused when the landlord asked for information a third time on 27 April 2022, to which the contractor did not respond until 18 May 2022. Again, there was no evidence a response was monitored or chased up. Even when the contractor responded, the landlord did not raise follow-on work for another 21 calendar days.
    6. There was a further issue where the landlord amended the follow-on work on 19 August 2022 to say it required the full heating system replaced and radiator hub installed (which suggested the contractor provided a quote for 1 radiator). It then took a further 12 days to approve the amendment.
    7. Once the repair was approved, the contractor did not attend until 12 October 2022, 44 calendar days later. Despite it being the summer months, given the length of time the resident had waited, it would have been reasonable to prioritise the repair, but it did not do so.
  3. The report found an issue was poor communication between the landlord and its contractors. The evidence in this case showed this was a significant factor in the overall repair delays. The landlord was aware its contractor attended in the first instance and it was entitled to ask for a second opinion and clarity over the work that had been carried out. However, failing to monitor the repair or chase for a response exacerbated the situation and contributed to the long delays, which was a failing. Had it done so, some of the months of delays could have been avoided.
  4. As well as poor communication with contractors, the report found residents were “not kept informed of the progress of repairs leading them to chase and complain.” In this case the lack of updates over many months caused inconvenience to the resident and ultimately led to the formal complaint being made. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident’s frustration increased as the months passed, before he ultimately decided to withhold rent in March 2023 in an effort to get the heating repaired.
  5. The landlord should have done more to follow up with the resident rather than leaving him to chase for updates. The poor communication continued as he had his expectations raised, following the stage 1 response, that the repair would be monitored and completed, but this did not happen. The landlord should also have managed his expectations and been clear it needed to wait for its contractor’s repair quote.
  6. The report also identified “poor record keeping with contractors.” In this case the poor quality of the landlord’s records mean that it has not been possible to fully understand when or what the landlord or its contractor did or why, which has impacted our ability to carry out a thorough investigation. Examples of this are that the repair log showed the landlord initially raised 2 repairs with different contractors on 30 November 2021 for the radiators. However, it is not clear what happened with either appointment. It was also not clear what happened with the radiator repair booked for 20 January 2022, or whether a second heating inspection took place.
  7. The landlord (as the body in a contractual agreement with the resident) is ultimately responsible for the repair, regardless of whether it outsources the work to a contractor. The overall handling of the radiator repair caused the resident distress and inconvenience (regardless of the time of year), affected his enjoyment of the property, and ultimately could have led to a breakdown in the landlord/resident relationship. The heating repair took 11 months to complete. The lack of urgency and proactive involvement in the repairs process, coupled with poor communication and record keeping with its contractor, ultimately left the resident without heating and hot water for an unreasonable length of time.
  8. Where the Ombudsman has identified failings in the landlord’s response to the substantive issue, it is then for this Service to consider how it responded to those failings through the operation of its complaints process. The landlord ultimately accepted and acknowledged that there had been failures leading to unacceptable delays and that this caused detriment to the resident. It apologised for the distress, time, trouble, and inconvenience caused, and offered £1,858 compensation for its handling of the heating repair.
  9. During the course of the 11 months, the resident did chase the heating repairs up. However, after initially raising the issues, there was no evidence he followed it up until an email on 5 January 2022, and there is no evidence the repairs were chased on a daily or weekly basis with a high degree of urgency. It is not clear how often, or how long he stayed at other accommodation in total, but the resident said he stayed at his parents house for about a month in December 2021, and stayed with his girlfriend regularly and another property outside of London. Whilst having to stay at other accommodation would undoubtedly have caused some inconvenience, he would not have been as impacted by the lack of heating at the property, as he would had there been no alternative accommodation options. 
  10. The compensation offer demonstrated that the landlord took the complaint seriously and sought to ‘put things right’ in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles. The amount offered was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for an issue where a resident has been significantly impacted and put to time and trouble. There is not enough evidence that the resident actively pursued the repairs and therefore nothing to warrant an order for the landlord to increase the offer of compensation it paid.
  11. Taking account of all the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord’s response to the complaint (and the identified failings) in relation to the heating repairs was appropriate and proportionate. A finding is therefore made that the landlord had offered redress to the resident which resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Bedroom window repairs

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy says it is responsible for windows. As above, the policy states it will arrange a mutually convenient appointment to attend all (non-emergency) repairs, but does not give a timeframe when the repair should be completed.
  2. The resident first raised the issue with the bedroom window on 5 January 2022. There is no evidence of a repair being raised until 4 April 2022, 90 days later following the complaint. Whilst not raising a repair was a failing, there is again no evidence the resident chased the repair. The landlord attended promptly the following day to complete the bedroom window repair, which was reasonable given the circumstances. 
  3. The resident raised a further issue with the bedroom window on 12 October 2022. As previously identified, the handling and repair records are confusing. It was marked completed on 20 October 2022, but there is no evidence anyone attended. The following day the landlord raised the same repair with another contractor which was not completed until 10 January 2023, 91 days after it was raised. This was an unreasonable length of time to complete the repair.
  4. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case with the bedroom window repair, this Service will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. The landlord offered a total of £480 in its stage 2 response for its failings and delays in repairing the bedroom window. Having considered the landlord’s policy, alongside the Ombudsman’s internal guidance, this was also reasonable. A finding is made that the landlord has offered redress to the resident which resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Complaint Handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint handling policy in use at the time of the complaint said it aimed to log and acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days, and send a written decision within 10 working days.
  2. The report said, although the landlord had policies and procedures in place for complaints, it was “not consistently putting them into practice and responses demonstrated little empathy, instead listing actions it would take without explaining its investigation.” The landlord’s own annual 2021-2022 complaint handling reports identified complaints escalated to stage 2 because of the poor quality of its stage 1 responses.
  3. The landlord sent its stage 1 response the same day the complaint was received. Whilst this was very prompt, the response did not consider any compensation for the 5 months of delays in repairing the heating, failing to log the bedroom window repair, or taking 3 months to repair the bedroom window after it was reported, which was not reasonable. 
  4. The landlord’s complaints policy says if a resident is dissatisfied, it will escalate to stage 2. It says it will send a stage 2 response within 20 working days of the request to escalate, and if it needs longer, it will explain why to the resident and write within a further 10 working days.
  5. Whilst the bedroom window had been repaired, the resident escalated the complaint 10 working days after the stage 1 response. This was after he was told the radiator repairs would be resolved “as quickly as possible.” However, the stage 2 response was not sent until 242 working days later. The landlord said it wanted to wait until the repairs had been completed before issuing the response. However, this was not a reasonable approach to take and was a significant delay. Had the landlord followed its complaints policy correctly, it might have followed that the repairs were completed earlier, which was a failing.
  6. Overall, the landlord acknowledged some of its failings and made some attempt to put things right in its stage 2 response. However, the compensation offer for its complaint handling was not proportionate to the failings identified by this investigation. As a result, a finding of maladministration is made with an order for £300 compensation to be paid to the resident (less the £110 offered if this has already been paid).

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident, which resolves the following complaints satisfactorily:
    1. Heating repairs.
    2. Bedroom window repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident directly £300 (less the £110 offered if this has already been paid) for its complaint handling failures.
    3. Provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord should consider the learning from this case, and comply with existing statutory obligations to ensure that its complaint handling practices fully align with the principles of the updated Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code published 1 April 2024.