London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202314377)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314377

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

6 February 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of poor staff conduct at the resident’s property.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord since 2008. The property is a 3–bedroom house. The resident lives in the property with her children.
On 3 May 2023 the landlord raised a repair to replaster the walls in the bedrooms of the resident’s property. The resident complained to the landlord on 10 July 2023 about the contractors at her property.
The landlord replied to the resident at stage 1 of its internal complaints process on 27 July 2023. It upheld the resident’s complaint and offered her £100 compensation. On the same day the resident escalated her complaint with the landlord.
On 16 August 2023 the landlord replied to the resident at stage 2 of its internal complaints process and increased the compensation offer to £250.
The landlord sent a further complaint response on 22 November 2023. It offered the resident £901.64 in compensation, broken down as:
1. £41.64 for the temporary loss of use of a room.
2. £500 for its failure to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
3. £360 for it’s poor complaint handling.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In her correspondence with this Service, the resident has raised other repair related matters that have not yet been through the landlord’s complaint process. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to matters which completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 16 August 2023. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of this Service.
Throughout the complaint and in communication with this Service, the resident said this situation had a detrimental impact on her health and wellbeing. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of reports of poor staff conduct at the resident’s property

The landlord’s repairs log shows a job was raised on 3 May 2023 for plastering in the bedrooms of the resident’s property. The landlord subcontracted the repair work to a contractor.
The landlord’s repairs policy states it has a “clear guide” for contractors to ensure residents are given a “reliable and safe” service. It states contractors are expected to:
1. Treat residents how they want to be treated.
2. Demonstrate they are ready, willing and able to help residents.
3. Seek solutions to problems and show residents they care.
The resident complained to the landlord on 10 July 2023. She said there were 2 operatives working at her house 3 days earlier and the operatives had behaved in an unacceptable way. The resident asked the landlord if there were vetting processes for the contractors that it uses. She said the operatives had:
1. Played music loudly whilst working in her property.
2. Arrived without the correct equipment and used the resident’s toolbox.
3. Not cleaned up the work area at the end of the day.
4. Not reassembled the beds in the property which meant she had to sleep on a chair in the living room.
5. One operative had used her bathroom to wash himself and walked onto the landing in his underwear.
The resident told this Service on 16 July 2023 that she had received a call from the contractor following her complaint to the landlord. She said the contractor asked if she had been mistaken in what she had seen and that operatives sometimes “clean themselves up” after a day’s work. The resident said this caused her distress. She said the contractor asked if they could finish the repair work and she agreed. However the contractor sent one of the operatives that she had complained about back to her property. The resident recalled a conversation with an operative in which he told the resident that he would not get any further work through the contractor because of the complaint and he said, “thanks for getting me fired”. The resident said this made her feel very uncomfortable in her own home.
The landlord replied to the resident at stage 1 of its internal complaints process on 27 July 2023. It said the following:
1. The behaviour of the operative at the resident’s property was not acceptable.
2. The landlord had asked the contractor to investigate the allegations.
3. The resident was unhappy the contractor called her to discuss the incident as she felt “intimidated”. It apologised for this but said the contractor had to do its own investigation of the incident.
4. The contractor sent back one of the same operatives to the resident’s property to finish the repairs. The operative confronted the resident, and she felt blamed and humiliated.
5. The landlord had “reiterated” to the contractors to not return to the resident’s property.
6. It upheld her complaint and offered the resident £100 compensation for the “distress and inconvenience caused”.
The events that occurred were not disputed by the landlord. The evidence shows the contractors had failed to comply with the landlord’s repairs policy through their behaviour. The landlord instructed the contractor to investigate the allegations of poor behaviour, and this was reasonable. However, the landlord failed to ensure the resident was safeguarded whilst the contractor did this. It also failed to manage how the contractor would complete the outstanding repairs. This led to the resident being placed in an uncomfortable position due to the same operatives attending her property. The landlord’s lack of action and management of the situation was unreasonable in the circumstances. It caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
As part of its response the landlord also failed to compensate for the loss of use of a bedroom. This was inappropriate.
On the same day as the stage 1 response, during a telephone call, the resident escalated her complaint with the landlord. She said the incident had caused her great distress and she was not happy with its response.
On 16 August 2023 the landlord replied to the resident at stage 2 of its internal complaints process. It said the following:
1. The incident of the operative’s poor behaviour led to a delay in the plaster work being completed at the resident’s home.
2. The landlord was committed to supporting the resident.
3. It apologised for the service the resident had received, and it increased the compensation offer to £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her.
The landlord sent a further complaint response on 22 November 2023. It offered the resident £541.64 in compensation for the substantive complaint point, broken down as:
1. £41.64 for full or partial loss of a room.
2. £500 for its failure to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused.
The landlord’s compensation policy states it will award compensation when it has failed to follow a policy or process, and this has caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. It also states it will compensate when a resident has not been able to use a room because of a repair that is the landlord’s responsibility.
At stage 2 the landlord recognised the resident was unable to use the bedroom following the visit because the contractors did not clean the room or reassemble the bed. However, the landlord’s response at stage 2 failed to recognise how it could have managed the contractor’s actions more appropriately or ensured the resident was properly safeguarded.
In summary the landlord has a duty to ensure the same level of service is given to residents by both its inhouse repairs and the contractors it appoints. Following the resident’s concerns, it investigated and communicated the issue promptly to the contractor. However, the landlord failed to ensure it safeguarded the wellbeing of the resident during the contractor’s investigation. It also failed to manage how the contractor would finish the repairs without causing additional distress to the resident. This resulted in her being confronted by 1 of the operatives who had been sent back to her property.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by it put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In doing so we consider whether the redress was in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman encourages landlords to take resolution focussed action, regardless of the complaint stage. However, the focus for a landlord should always be to achieve a fair resolution during its internal complaints process. It was around 3 months after the stage 2 response that the landlord conducted a further review of the case and increased its offer of compensation. Although this did indicate a willingness to learn, in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles, appropriate redress is something which should have been considered as part of the internal complaint procedure.
The amount of compensation awarded by the landlord would have been sufficient to put things right if awarded during its internal complaints procedure. However, where an offer is made post the landlord’s complaints process, the Ombudsman is unlikely to consider this as amounting to a determination of reasonable redress. This is because the landlord has not provided resolution within the scope of its complaints process. Escalation to the Ombudsman, or an indication of escalation should not be seen as a third stage of its process and a second chance to resolve the situation when the reasonable outcome was available at the time of its complaints process. This failure and the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay to provide appropriate redress leads to a determination of maladministration. An order is made for the landlord to provide receipt of payment to the resident for the amount which it has previously offered her as compensation.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The resident complained to the landlord on 10 July 2023. The landlord replied to the resident at stage 1 of its internal complaint process, around 17 working days later, on 27 July 2023. This was a delay of around 3 working days beyond the requirement of its policy to respond within 10 working days at stage 1. The landlord failed to acknowledge the delay as part of its response.
The resident escalated her complaint on 27 July 2023. The landlord responded at stage 2 of its internal complaints process, around 14 working days later on 16 August 2023. This was in accordance with its policy to response within 20 working days at stage 2.
On 22 November 2023 the landlord sent a further complaint response to the resident. It offered £360 compensation for its complaint handling, broken down as:
1. £60 for her time and effort in getting the complaint resolved.
2. £200 for its delay in reviewing the complaint.
3. £50 for the response delay at stage 1.
4. £50 for its poor complaint handling within the stage 2 response.
In its stage 1 and 2 response the landlord did not respond to the resident’s question about its vetting process for contractors. Point 5.6 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 2022 states that “landlords must address all points raised” in a complaint. The landlord failed to do this at both stages, and this was inappropriate.
In summary, the landlord delayed its response to the resident at stage 1. It failed to respond to her question regarding the vetting of contractors at both stage 1 and 2. The landlord recognised the delay in a follow up complaint response 3 months after the internal complaints process had ended. It offered the resident £360 compensation for its complaint handling failures.
This service welcomes the fact the landlord revisited the issue to try and put things right. The sum of compensation offered was an adequate amount of compensation. However, the offer was outside of the landlord’s internal complaints process, and the delay caused will have led to avoidable distress and inconvenience. The failure to provide appropriate redress as part of the landlord’s complaints process amounts to maladministration. An order will be made below for the landlord to confirm payment of the amount it already offered following the complaints process.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of poor staff conduct at the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration for the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks the landlord must:
1. Apologise in writing to the resident for the failings outlined above.
2. Pay the resident the following:
  1. £541.64 previously awarded for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and for loss of a room. The landlord may deduct from this amount the full total on providing receipt of payment, if already made.
  2. £360 previously awarded for the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. The landlord may deduct this amount from the total upon receipt of payment, if already made.
The compensation balance must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against a rent or service charge account.
If the resident still wishes to understand the landlord’s vetting processes, it will answer the resident accordingly. The landlord will provide evidence of its communications with the resident on this matter as evidence of compliance.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance on the above orders within 4 weeks.