London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202305890)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305890

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

16 January 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 landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the bedroom wall.
This Service has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began on 13 March 2017. The property is 3-bedroom maisonette in a block. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
On 10 August 2021, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. In summary she said:
1. Her property was a newbuild property. When she had tried to paint the wall, the paint had cracked. She had been reporting the issue to the landlord since April 2021. She had been advised by independent decorators that the reason the paint was cracking was because the wall was not originally prepped or primed at the time the property was built.
2. The landlord’s surveyor attended on 9 August 2021 and confirmed what the decorators had already advised her. She had been told, however, that she had to resolve the issue herself. She did not agree that she should have to skim the walls to be able to decorate. She was also concerned that she may have the same problem if she starts to decorate other rooms.
On 12 August 2021, the landlord sent its stage 1 response. It said that it had spoken to its surveyor and could confirm that the works to the walls could go ahead. It said that the subsequent decoration of the room would be the resident’s responsibility. It had raised the works, and the resident should hear from its contractor within the next 3 weeks to arrange an appointment date.
On 17 December 2021, the resident requested that the issue be escalated to stage 2. In summary, she said that the works to the wall had not been completed despite her chasing the issue. She had already been waiting 8 months.
The resident then tried to contact the landlord on several occasions throughout 2022 to get the works completed. She was advised that works would be completed but the landlord changed its position on several occasions. This led to the landlord issuing its stage 2 response on 5 April 2023. In summary it said:
1. On 4 April 2023, the resident confirmed by email that the works had been completed. When the resident received the stage 1, she was promised that the works would be done. Then going back and forth this decision had changed several times. This was unacceptable and feedback would be given to the team as part of its complaint process.
2. It apologised for the distress caused by the lack of communication and the delay. It offered £515 compensation broken down as follows:
  1. £120 for the delay in its stage 2 response.
  2. £25 for its service failure by not completing the works in a reasonable time.
  3. £230 for the inconvenience caused by its delay.
  4. £100 for the resident’s time and effort.
  5. £40 for distress.

Post Complaint

The resident remained dissatisfied and contacted this Service. She did not consider that the compensation offered reflected the stress and inconvenience caused, particularly given the length of time it took the landlord to resolve.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the bedroom wall

The landlord’s repair policy states that it is responsible for the structure of the home which includes walls. It is responsible for internal walls and plaster work when cracked over 5mm or severely crumbled. It states that it would not undertake repairs to decorate internal walls unless obligated via tenancy terms and conditions.
The landlord’s website states that it will complete emergency repairs within 24 hours. It will aim to complete non-emergency repairs within 20 working days.
The evidence shows that the resident raised the issue with the landlord in April 2021. It is unclear the exact date but the correspondence from the resident states that the surveyor was unable to attend in July 2021 due to illness. The surveyor then subsequently attended to complete an initial inspection on 9 August 2021. This was approximately 4 months after the issue had been raised.
The landlord failed to assess its handling of the matter for this period in either of its complaint responses. While illness accounted for some of the delay, it failed to offer any explanation for the full extent of the delays. The time frame was substantial and not within the time frames given on its website. Furthermore, there is no evidence to show how it kept the resident updated during this period which is a further failing.
It is unclear what the landlord advised the resident when it did attend to complete its inspection in August 2021. The landlord did, however, set out its position in its stage 1 response. It confirmed that it would complete the works to the wall, but the decoration would be the resident’s responsibility. This was in accordance with its repair policy and ensured that the resident’s expectations were managed. It went on to say that an appointment would be scheduled within 3 weeks. It also provided a point of contact for the resident should there be any issues. This was reasonable and showed that the landlord was trying to resolve matters.
The resident then had to chase the matter 2 months later on 12 October 2021 as she had not heard anything. This evidenced further poor communication from the landlord which was a further failing in its handling of the matter. The resident had to continue with the uncertainty of when the issue would be resolved. She also had to spend time and effort chasing the matter.
The landlord did respond when the resident made contact. It advised that works with its contractor were on hold. In its stage 2 response, the landlord went further to explain that there was a back log due to COVID-19.
The records show that the landlord informed the resident that the job had now been raised with its maintenance team to try to speed matters up. An appointment was made for 10 November 2021. When the landlord did attend on 10 November 2021, it was not to complete the works but to complete a further inspection. The surveyor that attended was the same as the original one that attended in August 2021. This was frustrating for the resident who had been informed that the works were going to be completed. This was a further failing in the landlord’s handling of the matter.
The resident had to chase the matter again in December 2021, as she had not heard anything. This prompted the landlord to respond but it then changed its position without any reasonable explanation. It said that it would not complete the works because the issue was due to the resident not using undercoat and using substandard paint. It is unclear how it came to this conclusion at this stage. Its response was confusing and prompted the resident to escalate her complaint to stage 2.
The resident then continued to chase the matter throughout January to June 2022. When she did receive a response, she was told that there was a delay in its complaint handling due to a back log. The resident then managed to speak to a different department in July 2022. She was told that the landlord would now make good on its promise and would arrange the works. However, no arrangements were made, and the resident had to expend further time and trouble and chase the matter again in August and September 2022, which would have been frustrating.
The landlord responded in September 2022. It said that the resident should obtain quotes and invoices for the works, and it would then arrange to reimburse her for the cost. It said that this was the best solution it could offer as it was short staffed. The evidence then shows that the resident sent an email to the landlord in January 2023 stating that she did not have time to obtain 3 quotes, and she considered the landlord should do it as it had originally said it would. Once again, the resident had to chase this up and send all the original emails where the landlord had agreed to do the works.
It is unclear what was agreed but the evidence shows that the landlord assigned the job to a different contractor. This contractor attended to complete an inspection and take photographs in February 2023. The resident said that she then chased this up directly with the contractor to ascertain when the works would be booked in. She was then informed that her landlord had rejected the works stating that it was the resident’s responsibility. There is no evidence to show that the landlord communicated this to the resident. This would have caused further confusion and frustration for the resident and was a further failing in its handling of the matter.
The landlord then advised that it should not have cancelled the works. It said the job had been re-raised. The works were then completed on 4 April 2023. This was 2 years after the resident had raised her original request. She had to spend considerable time and effort on the phone, sending emails, and facilitating access to try to get the works done during that period. She had also had to live with the uncertainty of whether the works would be actioned at all for almost 2 years. During this period, she had been unable to complete decorations to her son’s bedroom. The landlord’s delays and poor communication did not foster a good landlord tenant relationship.
The landlord agreed that its service had fallen short and apologised within its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord said that it would feedback the case to the appropriate department. It did not, however, set out how the failings had occurred. By not identifying what had gone wrong, it failed to provide reassurance that these failings would not happen again. It did however offer £395 compensation to try to put matters right.
In identifying whether there has been maladministration, the Ombudsman considers both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaint procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original failing. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of service failure or maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to offer redress.
It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that while the landlord’s handling of the situation could reasonably have been improved, it had recognised the impact on the resident and had taken steps to try to put things right. The amount of compensation, however, does not fully reflect the impact on the resident. The evidence showed that the resident had spent considerable time and effort over a 2-year period chasing the landlord to try to get matters resolved. The landlord repeatedly changed its position to the resident and failed to explain why. This error continued to occur despite the resident raising the issue as a formal complaint. This was a missed opportunity to put matters right at an earlier stage.
The landlord also failed to explain what had gone wrong within its complaint responses. It was therefore unable to fully put matters right. The Ombudsman considers the above failings amount to maladministration. A series of orders have been made out below. The orders include compensation in accordance with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies. Further orders have also been made to ensure that the landlord sets out its position relative to the other walls in the property. The landlord will also have to review its handling of this case to prevent similar failings happening.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints procedure. Its complaints policy shows it aims to respond to complaints within ten working days at stage 1. At stage 2, it aims to respond within 20 working days.
The stage 1 complaint response was issued within a few days, although it lacked any investigation into its handling of the matter. It was also silent on what it would do to prevent similar happening again. This was a further shortcoming in its handling of the issue. The resident experienced an inconvenience of raising concerns about the landlord’s handling of the repairs, without receiving a detailed response.
The landlord’s stage 2 response took 322 working days to issue this was considerably outside of its own timescales and a failing. The landlord did acknowledge its delay and offered £120 compensation. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response went some way to putting the failings in its stage 1 response right. The landlord acknowledged its poor communication and changes in its responses. It failed, however, to detail learning from its failings. It simply stated that it would feed the complaint back to the department. This did not offer reassurance that it had considered how the failings had occurred and that this would not happen again.
The Ombudsman considers the above complaint handling failures amount to maladministration. At stage 2 of the complaint, there was a substantial failure to respond within timescales of the complaint. The landlord sought to remedy this part and appropriately offered £120 compensation. This amount, however, does not fully cover all of the landlord’s failings.
The stage 1 complaint response was inadequate as it failed to show any investigation into the issue. Although the stage 2 response did investigate and acknowledge some of its failings, it failed to show what went wrong and how it would learn from its mistakes. These failings caused the resident time and effort having to pursue her complaint further with this Service. In determining an appropriate order for compensation, consideration has been given to the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the bedroom wall.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay directly to the resident a total of £700. £515 of the landlord’s compensation offer can be deducted from this total, if already paid. The compensation is broken down as follows:
  1. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the bedroom wall.
  2. £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the complaint.
Within 6 weeks the landlord must write to the resident and set out its position relative to the other walls within the resident’s property. If further action is required, the landlord should set out an action plan which should include time frames of when it will complete any necessary works.
Within 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to complete a review into its response to the resident’s reports about the issues with the wall to identify how it can prevent similar failings happening again, with a particular focus on:
1. Satisfying itself that it has effective procedures in place to record and store repair information accurately.
2. It should consider its staff training and system needs, regarding how it arranges repairs, maintains repair records, which reflect its own and contractor’s actions and how it will monitor any follow up action.
3. That there is effective internal communication, and that teams are aware of relevant roles in keeping the resident updated and recording the communication.
4. The landlord must share the outcome of its review with this service, also within eight weeks.