London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202309142)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309142

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

31 October 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:
1. Handling of the resident’s requests for adaptations to her rear garden.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The resident has a diagnosis of Lupus, which affects her lungs and heart. She has informed the landlord and this Service that the condition is aggravated by the grass in her rear garden.
The resident is represented in the complaint by her daughter. In this report, her daughter will be referred to as ‘the resident’.
In January 2019 the resident obtained an Occupational Therapist (OT) assessment to support her request for adaptations to her rear garden. Due to her medical conditions she wanted the area to be paved. The assessment recommended:
1. For the entire garden (width 1.5 metres, length 4.7 metres) to be paved.
2. Alternatively, if this was not possible, for half of the garden to be paved (length 2.35 metres) starting at the rear access point to the full width of the garden (1.5 metres) and for the remainder of the grass to be removed and gravelled.
The landlord’s repair records show that in August and September 2019 several jobs were raised to action the OT’s recommendations. However, there is no evidence that the works took place.
On 16 June 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and said that she had been waiting for 3 years for the adaptations to be approved. She explained that she was unable to use the garden due to a medical reaction to grass and the negative impact that this was having upon her. Furthermore, she said that she had been promised numerous call backs which did not happen.
The landlord responded on 18 June 2022 and said that it did not have a record of the OT assessment. As a result, the resident raised a complaint.
On 7 September 2022 the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It apologised for the delays and said that “the back garden would be renewed with slabs”. In recognition of the delays and impact upon the resident it offered £300 compensation, broken down as follows:
1. £100 for the inconvenience caused
2. £100 for the distress caused
3. £50 for the delay
4. £50 for time and trouble
The evidence shows that the resident contacted the landlord on multiple occasions between November 2022 and March 2023. Each time she was told that the matter would be looked into and she would receive an update. There is no evidence that the resident received any update until she chased again at the end of March 2023. At this stage she was told that the quote had been referred for senior management approval due to the “amount of work involved”.
The resident continued to chase the landlord for updates before contacting this Service. Following involvement from the Ombudsman, the landlord escalated the resident’s complaint and issued its final stage 2 response on 7 March 2024. Within this response it said that:
1. “Carrying out a full paving of the garden” did not fall under its major or minor adaptations policy.
2. The solution was “neither reasonable nor practicable”. There was no rear access into the garden, therefore significant amounts of grass and topsoil would need to be removed through the property.
3. There was already a sizeable paved area in the resident’s garden, so it did not believe that she was at any substantial disadvantage by it not carrying out the work. In addition, “if the nature of her condition is such that exposure, rather than contact, with grass is the issue then the fact that neighbouring gardens are also grassed would not be alleviated”.
4. It could support the resident by looking at alternative housing options.
5. It would make a referral to the Local Authority for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG).
6. It offered the resident compensation of £1,240 (inclusive of the amount offered at stage 1), broken down as follows:
  1. £380 for the distress caused
  2. £380 for the inconvenience caused
  3. £100 for time and trouble
  4. £380 for complaint handling
The resident was dissatisfied that the landlord had “changed its mind” and about the length of time the matter had taken. As a result she escalated her complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman accepts that COVID-19 has had a major impact on the services a landlord is able to provide, and therefore that some services will have been significantly and unavoidably disrupted during the pandemic and going forwards. In considering complaints related to COVID-19, the Ombudsman will consider the impact of the pandemic on the decisions and actions that a landlord has had to undertake during the period and take this into account when investigating complaints from residents.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for adaptations to her rear garden

The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy says:
1. Aids and adaptations are alterations carried out to the home of tenants with disabilities, to enable them to continue to carry out their usual day to day activities.
2. Major adaptations are more complex and should be based on the assessment and recommendation of a qualified OT.
3. Minor adaptations should be carried out without delay to maintain or retain a resident’s ability to live in their home.
The landlord’s repairs policy defines a vulnerable resident as someone at risk in their home or at risk of being unable to comply with their tenancy requirements. It says that it will “consider whether the defect is putting the resident at risk because of their physical or mental health” and “treat repairs with an escalated priority in cases where a delay in completing the repair would cause an increased health and safety risk”.
In this case the resident provided the landlord with an OT assessment in January 2019 as per its policy requirements. The landlord’s repair records note a number of entries in relation to the recommended works in August and September 2019, but there is no evidence that the resident was given any update on her application at this stage. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to formally acknowledge the application and provide the resident with a timeframe for any decisions to be made.
There is a substantial gap in evidence between September 2019 and June 2022 so it is not possible to determine if the landlord attempted to progress the matter. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord was operating in accordance with the COVID-19 repair protocol for much of this period. This impacted on the delivery of the service provided by landlords. For certain periods during the pandemic, the landlord could only carry out emergency repairs and this resulted in a backlog in other areas. However, it would have been appropriate for it to inform the resident of any possible delays regarding her request and to undertake any necessary inspections at the earliest opportunity. There is no evidence that it provided the resident with any updates during this time, which was unacceptable.
It is not disputed that in September 2022, within its stage 1 response, the landlord apologised for the delays and agreed to pave the resident’s garden. At this stage the landlord offered the resident £300 compensation for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the delay. This would have been reasonable redress had the landlord done what it said it was going to. However, there is no evidence to suggest that it was proactive, and the resident was left to continually chase for updates.
It was unacceptable that between September 2022 and March 2023, the resident had to contact the landlord 5 times before it confirmed that it had received the necessary quotes. The resident understandably felt like she was being passed “from pillar to post”. The timeline shows that some attempts to contact the landlord went unanswered or lacked a substantive response. This was clearly frustrating and time consuming for the resident.
In March 2023, the landlord informed the resident that due to the amount of work involved, senior management approval was needed. While this in itself was not unreasonable, the fact that it had taken 6 months to obtain quotes and a scope of work was unacceptable and resulted in further delay and distress for the resident. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the resident was informed of any outcome following the senior management involvement.
It is evident from the landlord’s internal communications that the cost of the proposed works was an issue. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to inform the resident of any barriers at the earliest opportunity in order to manage her expectations and remain transparent. There is no evidence that it did this, and as a result it was reasonable for the resident to presume that the works would still go ahead as agreed.
The failure of the landlord to take any steps to progress the works or notify the resident of any issues from the end of September 2022 to March 2024 indicates that it continued not to treat the adaptation works with sufficient urgency. The landlord’s lack of contact with the resident is also indicative of poor communication. These are considered serious failings.
Within the landlord’s final stage 2 complaint response on 7 March 2024, it retracted its original offer and said that it would not pave the resident’s garden. While the decision to fund and carry out non-essential adaptations ultimately lies with the landlord, it was unfair for it to have given false hope to the resident for over 18 months. While the landlord offered to pay the resident £860 in compensation for distress, time, trouble and inconvenience, in the Ombudsman’s opinion this amount was not proportionate to the prolonged timeframe or the distress caused by the landlord’s decision not to proceed with the works already promised. The landlord’s response also lacked the appropriate empathy.
In addition, within its stage 2 response the landlord informed the resident that it would contact the local authority on her behalf to enquire about a DFG grant. There is no evidence that it did this, and the resident states that she has received no further update since.
In summary, the landlord did not manage the resident’s adaptation application in a timely manner. It failed to communicate appropriately and changed its position at a late stage At no point during the process did it appear to assess the detrimental impact on the resident. Its poor communication, and the failure to provide the adaptations promised over an extended timeframe, are indicative of serious failings and amount to maladministration.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints policy. It aims to respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1. At stage 2, it aims to respond within 20 workings days. If additional investigation time is needed, a further 10 working days is available at both stages providing the resident is kept informed. After the landlord has agreed a resolution in writing it will monitor progress until all actions are complete.
The resident made her complaint on 18 June 2022. The landlord did not issue its stage 1 response until 7 September 2022. This was well outside of the complaint handling timeframes set out in its policy, and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’). This inconvenienced the resident as she waited nearly 3 months to get a formal response to concerns she raised. The landlord did not apologise for, or acknowledge, the delay in its stage 1 response which was inappropriate. This Service has seen no evidence to indicate that the landlord sought to explain the delay in issuing its complaint response to the resident. This was a further shortcoming in its complaint handling, as the resident was left not knowing when, or if, the landlord would respond to her complaint.
The evidence shows that following the stage 1 response in September 2022, the resident contacted the landlord on several occasions over the subsequent months to express her dissatisfaction at the lack of progress. By not escalating the complaint to stage 2 in a timely manner, the landlord failed to demonstrate effective complaint handling. This was not in accordance with the landlord’s policy or the Code. Had it escalated earlier, it is reasonable to conclude that the resident would not have endured a further wait of 2 years.
The evidence confirms that following contact from the Ombudsman on 9 February 2024, the landlord escalated the complaint to stage 2. Within its final response on 7 March 2024 the landlord did offer the resident £380 compensation for poor complaint handling, but failed again to offer any apology. This offer of compensation is consistent with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. However, the financial redress is not sufficient to prevent an adverse finding because the landlord failed to demonstrate its learning.
Overall, the Ombudsman concludes there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for adaptations to her rear garden.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of this report and provide evidence of compliance to this Service:
1. Apologise to the resident, in writing, for the failures identified in this report.
2. Meet with the resident and her representative at a convenient time to support her in submitting a DFG application. As part of this process the landlord should allocate a named member of staff to oversee the process and liaise with the local authority.
3. Pay the resident £1,380 compensation comprised of:
  1. £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in its handling of her request for adaptations to her rear garden.
  2. £380 it already offered in respect of its complaint handling.
  3. This amount must be paid directly to the resident. The landlord may deduct any amounts already paid.