London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202306498)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306498

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

22 November 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of a missing communal door and delays in replacing it.
2. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
3. Request for rehousing.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is the assured tenant of the property, which is a 2-bedroom ground floor flat within a block. The landlord is a housing association. The resident has mental health conditions, and the landlord has these recorded.
On 3 April 2023 the landlord raised a repair for the block’s communal entrance door which was hanging off its hinges. The resident also contacted it that day to report the door needed repairing. The landlord’s contractors attended the same day but could not repair the door, or board it, as it was a fire escape. They removed the door and booked to return on 12 April 2023.
The resident reported her flat front door had been damaged on 12 April 2023 and the landlord attended as an emergency to repair it that day. She called it the following day to report an ASB incident which had occurred on 12 April 2023. She said the communal door had not been fixed and there was a group of teenagers standing outside her flat door smoking. She opened her door to ask them if they lived in the block and they were abusive to her. Around one and a half hours later she said a man came and started to push and then kick her flat door to try to get into the property. He had also damaged wires and other equipment in the communal cupboard. She said she called the police who arrested the man.
The landlord raised repairs for the wiring and gas supply to restore heating and hot water and completed these repairs by 15 April 2023.
On 14 April 2023 the resident spoke to her Housing Officer about the ASB, then emailed the landlord to make a stage 1 complaint which was about:
1. It not having repaired the communal door on 12 April 2023 and the length of time there had been no door.
2. When she reported the ASB incident it did not handle it correctly or tell her what it was going to do.
3. She had had to leave her property and stay elsewhere as she and her children did not feel safe. The door had still not been repaired and she did not want to live there anymore.
The landlord called the resident on 17 April 2023 to acknowledge her complaint. She called it on 24 April 2023 and said she had been promised a call back about a transfer. She said living in the property was affecting her mental health. It called her on 16 May 2023, but its notes said there was no answer. It said it had called for an update and to complete an assessment.
On 24 May 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 response in which it said:
1. It had provided a direct telephone number to her for her Housing Officer.
2. Its caretaker had been patrolling the block during the day and the Housing Officer had been patrolling in the evenings and at the weekend in his own time. It had not been able to contract a security company to do this.
3. The door was replaced on 17 April 2023.
4. It had offered her improved security, but she had declined.
5. It had discussed options to move and said she would need to apply to the council or seek a mutual exchange.
6. It had delayed in its response, apologised, and offered £10 compensation. It also said how she could escalate the complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint the same day. She said statements in the response were incorrect, that it had said it would help her to move and that she was not offered any additional security.
On 14 June 2023 the landlord called the resident back and said it could not move her. It wrote to her on 16 June 2023 to close her ASB case. It said there had been one further incident of graffiti which it had responded to. However, it could not take any further action as the perpetrators were persons unknown. She asked if it could help with a letter to support her application to the council for a move on 19 June 2023. It wrote to the council on 27 June 2023 to ask for the resident to be considered for a move into temporary accommodation. It also replied to her request for information about mutual exchange on 31 August 2023.
The resident contacted this Service, and the Ombudsman emailed the landlord on 10 October 2023 to ask it to provide its stage 2 response. It emailed the resident the following day to acknowledge the escalation. It provided its stage 2 response on 17 October 2023, in which it:
1. Set out the stage 1 complaint, escalation, and a timeline of events.
2. Said there had been no further ASB since the incident on 12 April 2023.
3. Confirmed it took safety seriously and that was why it had patrolled the block.
4. Concluded it had handled the report of ASB satisfactorily. It accepted there was a lack of communication regarding offers of security and said she could contact it if she wanted to discuss this.
5. Admitted its communication could have been better regarding the communal door repairs. However, it had attended within 24 hours and completed the repair within 20 days.
6. Repeated that she would need to apply to the council for rehousing or seek a mutual exchange, as all its empty properties were allocated to the council.
7. Offered £300 compensation for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble, and £300 for its complaint handling failings.
8. Explained how she could contact this Service if she remained dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has raised that there had been a further incident of ASB in February 2024. As this matter has not completed the landlord’s complaints process, it has not been considered as part of this investigation. This is because under paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion 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.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a missing communal door and delays in replacing it

Under the tenancy agreement, and its repairs policy, the landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining the structure of the building and communal areas. Under its policy it categorises repairs as either emergency (attend within 24 hours) or routine (repair within 25 days).
The landlord identified that the communal door needed to be repaired, raised the repair, and attended on the same day within its 24-hour emergency timeframe. It correctly identified the repair as being urgent enough to be classed as an emergency, either due to security or safety concerns. However, when the resident also reported the issue, it did not update her on the repair. As it could not repair the door it was reasonable it took it away to do this. It was also reasonable for it to decide not to board up the doorway, as it was required as an emergency exit if there was a fire.
Although the landlord hoped to be able to repair and replace the door on 12 April 2023 it was not able to do this. The landlord had told the resident it would be completed on this date but there is no evidence it updated her when it needed a further follow-on appointment, which was a failing in communication. It completed the repair within 15 days, which was within its policy timeframe.
Within its stage 2 response the landlord correctly accepted that there had been a lack of communication regarding the repair. It offered compensation for inconvenience, distress, time and trouble of £300 for this and the ASB handling elements of her complaint.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The landlord had reacted promptly in arranging the repair and completed it within its policy and a reasonable timeframe. The lack of a communal door put the resident in the position of a resident of a street property and she still had her flat front door. While she may have wanted the repair completed quicker the landlord had done everything it could have to repair the door. Its communication could have been better, but it apologised and offered reasonable compensation for its failing. There was reasonable redress.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

Under the landlord’s ASB policy it will review and assign ASB incidents reported to it, as either high or standard priority. Based on the priority it will record and assess the incident within one or 3 working days. Standard priority ASB will be managed by the Housing Officer. Its policy says it will complete a risk assessment for high priority ASB.
When the resident reported ASB on 13 April 2023 she said the landlord did not seem to know what to do. While she did get to speak to her Housing Officer, it is not clear whether the landlord reviewed the incident for priority. It also failed to agree an action plan with the resident as required under its policy.
Prior to the incident, the landlord had inspected the block and raised repairs to the communal door with a view to minimising ASB by securing the block. This was in line with its policy. Following the incident, it also arranged patrols between the caretaker and the Housing Officer, which was solution focused for the short term. It is not clear why the landlord emphasised within its complaint responses that the Housing Officer did this on his own time, and this is not relevant to its responsibilities regarding ASB.
Although under its policy the landlord says it will work with partner agencies including the police and council to take preventive action there is no evidence it did. It did not contact the police for information on the incident or for information about any arrests made. There is also no evidence it asked for extra police patrols in the area which would have been solution focused.
Within its stage 1 response the landlord said it had offered extra security to the resident, which she disputes. It remade its offer within its stage 2 response which was positive. It also accepted its communication around this was poor and offered compensation as discussed above. It also said in both responses that no further incidents had occurred, which was incorrect, and a further failing in communication or record keeping.
While the landlord took action following the ASB report, its communication was poor. It relied on the resident continuing to contact it and failed to agree an action plan with her, or to work with the police, despite this being its policy. There was maladministration. To reflect the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused an order has been made that the landlord pay £200 additional compensation, which is in line with our guidance on remedies.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing

The resident said within her stage 1 complaint that she did not want to live at the property due to the impact the ASB incident had had on her mental health and to her children. She called the landlord 10 days later and said she had been promised a call back about a transfer. It said within its stage 1 response that it had spoken to her about her options which were to apply to the council or to look for a mutual exchange. It would have been helpful if the landlord had provided a record or recording of this call. There is disagreement over whether the landlord had initially said it could help her to move or not and the Ombudsman does not have sufficient evidence to determine this point.
The landlord repeated its position in a call to the resident and within its stage 2 response, when it explained its empty properties go to the council to nominate new tenants. Positively, when asked by the resident, it did write to the council in support of her application for a move. There was no maladministration.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The resident made her complaint on 14 April 2023 and the landlord acknowledged it within 2 working days, in line with its complaints policy. It provided its stage 1 response after 26 working days, in breach of its policy timeframe and paragraph 5.1 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in use at the time. It could have asked for an extension of time under its policy, but it had failed to do this. Positively it did acknowledge its delay, apologised, and offered £10 compensation. The amount offered, however, was insufficient to represent the inconvenience, time and trouble caused.
On the same day as the stage 1 response the resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process. However, it failed to acknowledge escalation or escalate the complaint in breach of its policy and paragraph 5.9 of the Code.
Following the Ombudsman asking the landlord to respond at stage 2 the landlord acknowledged the escalation. It provided its response on 17 October 2023, which was 103 working days after the resident’s request and an unacceptable delay. This was in breach of its policy timeframe and paragraph 5.13 of the Code. Within its response the landlord accepted its failings and offered £300 compensation for its poor complaint handling. This demonstrated it wanted to put things right and was in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies. There was reasonable redress.

Determination

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with Paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of a missing communal door and delays in replacing it.
2. Complaint handling.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the maladministration detailed in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident £200 additional compensation for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its failings in handling her reports of ASB.
3. Offer to make an appointment to inspect the resident’s flat front door to assess its security. If any additional security measures can be added it is to offer to install these and do so if the resident agrees.
4. Confirm compliance with these orders to this Service.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Review security for the block, including whether any alterations can be made to the communal door so that it self-closes if it does not already do so.
2. Work with the police to arrange extra patrols or improve security around the block.