London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202310713)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310713

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

12 March 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Request that it repair his windows.
   2. Formal complaint.

Background

2. The resident is the assured tenant of the property, which is a second floor flat. The landlord was a housing association. The property was transferred to a different housing association after the end of the complaint as part of a stock transfer.
3. On 7 September 2021 the resident reported that his windows were letting in a draft, and the landlord raised a repair. It marked it completed on 24 February 2022. It raised an inspection for the windows on 10 March 2022 which it marked closed on an unknown date. On 09 June 2022 it booked an inspection, but this was cancelled and rebooked on 13 July 2022, for a new appointment on 21 October 2022 which the landlord attended.
4. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 3 April 2023 in which he said he was still waiting for the landlord to repair his windows after it had inspected them. He said the gaps meant there was a draft, and the cold air meant using his heating was a waste and he asked it to install double glazing. The landlord provided its stage 1 response the same day, in which it:
   1. Acknowledged the complaint and said that it was not upheld.
   2. Confirmed it had inspected the windows, had raised repairs and completed these on 21 October 2022.
   3. Recommended the resident fit draft excluders to his windows and pointed out that this was his responsibility as the resident. It said if this did not help, he could then ask to raise a new repair.
   4. Explained the property was not on its window replacement schedule for that year, and that it could only replace windows if recommended during a responsive repair. It confirmed it had not recommended this following its inspection or repair visits.
5. On 9 April 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to escalate his complaint. He said it had not completed any repairs on 21 October 2022. The landlord replied on 21 April 2023 and said it had checked, and it had completed the repairs. The resident raised a new stage 1 complaint on 4 May 2023 about the landlord’s reply. It emailed him to say it would not raise a new complaint but that he could ask to escalate his existing one. The resident contacted this Service, and the Ombudsman emailed the landlord on 20 September 2023 to ask it to respond to the stage 2 complaint. The following day it called and emailed the resident to acknowledge the stage 2 complaint. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 27 September 2023, in which it:
   1. Said the complaint was escalated on 5 May 2023 and apologised for the delay in its response.
   2. Apologised for the inconvenience and frustration caused by its delays in completing the repairs. It confirmed it had inspected the windows, and identified repairs needed, on 21 October 2022.
   3. Confirmed it had raised a new repair to complete the outstanding repairs for 12 December 2023, but it had asked for this to be brought forward if possible.
   4. Offered compensation totalling £780 made up of:
      1. £240 for delay to repairs.
      2. £400 for distress and inconvenience.
      3. £60 for time and effort.
      4. £80 for “review of stage 2 decision”.
6. The resident called the landlord on 28 September 2023 and asked to reschedule the repair appointment. Its records say it rescheduled the appointment for 3 November 2023, and marked it completed on that date. Between 22 and 23 November 2023 the resident chased the landlord as he had not received his compensation cheque, which it said it sent on 20 October 2023. The landlord’s records dated 30 November 2023 say that it was unable to complete the repairs on 3 November 2023 and it needed a follow-on appointment. It sent a new cheque to the resident on 29 December 2023 for the compensation and booked the follow-on repair for 12 February 2024. However, on 29 January 2024 the property was transferred as part of a stock transfer to a different housing association. The following day it cancelled the repair.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request that it repair his windows

7. The landlord has provided a copy of the tenancy agreement but has not included the clauses. However, section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 inserts into all tenancies an obligation on the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. Under its repairs policy the landlord confirms it is responsible for repairing windows. It will complete emergency repairs within 24 hours and standard repairs within “an average of 25 calendar days”.
8. The evidence shows the resident had been reporting his windows as needing repair since September 2021. The landlord’s records fail to note what, if any, repairs it completed prior to its inspection on 21 October 2022. Better record keeping would have assisted the Ombudsman in this investigation, and the lack of details within its repair records is a failing. This is also evident in the landlord’s insistence, within and after its stage 1 response, that it had completed repairs on that date, which was incorrect. The landlord had failed to properly record the outcome of the inspection and that repairs were needed and failed to book a follow-on appointment to complete them. This led to it giving incorrect information within it stage 1 response, which caused more frustration and inconvenience to the resident.
9. The landlord’s advice, within its stage 1 response, that the resident could fit draft excluders and that this was his responsibility under its policy was correct. However, this would have only been a suitable resolution had it completed the repairs when it said it had. When the resident challenged its response, the landlord failed to investigate further. It could and should have raised a new appointment to reinspect. Its response to the resident’s request for double glazing was reasonable and in line with its policy.
10. Within its stage 2 response the landlord correctly accepted that it had only inspected the windows in October 2022 and confirmed it had raised a new repair to complete the works. It provided an appointment date, and positively said it was trying to bring this forward, which can be seen in its internal emails. Again, positively it did bring the appointment forward from 12 December 2023 to 3 November 2023. However, it did not complete the repairs on that date. It also delayed in raising a follow-on appointment, instead incorrectly marking the repair as completed. By the time it did raise a follow-on appointment it raised this for a date after which it was to cease being the landlord, which was a further failing. The landlord’s policy timeframe for repairs, of 25 calendar days, had been exceeded. By the date of the stock transfer one year and 3 months had passed since the October 2022 inspection, with the repair remaining outstanding. This was a significant failing, which has caused further inconvenience, time and trouble for the resident in having to raise or follow-up on the repair with his new landlord.
11. Within its stage 2 response the landlord correctly apologised for its delay in repairs, and the inconvenience caused. It offered £640 compensation for delays, distress and inconvenience. 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.
12. Had the landlord completed the repair on its scheduled appointment, it would have, together with its compensation offer, been fair and put things right. However, it did not, and it also failed to say how it had learnt from outcomes, by not addressing or explaining how it had got the outcome of its October 2022 appointment wrong. Overall, there was maladministration. To reflect the frustration, inconvenience, effort, time and trouble caused an order has been made that the landlord pay £300 additional compensation. This amount is in line with our guidance on remedies.
13. The Ombudsman notes that it would ordinarily have made an order for the landlord to complete the repairs, however, as it is no longer the landlord of the property this remedy is no longer available to this Service.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint

14. When the resident made his stage 1 complaint the landlord acknowledged and replied to it within its complaints policy timeframes. This was also in compliance with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in use at the time.
15. The resident made a clear expression of dissatisfaction, being the landlord’s and Code’s definition of a complaint, on 9 April 2023. He said he was not satisfied with the landlord’s stage 1 response and why. It should have escalated the complaint in accordance with paragraph 5.9 of the Code, but it failed to. When he raised a new complaint, about its response, on 4 May 2023 the landlord replied that he could ask to escalate his existing complaint. It failed to acknowledge the resident’s clear wish to escalate his complaint for a second time.
16. After intervention from the Ombudsman the landlord did provide a stage 2 response. Within the response it said it had escalated the complaint on 5 May 2023. There is no evidence it had. It had taken 119 working days to provide a response since the resident’s first request to escalate, against its policy timeframe of 20 working days. This was also a breach of paragraph 5.13 of the Code. Both its policy and the Code allowed for the landlord to ask for an extension of time to provide a response, but it also failed to do so.
17. Positively within its stage 2 response the landlord accepted it had delayed, apologised, and offered £140 compensation. However, it delayed in raising the cheque and was slow to act when the resident reported that he had not received it. Considering our guidance on remedies, and the Dispute Resolution Principles, there was maladministration. To reflect the additional time and trouble caused an order has been made that the landlord pay £100 additional compensation to the resident.

Determination

18. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Request that it repair his windows.
    2. Formal complaint.

Orders

19. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings detailed in this report.
    2. Pay directly to the resident £400 compensation made up of:
       1. £300 for the frustration, inconvenience, effort, time and trouble caused to the resident by its maladministration.
       2. £100 for the additional time and trouble caused to the resident by its complaint handling failings.
    3. Confirm compliance with these orders to this Service.