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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202306096)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306096

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

31 May 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;
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in the property.
    2. The associated complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is the leaseholder of a shared ownership flat. The landlord is the freeholder.
  2. On 15 April 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that a communal waste pipe was leaking inside his property. On the same day, he raised a complaint as he said that the landlord had refused to send its maintenance team to assess the problem until he had instructed a private plumber to diagnose the issue. The resident said that the pipe running through his flat was a communal waste pipe, and the leak had caused significant damage to his flooring. As part of his complaint, the resident asked for the landlord to reimburse him for the cost of instructing his own plumber.
  3. The landlord issued a stage one response on 17 April 2023. It confirmed that it had fixed the leak, but it was unable to reimburse the resident for any damage inside his property as he would need to make a claim through the landlord’s insurance. The landlord issued a further stage one response on the same day which also stated that it was unable to reimburse the resident for instructing a plumber as the landlord had its own maintenance team that could have attended.
  4. On 17 April 2023, the resident escalated his complaint as he was unhappy that his property had been damaged by a leak from a communal waste pipe. He said that he had asked for the landlord’s maintenance team to attend, but staff had refused to send anyone. The resident said that his flat and the first floor communal area was covered in hazardous wastewater, and the landlord needed to take responsibility to clean it.
  5. The landlord informed the resident that the communal areas were due to be cleaned, but it was unable to carry out a clean inside the resident’s property. However, the landlord offered him £50 towards having his carpets cleaned as a goodwill gesture.
  6. Following intervention from this Service, the landlord issued its stage two response on 18 July 2023. It advised that it had cleaned the communal areas on several occasions, with further work and redecoration scheduled. It said that it descaled the pipe running through the resident’s property in June 2023. It confirmed that it had raised a job to descale, and pressure jet the full pipe running through the building. The landlord said that after it had pressure jetted the pipe, it would fit a non-return valve to the pipe running through the residents property.
  7. The landlord reiterated that the resident would need to make a claim through insurance for any reimbursement for damaged property, and it provided its insurer details again. However, the landlord acknowledged that the experience would have been unpleasant for the resident and offered £50 compensation for any distress and inconvenience he experienced.
  8. The resident remains dissatisfied as he believes the landlord should have taken responsibility for rectifying issues that occurred from a leak in a communal pipe that should not be running through his property. The resident said that follow on works to the pipework took too long to complete. The resident moved into the property in 2017 and advised this Service that he has experienced significant issues with the property, yet the landlord consistently fails to address and rectify issues in a reasonable and timely manner.

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. The resident told this Service that he has experienced numerous issues regarding the property since purchasing it in 2017. The resident has explained the issues are significant and have had a detrimental impact on his ability to comfortably live in his property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42a, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
  3. While this Service does not dispute the resident’s comments, we are unable to investigate the issues raised as they have not been presented to the landlord formally and therefore have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. This investigation solely focuses on the landlord’s handling of the reported leak and whether this was in accordance with its complaints process.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in the property.

  1. The landlord operates a repairs policy that states it will complete routine repairs within 25 days. It will attend to emergency repairs that pose a health and safety risk to resident’s within 24 hours.
  2. As a shared owner of the property, the resident is responsible for most of the repairs inside his home and the facilities that only service his home. The landlord is responsible for the structure of the building, the common parts, common plumbing, and block heating supply. In this instance, the communal waste pipe, that services other properties within the building, caused the leak inside the resident’s property. Therefore, the landlord was responsible for the repair.
  3. The resident complained that the landlord had refused to send its in-house maintenance team to assess the problem initially and asked the resident to instruct a private plumber to diagnose the problem first. This was at the resident’s expense, which he has said cost £120. Given that it was determined that the leak was from a communal pipe, this Service would expect that the landlord would reimburse the resident for the costs he incurred. The landlord did not dispute that it had asked the resident to instruct a private plumber – rather than seeking to establish the source for itself via its in-house team – yet it refused to reimburse him for the cost of a plumber attending. This was unreasonable.
  4. After the landlord accepted its repair responsibilities, it visited the resident’s property and stopped the leak. This was reasonable and in accordance with the landlord’s repair policy for emergency repairs.
  5. The leak caused damage to communal areas, which the landlord was responsible to repair. In the context of this complaint, it would be expected that the landlord had cleaned and ensured that the communal space had been restored back to the condition it was in prior to the leak within a reasonable timescale.
  6. The records regarding the cleaning of the communal area are vague. However, the landlord cleaned the communal carpets on 26 April 2023. It did a further clean of the floors and walls between 7-16 June 2023. The extent of the damage is unknown, but the completion of various cleans, and the requirement for new ceiling panels and redecoration would indicate that it was significant.
  7. At the point of issuing its stage two response on 18 July 2023, 3 months after the reported leak, all required work had not been completed in the communal areas. While this Service does not suggest that this had a significant detrimental impact on the resident, the landlord had failed to complete the required repairs within a reasonable timescale. This was inappropriate and would have caused all residents a degree of frustration.
  8. Further work was completed on the pipe running through the resident’s property on 14 June 2023; 60 days after the initial leak. The stage two response also referred to work being scheduled on the waste pipe, namely pressure jetting and descaling the whole pipe. There is no suggestion that any further leaks occurred, but given the need for follow on works, it would be reasonable for them to be completed within the timescales outlined in its policy for routine repairs. Repairs were ongoing in July, which was inappropriate.
  9. Regarding the resident’s damaged flooring and property, the landlord advised the resident to pursue a claim via its insurer. While this may have been frustrating for the resident, this was appropriate. Positively, the landlord did acknowledge how unpleasant the experience would have been for the resident and offered £100 compensation; £50 to contribute to carpet cleaning and £50 for distress and inconvenience. While the landlord’s offer of £50 to contribute to carpet cleaning was an appropriate gesture of goodwill, it could have caused further frustration to the resident that he was then directed to the landlord’s insurer. This Service does not suggest that the offer was unreasonable, but it is understandable that the resident was confused and frustrated by the differing approaches by the landlord at different stages.
  10. Overall, the landlord attended to the leak in an appropriate timeframe. However, follow-on repairs to the communal areas and waste pipe took longer than reasonably expected and the resident had incurred costs that should have been reimbursed after the landlord found that it was responsible for the repair. It failed to do so, which was unreasonable.
  11. The landlord’s offer of £100 compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified by this investigation, partly because the resident incurred costs of £120 for instructing his own plumber, which the landlord failed to consider as part of its offer. Furthermore, the resident experienced distress and inconvenience due to the delays in both communal and repairs inside his property being completed. The resident also had to take the time and trouble in pursuing the completion of the required repairs.
  12. Subsequently, this Service has reached a finding of maladministration.

The associated complaint handling.

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (CHC) is a guidance document that sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. The code encourages landlords to adopt a positive complaint handling culture that enables them to resolve disputes, improve the quality of the service it provides to resident’s and ensure that complaints provide an opportunity for learning and positive improvement.
  2. The landlord operates a complaints policy, that outlines a two-stage complaints process. The landlord ought to provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the complaint being raised, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated.
  3. The landlord issued its stage one response on 17 April 2023; 2 working days after the resident raised his complaint. This was reasonable and within the timescales outlined within the CHC and the landlord’s complaints policy. However, the landlord issued 2 separate stage one responses for the same complaint matter. While in this instance it did not cause any detriment to the resident, the separate stage one responses confused the process. The landlord should reflect on this and ensure that it responds to complaints in accordance with its policy and has an effective system in place to ensure duplicate responses are not issued to its residents.
  4. The landlord’s complaint policy outlines that it would escalate complaints to stage two after it receives a resident’s request. It states that the request must outline why they remain dissatisfied, and what the resident wants as an outcome of the stage two complaint.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint on 17 April 2023. His escalation was a clear expression of dissatisfaction at the landlord’s stage one response and outlined that to resolve the complaint, he wanted the landlord to take responsibility for cleaning the hazardous wastewater in his property.
  6. In accordance with its complaint policy, the landlord should have issued its stage two response on 17 May 2023. The CHC states that any delays in providing a complaint response must not exceed an additional ten working days without good reason.
  7. The landlord failed to escalate the resident’s complaint in accordance with its policy, which was inappropriate and unnecessarily prolonged the complaints process for the resident.
  8. This Service intervened on 20 June 2023 and instructed the landlord to issue a complaint response. It is not expected that this Service should need to intervene to ensure a landlord’s compliance with the CHC, and its own complaint policy. The resident needed to take the time and trouble to bring his complaint to this Service for intervention, which was unreasonable.
  9. The landlord issued its stage two response on 5 June 2023; 64 working days after the resident escalated his complaint. This is significantly beyond the 20 working day timescale expected and was therefore inappropriate. The landlord did not provide an explanation or apologise for the delay, nor did it compensate the resident for its complaint handling failures.
  10. Overall, the landlord has failed to follow its complaint policy and the CHC, prolonging the complaints process for the resident, and has not offered an appropriate remedy in recognition of the unreasonable delay. There were failings in the landlord’s management of the resident’s complaint and as such, this Service has reached a finding of service failure.
  11. In light of the delays, the landlord should award the resident an additional £50 compensation. This is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance, which states awards of £50-£100 are appropriate when the landlord has not fully acknowledged its failings.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord for the associated complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within four weeks, the landlord is to pay the resident a total of £250 compensation, consisting of:
    1. £100 previously offered by the landlord, if this has not already been paid.
    2. An additional £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident due to the delayed repairs, as well as the time and trouble taken in pursuing the repairs.
    3. £50 for the associated complaint handling failures.
  2. The landlord must provide this Service with evidence of compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord provides additional staff training regarding the responsibilities of the landlord and the leaseholder, to ensure that repairs are allocated correctly to avoid future delays.