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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202303678)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303678

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

10 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s request for an electronic gate.
    2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident lives in the property, owned by the landlord, under an assured tenancy. The property is a 3-bedroom house and the resident has lived there since January 2016.
  2. The resident emailed the landlord on 1 November 2021 to say that she and the other residents in the street were ‘fed up with’ the entrance to the close as parking spaces were being used by non-residents, and these people were abusive when challenged. She requested that an electronic gate be installed to stop illegal parking, fly tipping and damage to property.
  3. The landlord agreed to visit the site on 25 November 2021 and following this visit a letter was sent to all residents to consult about installing an electronic gate. This letter set out the potential cost and said that the gate would be provided by funding, if approved. During 2022 the landlord restructured and the housing manager dealing with the request for a gate was moved and this request was not progressed.
  4. On 9 August 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to ask for rubbish dumped in the street to be cleared, and also for an update on progress of installation of the security gate. The landlord responded on 11 August, saying that the gate had not been authorised by senior management due to the cost and it was looking into alternatives. The resident responded the same day asking to raise a complaint as she said the residents were told the gate would be installed.
  5. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 14 October 2022, in which it said that the new housing manager was not aware of the plans to install an electronic gate, so no budget had been set aside in the current financial year. It apologised and said it would need to obtain new quotes.
  6. The resident responded on 23 November 2022 saying that she disagreed that the new housing manager was unaware of the plans. She said that the landlord had made a commitment to install the gate and wanted to escalate the complaint.
  7. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 24 April 2023, in which it said that the proposal had not been approved through the correct channels previously. It said it had obtained new quotes and these would not have been approved as it would have exhausted the majority of the landlord’s budget for its whole housing stock for the year. It said it would look into other options, however it was not obliged to undertake work, as this would be classed as an improvement rather than a repair.
  8. The resident remained unhappy with the response and contacted this service on 28 April 2024 to ask us to investigate.

Assessment and findings

Request for an electronic gate

  1. The tenancy agreement sets out that the landlord is obliged to repair installations and common parts and keep the exterior of the premises in a good state of decoration. It does not set out any obligation to carry out improvement works.
  2. The resident first requested the landlord install an electronic gate on 1 November 2021, after it had painted yellow lines which the resident said were ‘hideous and made no difference’. On 17 November the landlord agreed to a site visit on 25 November and the same day the housing manager at that time wrote to all residents.
  3. The letter set out the potential cost of the work and said that the installation would be provided by funding if approved, however the work would need to be authorised by the committee board. This letter makes it clear that this was a  consultation and there would still be an approval process to go through, and does not say that the work would definitely go ahead.  No evidence of any other written communication between the housing manager and the resident from this time has been provided to suggest that the resident was told the installation had been approved.
  4. The resident emailed the landlord on 15 December 2021, acknowledging receipt of the consultation letter and said some of the residents needed more time to respond. The landlord responded to say that once the paperwork was received it would ‘put in for the gate in the new year’. Whilst it did not say the gate had been approved, it could have been clearer in this communication that it would be submitting the plan for approval.
  5. The resident sent the landlord several emails between 7 January and 13 January 2022 asking for an update, and this Service has seen no evidence that the landlord responded. There is no evidence of any further communication until the resident emailed on 9 August asking for an update on the installation of the gate.
  6. The landlord responded on 11 August 2022, saying that the proposal had not been authorised due to the cost and it was looking at alternatives. The resident responded the same day saying that whilst she was not surprised it had been blocked she was told that it would go ahead. She asked to make a formal complaint. The landlord responded the next day explaining that the costs were too high but that it would look to install a manual gate as an alternative. The resident said that she and other residents were not happy with a manual gate.
  7. In its stage 1 response of 14 October 2022, the landlord said it was not aware of the proposal and had not set aside a budget for it in the 2022/23 financial year. It said it would speak to the previous housing manager about what was discussed and also obtain new quotes, but that it would be on hold until the new financial year.
  8. The previous housing manager said that there had been plans to install a gate at another address that was no longer needed, so they were told she could use it at this address, however there was a difference in price. They did not say whether it was made clear to the resident that approval for the proposal still needed to be sought.
  9. On 18 October 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to say that a contractor had turned up that day to install a manual gate. She said the residents had stopped them as they did not want this installed and were still in dispute over the electric gate. She responded to the landlord’s stage 1 response on 23 November to say that the new housing manager was aware of the proposal and the landlord had made a commitment to install the gate. She asked for the complaint to be escalated.
  10. On 10 March 2023 the landlord told the resident that it would make contact with parking control contractors. On 5 April it received a new quote for an electronic gate, which was over £31,000. Its internal records state that there was no sinking fund available and that this would take over half of what was allocated for the whole neighbourhood for a year, which it could not justify. It said that it needed to look at other alternatives such as ANPR (automatic number plate recognition) cameras. It was reasonable for the landlord to consider the significant outlay for the electronic gate to be a disproportionate use of the limited funding it had available for the properties owned within that estate.
  11. In its stage 2 response of 24 April 2023 it explained to the resident that the proposal had not been approved through the correct channels, and that the quotes were significantly more expensive than the work that was cancelled elsewhere that had left some money available. It had used this money to resurface the carpark, which the resident herself had said needed doing. It said that the electronic gate proposal would never have been approved and it was now looking into alternative options.
  12. The resident told this service on 29 November 2023 that there were issues with fly tipping, as well as the parking issues. The landlord has provided a record of reports of bulk rubbish at the property, which showed there were 15 jobs raised over 4 years, and only 3 in the previous 12 months, which it said did not suggest a major issue. Whilst this Service appreciates the issue was frustrating for the resident, the landlord’s records show that when fly tipping has been reported, it has taken reasonable action to remove the waste.
  13. The Ombudsman considers there to have been service failure by the landlord in its handling of the residents request for an electronic gate. It was not obliged to install an electric gate, as this would be considered an improvement rather than a repair. By obtaining quotes for the work it has shown that it considered the proposal, however it provided a reasonable explanation for its decision not to go ahead with the proposal.
  14. Whilst there is no evidence to support the resident’s claim that she was told that the electronic gate would definitely be installed, and the consultation letter of 25 November 2021 made it clear that approval would be needed, subsequent communication from the landlord could have been clearer that approval had not yet been granted.
  15. The resident’s initial request was made in November 2021, and the landlord did not communicate to the resident that the proposal had definitely been declined until April 2023. So, the landlord took too long to tell the resident that it would not be going ahead with the electronic gate, and there were long periods were she was not provided with any update.
  16. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance provides for compensation from £50 for cases where “there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided and it did not appropriately acknowledge these and /or fully put them right”. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in communicating its decision to the resident.

Complaint handling

  1. Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case the landlord’s complaint process lacked customer focus, took too long and the landlord did not escalate the complaint appropriately.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will log and acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and send a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint. It says it will send a stage 2 response within 20 working days of the request for escalation.
  3. The resident first asked the landlord to raise a complaint on 11 August 2022, however it did not log the complaint until it had a telephone call with her about the issue on 22 September 2022. It sent its stage 1 response on 14 October 2022, 45 working days after she raised the complaint and outside the policy timescale which represented an unreasonable delay.
  4. The resident responded to the complaint on 23 November 2022, clearly expressing her dissatisfaction with its response and said that she would await its stage 2 investigation response. It failed to pick up this escalation request. The resident contacted it to request an update on 28 February 2023 to say the complaint was not closed and on 10 March she reiterated her request to have the complaint escalated. The landlord eventually escalated the complaint on 20 March, 80 working days after she had requested this.
  5. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 24 April 2023, which was 104 working days after the resident’s first escalation request. In this letter it did recognise that there had been delays in its responses at both stages and it offered £50 compensation.
  6. The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s complaint. Whilst it is to the landlord’s credit that it recognised there were delays, it did not appear to recognise how significant the delay was at stage 2, and its offer of compensation did not go far enough to recognise that its internal complaints process had taken 8 months to complete.
  7. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance provides for compensation from £100 for cases where “there was a failure which adversely affected the resident and the landlord failed to acknowledge its failings and/or made no attempt to put things right”. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation of £150 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its delayed responses. This brings the total compensation for its complaint handling failures to £200.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s request for an electronic gate.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £300, less any amount already paid during its internal complaints process, broken down as follows:
    1. £100 for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for an electronic gate.
    2. £200 for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, including the £50 offered in its stage 2 response.
  2. The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this service within 28 days of this report.