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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202311830)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311830

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

26 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

  1. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the window seals.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 5-bedroom house. The resident has lived at the property with her children since 2009 and became an assured non-shorthold tenant of the landlord in 2011.
  2. The resident reported an issue with the seals around some of her UPVC windows (including bedroom windows and a living room window) around February 2022. The landlord assigned the work to a contractor (“Contractor A”) who inspected and later tried to order parts (a gasket) for the necessary repairs.
  3. In July 2022, according to the landlord’s evidence, the landlord assigned the work to a second contractor (“Contractor B”) who attended to inspect. There are no records to show any further work by Contractor B in the following 4 to 5 months.
  4. On 31 October 2022 and 1 December 2022 respectively, the resident contacted the landlord to report again the rubber sealant had “perished” and was letting in draughts and insects. The landlord communicated with Contractor A on 1 December 2022 who advised that it was waiting for the arrival of the parts and would liaise directly with the resident once it received these.
  5. The resident subsequently called the landlord multiple times for updates on the repairs with no progress.
  6. The landlord raised a separate works order for Contractor B on 20 December 2022 who then attended on 6 January 2023. It submitted a variation order (sometimes described as a “quotation” on the landlord’s records and in the resident’s correspondence) for window repairs to the landlord.
  7. On 24 January 2023, the resident called to raise a complaint to chase the repairs to the seals around her window. She asked the landlord to approve the variation order so that Contractor B could proceed with repairs. The landlord did not appear to have progressed this as a complaint, although it recorded this as a complaint on its notes and assigned it a reference number.
  8. The landlord’s records show that, on 27 January 2023 and 27 February 2023, it authorised Contractor B to proceed with the works. Contractor B then ordered the gaskets for the windows. It is unclear from the records if there were two duplicate authorisations one month apart, or if there was just one authorisation and there was a typo in the dates.
  9. Contractor B attended the property again on 21 March 2023 but found that the parts they ordered were “incorrect” and a re-order was made.
  10. The resident raised a complaint around March 2023 which the landlord acknowledged. The landlord has not provided a copy of the original complaint.
  11. The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 31 March 2023 summarised as follows:
    1. It acknowledged there were delays to replacement of the rubber seals to the UPVC windows and missed appointments.
    2. It said two different contractors had been involved who had both tried to source a gasket which was necessary for the repairs.
    3. Contractor B had ordered the wrong parts which led to a missed appointment.
    4. It had spoken with Contractor B and asked them to improve their communication.
    5. It offered a £30 supermarket voucher to the resident as a goodwill gesture (which the resident declined to accept).
  12. The landlord approved Contractor B’s variation order on 16 May 2023.
  13. After the resident further expressed dissatisfaction at the lack of progress, the landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 23 June 2023 summarised as follows:
    1. It explained Contractor A could not source the parts needed for the repair and had to assign the work to a different contractor (Contractor B). It said Contractor A began work around February 2023 (the date appeared to be a typo and should read as February 2022).
    2. Contractor B ordered the wrong parts and discovered this on 21 March 2023 when they further attended for repairs.
    3. A new appointment for repairs had been scheduled for 19 July 2023.
    4. It apologised for the delay in providing the stage 2 response.
    5. It offered £920 to the resident in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to her from February 2022 to July 2023 (including £100 for delays in providing the stage 2 response).
    6. It had put this into her rent account as she was in rent arrears.
  14. The resident contacted this Service in June 2023. She sought an increased amount of compensation as she believed the landlord’s offers had not sufficiently reflected the impact to her. She said she had to bear increased energy costs as the seals let in draughts during the winter months, and the landlord’s failings in communication and delays had aggravated her anxiety.

Post-complaint events

  1. After further communication with the resident, the landlord scheduled an appointment for 10 July 2023 in the morning. On this day, the contractor did not attend in the morning. When the resident called the contractor, they said they could arrange for the engineer to re-attend in the afternoon. The resident called the landlord to complain about this. The landlord’s staff replied on the call that she could choose to log another complaint but it could only offer her a £20 voucher and a re-appointment at the time. The landlord noted that, due to the resident’s work schedule, she had only limited availability on a specific day of the week and it was important to her that the contractor kept appointments punctually.
  2. The resident continued to chase the landlord throughout July to September 2023, as she believed the contractor’s variation order was ready and the landlord’s failure to approve it was causing further delays. In the meanwhile the landlord liaised with the contractor for a new report on the updated status and a new variation order. The contractor said it was expecting delivery of the new parts soon and gave reassurance that it would contact the resident for repairs in mid-September 2023.
  3. On 20 September 2023, the resident called the landlord again who spoke to the contractor in turn. The contractor confirmed to the landlord it had received the parts and would arrange repairs with the resident directly.
  4. The contractor attended on 12 October 2023 and, while fixing the seals for two bedroom windows, found there was a third bedroom window that needed re-sealing. According to the resident the living room window remained unaddressed at the time. After the resident made contact with the landlord, it raised a new repair on the system for the newly identified bedroom window issues.
  5. There appeared to have been intermittent inspections and reports from November 2023 to March 2024. There were reports in November 2023 that the window sills for two of the windows had come apart. The landlord noted on its systems on 11 March 2024 that the window glass was “too thin” for the gasket and needed thicker glass for two units.
  6. On 25 March 2024, the landlord sent another written letter to the resident marked as “stage 2 response”. It said it had chased its own maintenance team to try and progress the authorisation for the variation orders or quotations, and the contractor would be in touch with the resident to arrange completion of the repairs. It offered another sum of £640 on top of the previously offered £920 to the resident in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused (including £100 for the time and trouble in resolving the complaint).
  7. In November 2024, during this investigation, the resident explained to this Service that the landlord had completed all repairs to all 4 windows as of 4 October 2024. She stated that she remained unhappy about the delays caused by the landlord and the amount of compensation offered, which she felt did not adequately reflect the impact on her, nor the increase in energy costs which she had to pay.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. This investigation has taken into consideration all the events from the resident’s first report in February 2022 to October 2024, including events after the completion of the internal complaints process. This is because the landlord had completed further repairs on the windows after the end of the internal complaints process, and made an increased offer of compensation, which directly relates to the subject matter of this complaint.

Relevant policies and guidance

  1. Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for repairing the structure and exterior of the property including windows. This is confirmed in the landlord’s tenancy agreement with the resident and its repairs policy.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy further states that for routine (non-emergency repairs) it would aim to complete the repair in an average of 25 calendar days.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy states that a complaint is defined as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord or those acting on its behalf”.
  4. This complaints policy further provides for a two-stage internal complaints process where the landlord would provide a written response within 10 working days of a resident logging a complaint, and should the resident seek an escalation, it would provide a review of the complaint at stage 2 and provide a written final response within 20 working days. Should it need an extension, it would write to the resident before the initial deadline to provide an explanation and the extension should be no more than 10 working days. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the window seals.

  1. The main reason for the delay appears to be a difficulty in sourcing the parts necessary for the window repair. The first contractor (Contractor A) was unable to source the parts needed, but there was a 10-month delay between February and December 2022 before Contractor B took over the work. This delay was excessive and beyond the 25-day timeframe as stipulated in the landlord’s repairs policy.
  2. There appeared to be some potential duplication of work as the landlord’s records showed that Contractor B had been involved as of July 2022 as it attended the property in that month. However, there was no record of any immediate follow-up by Contractor B in the 4 to 5 months that followed, and during that time Contractor A continued to liaise with the landlord and the resident while trying to order the necessary parts. It is not clear whether the landlord’s records might have been inaccurate or if there was a duplication of effort.
  3. The records are clear that around December 2022, Contractor A ceased to work on the matter and Contractor B became fully responsible for the repairs. There were then more complications with the incorrect parts being ordered (which was discovered in March 2023) and the subsequent identification of another window with seal issues (in October 2023). This pointed to potential issues with the thoroughness of the initial inspections, and the accuracy of the initial measurements. This meant some of the attempts at repairing were ineffective at resolving the issue. As a result of this, the contractor also had to re-submit new variation orders which needed signing off, leading to more administrative complications and delays.
  4. Despite the resident consistently chasing for updates, there continued to be delays in progressing the matter. Ultimately, it took around 2 years and 8 months (from February 2022 until early October 2024) for the issues to be fully resolved. This would have caused the resident unnecessary frustration and inconvenience.
  5. There also appeared to be communication issues. While the resident had informed the landlord about her limited availability (due to the nature of her work, she could only be available for specific times and it was important to her that the contractor kept appointments), the contractor did not always keep its appointments. This was the case on 10 July 2023 when the contractor did not keep its morning appointment. This caused the resident further upset.
  6. Although the landlord offered £820 to the complainant at stage 2 of the complaints process (excluding the £100 made for delays in providing the stage 2 response), which went some way towards mitigating some of the impact to the resident, it failed to resolve matters within a reasonable time after the stage 2 response. The delays with the contractors and poor communication persisted and the window seal issues were not fully resolved until October 2024, over a year after the original stage 2 response. The overall experience would have caused distress and frustration to the resident, which is more significant in light of her anxiety.
  7. The landlord further offered a sum of £540 (excluding the £100 in recognition of the resident’s time and trouble in bringing the complaint) in March 2024, bringing the total sum offered to £1,360. This offer came more than 8 months after it issued its final response and was made after this case was accepted by this Service for investigation. The Ombudsman recognises that this increased compensation offer represented an attempt to put things right. However, it was offered a considerable time after the complaints process was exhausted. Furthermore, and even after this increased offer of compensation and recognition by the landlord that there had been failings in its service, the works were not completed for another five months approximately. 
  8.  There is no demonstration that the landlord took on any learning after it issued its stage 2 response to ensure the timely delivery of repair services by contractors.
  9. Under these circumstances, due to the excessive delays in progressing repairs and poor communication with the resident, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the window seals.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The resident made a formal complaint in January 2023, for which the landlord assigned a reference number. However, it did not progress the complaint further or provide any response until the resident made another complaint in March 2023. This caused the resident more frustration and upset, as well as delaying her access to the complaints process. The landlord has not so far acknowledged this to the resident.
  2. The resident received a stage 1 complaint response in March 2023 and asked for escalation of her complaint shortly afterwards. The landlord provided a stage 2 response in June 2023. This was not in line with the landlord’s own complaints policy which stipulated the stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days after acknowledgment of the escalation request. The landlord has acknowledged and apologised for this failing and offered £100 in recognition of the impact caused which, in the Ombudsman’s view, partially if not fully mitigated the impact to the resident at the time.
  3. On 10 July 2023, after the landlord had made its stage 2 complaint response, the resident called the landlord regarding a missed appointment by the contractor. The records showed that when the resident expressed her frustration and upset, the landlord’s staff told her there was nothing more it could do except re-schedule the appointment and offered her a £20 voucher, apparently as a goodwill gesture. It would appear the landlord’s staff may not have accessed the resident’s records at the time and may not have been aware of the longstanding nature of the window seal issues.
  4. In any event, on receiving a complaint (as defined in the landlord’s complaints policy as an expression of dissatisfaction with the service), the appropriate approach would have been to refer the resident to the complaints process, instead of making an informal offer for a voucher to settle the dispute. Since the resident had already received a stage 2 response in June 2023, the appropriate action in July 2023 would have been to apologise for the missed appointment and progress the repairs as soon as possible, and to reassure the resident she could take the complaint forward to this Service. For the landlord to inform the resident that all it could offer was a £20 voucher at that stage of the process would have caused unnecessary upset and frustration for the resident and did not demonstrate a resolution focused approach.
  5. The Ombudsman has also considered the contents of the stage 2 complaint response. In order for the complaints process to achieve effective complaint resolution, it is expected that the stage 2 response would set out what further specific actions the landlord intended to do to resolve the problem, along with a clear timeframe. The landlord should then adhere to this timeframe as far as practicable. Should there be any unavoidable delays, the landlord should write again to the resident and provide explanations and an updated timeframe.
  6. The stage 2 complaint response only set out a further appointment for a repair. It did not appear at that point that the contractors had obtained the parts necessary for completing the repairs. When the contractor also missed this appointment, the landlord did not make any further formal explanation or offer of redress to the resident, until about 8 months later in March 2024.
  7. On 25 March 2024, the landlord wrote a letter to the resident marked as a second “stage 2 response”. It offered another £100 in recognition of ‘time and trouble’ caused to the resident making it necessary for her to raise the complaint. This was essentially a increased offer of financial compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused. The Ombudsman considers this a post-complaints offer, rather than part of the stage 2 response.
  8. According to the Complaints Handling Code, there should only be two stages to the landlord’s internal complaints process, and the landlord should try to resolve matters within these two stages and make reasonable redress to the resident in recognition of the impact caused by the end of stage 2. From the records, this did not happen. The landlord did not make this offer until more than 8 months after the stage 2 response, and only after this complaint was accepted by this Service for investigation. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord has not done enough to put things rights in a reasonable period of time.
  9. Due to the lack of action when the resident first brought a complaint in January 2023, and the delay in fully putting matters right for the resident, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the window seals.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 6 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord is to provide a written apology to the resident to acknowledge the failings identified in this report.
  2. Within 6 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord is to pay to the resident £300 (on top of the £1,560 it has previously offered), broken down as follows:
    1. £150 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by failings to ensure contractors deliver timely repair services, and a lack in communication on appointments.
    2. £150 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by lack of action to progress the resident’s complaint in January 2023 and delay in making reasonable redress to the resident at stage 2.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should remind its staff about complaint handling principles and to refer residents appropriately to the complaints process in a timely manner.
  2. The landlord should distinguish between stage 2 complaint responses and further responses made after the completion of the two-stage complaints process, and mark its correspondence accordingly.