London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202304010)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304010

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

14 February 2025

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 increase in the resident’s service charge in 2024.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of having no electricity.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concern about the communal front door.
4. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
5. The landlord’s complaint handling and communication.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord at the property, which is a flat in a building with a communal front door and power room. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
On 15 January 2023, the resident told the landlord that she had no electricity. She said that a homeless person was sleeping inside the power room and had stolen a fuse. She made a complaint about how long it had taken the landlord to reconnect the electricity. The landlord responded at stage 1 and provided contact details for its repairs staff.
The resident made another complaint on 24 April 2023. She re-raised her concern about the electricity. She also said that homeless people were entering the building through a broken communal door. The landlord sent another stage 1 response and said it would contact her further about the issues.
The landlord responded to all of the issues at stage 2 on 3 August 2023. It had reconnected her electricity the following day but noted that the first contractor had not fixed the missing fuse. Slats were missing from the power room door. It had asked for this to be inspected to see if it could be made more secure. The communal door had been repaired. It advised the resident to contact the police and let it know if any ASB was occurring. It offered £180 compensation.
The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman as she felt the landlord had not responded appropriately. She requested a minimum of £2,000 compensation. She also raised a concern about her service charge having increased from March 2024.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. There are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated. Paragraph 42.d. of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman is may not investigate issues about the level or the amount of increase of service charges, and therefore we may also not consider their reasonableness or the liability to pay them. If the resident wishes to challenge these aspects of her service charge, she can make an application to the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). As such, the resident’s complaint about the increase in her service charge in 2024 is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident told the Ombudsman that the situation had caused her “mental breakdown and stress”. The courts are the best place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and the cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of any such injury, testimony can be examined in court.
Therefore, it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable, and more effective to seek a remedy for the resident’s health issues through the courts, as we do not have the authority or expertise to do so and may not consider such complaints. While this means the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect of the landlord’s actions or inactions on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of its handling of the other aspects of her complaint.
The resident raised concerns about other issues. These were not part of the formal complaint, so the Ombudsman cannot investigate them at this stage, as we may not consider complaints made before these have exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. The landlord needs to be able to investigate and respond as part of its internal complaints process. The resident can make a new complaint to have these considered. The concerns that cannot be considered are:
1. The communal door breaking from 16 August 2023 onwards.
2. The intercom being broken.
3. The building manager not being replaced.
4. The doors of the rubbish and gas rooms being broken.

Response to the resident’s report of having no electricity

The resident told the landlord that she had no electricity at around 2pm on 15 January 2023. She explained that she could not cook or wash.
A contractor attended within 4 hours. They turned a switch back on and noted that it looked like the power room had been broken into.
The landlord is responsible for maintaining the electricity of the resident’s block. Its repairs policy says that it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours. If it is out of hours, it will attend within 4 hours to make safe.
It was appropriate for the landlord to raise an emergency and for a repair to be done within 4 hours. However, the contractor did not check that electricity had been restored to each property. It also did not notice that at least one fuse was missing. Therefore, the resident’s electricity was not restored at the time.
The resident told the landlord again the next day that she still had no electricity. She said that the temperature in her property was less than 10 degrees Celsius.
A contractor attended at around 11:40pm that evening. They replaced the missing fuse and the resident’s electricity was reinstated.
The Right to Repair scheme sets out how quickly local authority landlords should do some repairs. It says that loss of electricity should be fixed within 1 working day. The landlord is not a local authority, however its repairs policy refers to this scheme in how it will respond to repairs. It says that it can use the timescale set out in this scheme when responding to leaseholder repairs.
The resident did not have electricity from around 2pm on Sunday 15 January to around 11:40pm on Monday 16 January 2023. Although there was an error by the first contractor, the landlord reinstated the resident’s electricity within 1 working day. This was in line with the target timescale as per its policy.
The landlord’s stage 1 response (17 February 2023) was poor, as it did not investigate the resident’s concerns about having no electricity. It only provided the contact details for members of its staff. This was not appropriate. The landlord’s complaint handling and its communication have been addressed separately below.
Within its stage 2 response (3 August 2023) the landlord accepted that the resident had been without electricity between 15 and 16 January 2023. It agreed that its contractor had not checked that electricity had been restored to each property after the first repair.
It offered a total of £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience for the loss of electricity.
It was appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation even though it had fixed the issue within 1 working day, as per its policy. This was because its first contractor had not identified the issue and for the effect this caused to the resident. As such, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of having no electricity. It has therefore been recommended to pay her the £100 compensation to acknowledge her time without electricity it previously offered.

Response to the resident’s concern about the communal front door

The resident made a complaint on 2 May 2023 about the communal front door having been broken for 2 to 3 weeks. She said that it was a security issue, as homeless people were entering the block.
The landlord responded at stage 1 the same day. It said it had repaired the door on 18 April 2023, but it had raised another repair. This was marked as “finished”, although it is not clear when this was done.
The resident reported the issue again on 10 May and 5 July 2023. Both of these jobs were marked as complete.
In early July 2023, the landlord inspected the block. It told the resident that the door was in “perfect working condition”. The resident challenged this. She said that a number of residents had reported the issue and had stuck notes to the door to say that it was not working. (She provided photos of these, which the Ombudsman has seen).
The landlord maintained that its reply had been accurate. This was unhelpful, as it did not address the number of times the door had broken, why this was happening, or what it would do to prevent this going forward.
Within the stage 2 response, the landlord said that contractors had attended the door 6 times between September 2022 and May 2023. One time no fault had be found. Other times it had found:
1. A fault was with the magnetic lock.
2. The emergency glass unit had been activated.
3. The doors had been forced.
It said that repairs had been done and its surveyor had confirmed that the door was appropriate for the building.
It acknowledged that repairs and communication should have been managed more effectively and sooner. It offered £50 compensation for the time and effort in bringing matters to its attention.
Although this went some way recognise the frustration caused to the resident, it was not enough to address the ongoing nature of this repair issue. The landlord also failed to consider steps it could take to reduce the chance of the door being damaged again. It is noted, however, that damage had been caused to the door by it being used inappropriately. As such, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concern about the communal front door.
The Ombudsman has ordered an apology and an additional £100 compensation. This takes into account the effect on the resident, but also that the faults had been caused by the actions of individuals outside of the landlord’s control. This is addressed further in the ASB section below. The compensation ordered is in line with our remedies guidance’s recommendation of awards of up to £100 to recognise service failure by landlords, including delays in getting matters resolved. The landlord has been further ordered to conduct a senior management review of the issues highlighted in this report. We have also recommended the landlord consider ways to reduce the frequency the communal door is damaged, such as by consideration of the door type or the installation of CCTV.

Response to the resident’s reports of ASB

The resident told the landlord on 15 January 2023 that a homeless person was sleeping in her building’s outside power room and that they had removed electrical fuses. She also reported that the communal front door was broken and homeless people were entering the block.
The landlord said on 11 July 2023 that there was no evidence of homeless people sleeping in the power room when its site inspection during its working hours took place and that the issue reported by the resident happened outside of its working hours. This was not appropriate and was dismissive. The landlord failed to show that it had looked into the resident’s concerns about ASB within the block.
The landlord’s ASB policy says:
1. It will log and consider reports of ASB, even if there is no evidence.
2. It will look at any evidence, any harm, and the apparent motivation behind the ASB.
3. It will log cases within 1 to 3 working days.
4. In investigating and managing ASB it will:
  1. Interview witnesses.
  2. Agree an action plan with the reporting party and keep them updated.
  3. Take a multi-agency approach.
The landlord did not act in line with its ASB policy. There is no evidence that it investigated the matters by speaking to other residents or working with the police, despite being told by the resident that the police had been made aware of the ASB. There is also no evidence that it suggested that the resident could keep diary sheets of such incidents, to see if there was a pattern to the behaviour.
The landlord visited the block and noted on 2 August 2023 that the power room had been broken into. This had also been confirmed by its contractor in July 2023. Despite this, there is no evidence that the landlord tried to find out how this was happening, such as with the use of CCTV or the involvement of the police.
The landlord’s surveyor suggested in August 2023 that a metal plate could be put on the power room door to make it more secure. Despite this reasonable suggestion, it took the landlord until 25 October 2023 to carry out the work to strengthen the door. This was over 2 months after the surveyor’s suggestion and 9 months after the resident’s original ASB report in January 2023.
Overall, the landlord did not show that it had appropriately considered the resident’s concerns. It failed to follow its ASB policy and failed to appropriately investigate the reports. Instead, it was dismissive and said that the resident’s concerns could not be backed up. As such, there was maladministration.
The acknowledge the effect of the landlord’s failures on the resident, an apology and compensation of £350 has been ordered. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where a failure had adversely affected a resident. We have also ordered the landlord to conduct a senior management review of the issues highlighted in this report and recommended it consider the installation of CCTV to address the resident’s concerns about ASB.

Complaint handling and communication

The landlord’s complaints policy says:
1. At stage 1, it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days of the acknowledgement.
2. At stage 2, it will respond within 20 working days.
3. If more time is needed at either stage, it will let the resident know.
The above requirements are also in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The resident made her complaint about not having electricity and possible ASB in the power room on 17 January 2023. The landlord contacted her that same day, however it was dismissive. It said:
1. She should have reported matters to its emergency team.
2. It would raise the issue, on that occasion. It later said it would not do so as she was a leaseholder.
3. She needed to make herself available for the contractor or the job could be cancelled.
The tone of this email was not appropriate. The resident had made the landlord aware that she had no electricity. The landlord was better placed to know who to contact than the resident. As such, the landlord should have acted on this, not told her that she had reported it to the wrong department. This lacked an understanding of how this incident could have affected the resident and her decision making when deciding which of the landlord’s departments to call.
There is no evidence that the landlord had told the resident about the contractor’s appointment to attend her lack of electricity. It is also noted that the issue was fixed from the outside power room. As such, the landlord saying that the resident needed to make herself available for this was not relevant to it carrying out the repair.
The landlord did not check if the resident was a leaseholder or tenant before it responded. As a result, it initially gave her incorrect information that it was not responsible for the electricity repair.
The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord acknowledged this first complaint. The landlord took 23 working days to respond at stage 1 (17 February 2023). This was not within 10 working days in line with its policy or the Code.
It did not apologise or acknowledge that it had delayed its response. This stage 1 response only provided the contact details for 2 members of staff responsible for repairs. It did not show that the landlord had carried out an investigation into the resident’s concerns. This was not appropriate and was not in line with its policy’s or the Code’s requirement for it to do so.
The resident made another complaint on 24 April 2023. This was about the communal front door. She also re-raised her concerns about possible ASB in the power room. The landlord raised this as a new complaint and acknowledged it the following day.
The landlord sent a stage 1 response to this complaint on 2 May 2023. This addressed the power room and the new issue of the communal door within 10 working days in line with its policy and the Code. However, the response was basic and just outlined that it had raised the concerns with its staff. The landlord also said that it had escalated the complaint to stage 2. It was not clear if this was for all of the issues.
The resident asked the Ombudsman to step in and help as the landlord had not responded at stage 2 by late July 2023. Following the involvement of the Ombudsman, the landlord said it would do so by 3 August 2023.
The landlord provided the stage 2 response on 3 August 2023. This was 65 working days after it had escalated the complaint. This was not within 20 working days in line with its policy or the Code. It also did not keep the resident informed of the progress of her complaint during this time contrary to its policy and the Code.
The landlord acknowledged within its stage 2 response that its communication should have been more effective. It also noted that there had been a delay in it responding. It apologised and offered £50 compensation.
In total, the landlord’s internal complaints procedure took just under 7 months from January to August 2023. It is noted that the landlord only responded at stage 2 following the involvement of the Ombudsman. Due to the delay and the frustration this caused to the resident, the compensation offered was not proportionate to recognise the landlord’s above complaint handling failings in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The landlord also failed to identify that its stage 1 responses had been inadequate.
In addition to the poor complaint handling, particularly the stage 1 responses, the landlord’s communications were often dismissive and did not address the concerns raised by the resident. As such, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling and communication.
To acknowledge the effect caused to the resident, additional compensation of £200 has been ordered. This is in line with our remedies guidance’s recommendation of compensation in this range to recognise maladministration by the landlord that has adversely affected the resident.
The issues which have been identified by the Ombudsman in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling, have also been identified in other recent cases. We have issued orders to the landlord to undertake management reviews of identified complaint handling failures. Such reviews were ordered in case reference 202202309 (30 January 2024) and 202221775 (21 June 2024). As the landlord has taken recent action in respect of reviewing its complaint handling, no further order will be made in respect of this in this report.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42.d. of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the increase in service charge in 2024 is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of having no electricity.
In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concern about the communal front door.
In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling and communication.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of this report and provide evidence of compliance to the Ombudsman:
1. Apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this case.
2. Pay a total of £700 compensation to the resident. This figure includes the landlord’s earlier offer of £50, which does not need to be paid again if this has already been paid. The compensation is made up of:
  1. £50 to acknowledge the time and effort the resident spent bringing the matters to the landlord (previously offered by the landlord).
  2. £100 to acknowledge the effect on the resident of the landlord’s failures to respond appropriately to the issue with the communal front door.
  3. £350 to acknowledge the effect on the resident of the landlord’s failures to respond appropriately to the reports of ASB.
  4. £200 to acknowledge the effect on the resident of the landlord’s failures to respond appropriately to her complaints and communication.
The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 8 weeks of this report and provide evidence of compliance to this Ombudsman:
1. Conduct a senior management review of the issues highlighted in this report, summarising identified improvements. This should be shared with its relevant staff and the Ombudsman. This should include consideration of why it failed to follow its ASB policy in this case and the changes it will make to ensure such reports are responded to appropriately.

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to:
1. Pay the resident the £100 compensation to acknowledge her time without electricity it previously offered, which does not need to be paid again if this has already been paid.
2. Consider ways to reduce the frequency the communal door is damaged. This could include consideration of the door type or the installation of CCTV.