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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202316285)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316285

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

31 July 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 complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s windows and a communal door being in disrepair and in need of replacement.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom flat. The resident is a leaseholder.  The resident’s lease began on 29 June 2022.
  2. On 25 September 2022 the resident emailed the landlord and informed it there was an outstanding issue of new windows being fitted in the property. The resident said that on 31 August 2022 someone from the maintenance team attended her property to view the communal front door as her neighbour had asked for it to be looked at. Whilst he was there, she advised the maintenance staff that the previous owner of her property had received confirmation that the landlord would be replacing the communal door and the windows in her property. The maintenance officer called the landlord and that was confirmed by the person he spoke to. The resident stated the order for the windows had been signed off in July 2022 but had not gone any further. The resident asked the landlord to confirm the status of that.
  3. The landlord responded the next day and informed the resident the works had been passed to its surveyor who would make contact. The resident continued to try and obtain further updates from the landlord from October 2022. The landlord’s evidence stated the resident reported to it that the windows had completely rotted on 10 May 2023 and had chased for a response on 15 May 2023.
  4. The landlord’s records showed the resident made a complaint on 18 May 2023 stating the works had been outstanding since July 2022. Nothing had happened since, and the resident had called repeatedly for an update and no one from the landlord had ever called her back.
  5. The landlord issued an email to the resident the same day which acknowledged the complaint and proceeded to inform the resident of its decision. The landlord stated it was aware that its specialist contractor had attended the resident’s property, inspected and had submitted their quotation of works to it. The quotation was still waiting to be reviewed and approved. It apologised for the lack of communication the resident had received relating to the matter and was sorry that she had to continue to chase it. The landlord said it contacted its surveyor to address it further and apologised for any inconvenience caused. The landlord said it would continue to monitor the complaint until it received an update as to what the next steps would be and would contact the resident once it had that information.
  6. On 6 June 2023 the resident emailed the landlord asking for an update. There was no response from the landlord and the resident emailed the landlord again on 28 June 2023 asking for an update. The landlord’s internal communications noted that it was not receiving cooperation from the Council with regards to limitations due to the resident’s property being in a conservation area. The landlord informed the resident of that on 30 June 2023. The resident was informed that the landlord’s surveyor had asked for a quote to replace the door and windows in wood rather than the UPVC that had previously been quoted. Once it had the quotes it would review them.
  7. The resident informed the landlord on 2 July 2023 that she considered the damage to the window frame to be a health and safety issue and the wood was rotten from an absence of water drainage from the balcony above her window and the communal door which meant when it rained the water poured onto the window and door so that would need to be considered.
  8. On 11 July 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and requested her complaint was escalated to stage two.
  9. The resident was informed by the landlord on 31 July 2023 that it had received the quotations which were waiting to be reviewed before approval.
  10. Internal communications on the same day stated the communal door would need to go through a section 20 notice with the windows needing to have the lease checked to establish who was responsible. The landlord issued letters regarding this to the block on 8 September 2023 and for residents of the block to submit any observations by 13 October 2023.
  11. The landlord issued it stage two response on 25 October 2023. The landlord stated:
    1. Its internal system showed the resident had been contacting the landlord for updates on the windows and door replacement since July 2022.
    2. It confirmed the surveyor had advised that they had been trying to source information from the Council and due to the lack of assistance from the Council with regards to information concerning the limitations of the conservation area that the property fell within, the surveyor was advising that the landlord should request for a similar quote to replace the windows in wood rather than UPVC.
    3. It responded to her queries on 31 July 2023, and apologised for the delay in the response and advised its surveyor was waiting for a quotation of works to come back to it from its specialist contractor, it confirmed that had been received and was waiting to be reviewed and approved.
    4. It had contacted its surveyor and Section 20 team for updates and had been advised that there was a delay due to its specialist contractor sending the quotations to it and then the order was closed. When it received the information from its contractor, due to workload and shortage of staff it was forwarded to its Section 20 team who had to begin a consultation process due to the resident being a Leaseholder.
    5. The Section 20 team had advised they had issued a stage one consultation notice inline with the legislation as the proposed works were expected to be more than £250 per unit. The notices were issued in September 2023 and the observation period ended on 13 October 2023. Its direct maintenance team were working on obtaining at least two quotations and once those were available, its Section 20 team would issue a stage 2 consultation notice, following the issue of the notice, there would be a further 35 day observation period. Once that had been completed, the works would be able to proceed.
    6. After review of the complaint, the resident’s enquiries could have been managed more effectively and there were also delays in responses due to a backlog, for which it apologised. It offered compensation of £390 consisting of £30 for the delay at stage two, £100 for time and effort, £120 for distress and inconvenience, £80 for poor communication and £60 for complaint handling.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. This investigation will investigate the issues raised by the resident during the complaint period until addressed by the landlord in its final response issued on 25 October 2023. It is noted that the resident has informed this Service that in 2024 she had raised a further complaint due to water ingress from a property above her property and the replacement of the windows. Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) says the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which have not yet exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process. Therefore, the resident will need to complete the landlord’s complaint process regarding that complaint and if she remains dissatisfied after the landlord provides its final response, the resident can refer the matter back to the Ombudsman as a new complaint.

The landlord’s handling of reports of windows and a communal door being in disrepair and in need of replacement.

  1. Section 5 (3)(a) of the resident’s lease states the landlord shall maintain, repair, redecorate and renew the main structure of the building and all external parts including the walls and doors on the outside of the flats within the building.
  2. It is acknowledged that the landlord had begun the process of requesting quotes for the communal entrance door, lounge window, front bedroom window and rear bedroom window at the resident’s property prior to the resident’s lease beginning. It is important to note this Service cannot investigate the events prior to the resident forming a relationship with the landlord. Therefore, the events that took place leading up to the resident’s lease beginning cannot be included in this investigation.
  3. The residents lease began in June 2022 and the landlord received a quote to renew the communal entrance door at the resident’s property in UPVC on 26 July 2022 but there was no evidence of a quote being received for the windows.
  4. The resident attempted to get an update from the landlord in September 2022 with the landlord informing the resident on 26 September 2022 it would forward her concerns to a property manager. There is however no evidence that the resident was contacted by the landlord, and this prompted the resident to ask again including on but not limited to 12 October 2022, 22 November 2022 and 1 December 2022 for updates from the landlord with no evidence of the landlord responding with an update to the resident. These were communication failures by the landlord as it would be expected to respond to an enquiry from a resident even if there was no specific update it could provide to ensure the resident was aware it was still actively handling the replacement of the windows and communal door.
  5. The landlord has not provided evidence of its actions between December 2022 and May 2023. It is not therefore clear what actions the landlord took, when any actions took place and how the landlord was monitoring the works. The works had not progressed or been completed as of May 2023 with the landlord’s records noting that the resident had informed it on 10 May 2023 that the windows had completely rotted.  After requesting a further update on 15 May 2023, the resident raised the complaint with the landlord on 18 May 2023.
  6. It is acknowledged that the process to prepare submission to the Council for permission to replace the windows and doors with UPVC would take time. The landlord in this case however has failed to provide evidence to this Service of the contact it had with the Council and when that contact took place. This has meant this investigation is unable to determine the extent of the landlords attempts to start or progress the process.
  7. However it is clear some attempts were made by the landlord as on the day the resident made her complaint, the evidence provided by the landlord showed its internal communications stated it had been trying to source information from the Council and with the block being in a conservation area and there were limits in place regarding renewing of windows and doors. It also noted at that time that due to the cost of renewing the communal door a Section 20 notice was also required.
  8. When the landlord issued its response at stage one to the resident it acknowledged the inspection, and quotation had taken place but it was waiting for the quotation to be reviewed and approved. There was no reference to approval being required by the Council or requirement for a Section 20 notice. The works at this stage had been outstanding for at least 11 months after the resident had moved into the property. The landlord failed to explain to the resident why the works were still outstanding or when she could expect to receive any further updates. 
  9. The landlord’s records showed that on 29 June 2023 it stated that due to a lack of assistance from the Council regarding the limitations of the conservation area the property was in, it would ask its contractor to provide a quotation for the replacement of the doors and windows to be in wood rather than UPVC. This was a positive move by the landlord as it identified an alternative option to resolve and progress the replacement windows and communal door.
  10. However, due to the landlord’s records not being clear when it first contacted the Council and its communications with the Council, this Service was unable to establish the extent of the steps it had taken. It is therefore not evidenced why the landlord took the length of time to consider the quote in wood given it noted on 18 May 2023 that there may be issues replacing the windows in UPVC.
  11. At this stage, despite an initial request on 28 June 2023 to escalate the complaint to stage two the resident did inform the landlord on 2 July 2023 she would leave the complaint at stage one but requested regular updates on a weekly basis as the lack of updates was what led her to raise the complaint.
  12. The resident also informed the landlord on 2 July 2023 that the damage to the windows was a potential health and safety issue and it would not take much for the windowsill to break and an accident occur. The wood was rotten due to the absence of water draining from the balcony above her window and the communal door so if the replacement windows were to be made of wood additional drainage would have to be considered.
  13. Although the resident informed the landlord of a potential health and safety issue, the landlord’s evidence did not show it gave the resident’s report any consideration or that it considered if a risk assessment, further inspection or interim works were required while it dealt with the options for the replacement windows.  
  14. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident and kept her informed of updates as per her requests and this led to the resident asking the landlord on 11 July 2023 to escalate her complaint to stage two. This was a further failing in its communication by the landlord.
  15. The landlord had received all quotations for the works in wood by 14 July 2023. On 31 July 2023 the landlord informed the resident it was waiting for the quotations it had received to be reviewed before approval. It did not provide an expected date for that to the resident, and this would have caused the resident further distress and inconvenience given the delays she had incurred to that point and the more recent concerns about health and safety she had reported.
  16. On 31 July 2023 the landlord internally established that the quotation was also divided into windows for the resident’s property and a communal entrance door. The landlord again noted that the communal door would need to go through a Section 20 notice.
  17. The resident requested updates on 3 August 2023 and on 1 September 2023. The landlord responded on 5 September 2023 and informed the resident it was unable to provide an update to her regarding her stage two complaint and did not provide any update on the windows and communal door works. This again left the resident with no expected response date from the landlord.
  18. The landlord issued letters regarding the communal front door on 8 September 2023 in accordance with Section 20 asking for any written observations to be sent to it by 13 October 2023. The letters were issued four months after the evidence provided showed the landlord first raised the requirement for a Section 20 notice and two months after the quotes had been received. The landlord records did not evidence the reasons for those delays but did state on 24 October 2023 the job was on hold as the Section 20 was involved.
  19. When the landlord issued the stage two response it informed the resident of that and the need to progress through stage two of the Section 20 before works could proceed.
  20. Ultimately at the time the Section 20 notice was issued the replacement of the windows in the resident’s property and communal door had been outstanding for over one year.  Although some of the delays were stated by the landlord to be contributed to by the Council and this Service agrees the process for submission and approval of those types of works can take significant time, the landlord has not evidenced the extent of its interactions with the Council and that it acted within reasonable timescales for the actions it was ultimately responsible for including issuing the section 20 notice.
  21. It is acknowledged that the Section 20 process can take time to complete, therefore the landlord must insure it begins the process at the earliest opportunity. The first Section 20 letter to the block was issued after the resident had escalated her complaint to stage two and the final complaint response was issued before the deadline for any submission in response to the Section 20. So while it is clear the landlord had begun the section 20 process at the time the landlord’s complaint process had been completed there was no evidence provided by the landlord that evidenced why it took the length of time to do so.
  22. The landlord has also not evidenced that it was keeping the resident suitably informed of progress or of any issues it needed to overcome. The resident continuously had to chase the landlord for updates which once provided did not provide any clarity to the resident which would have caused her more distress and inconvenience. An order has been made for the landlord to provide the resident with an explanation of the time taken to reach the stage of issuing the section 20 notice.
  23. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £390 in the stage two response. Based on the breakdown provided by the landlord £300 was for its handling of the windows and communal door replacement with £90 for its complaint handling. At this time the works had been outstanding since the resident moved in – a period of 16 months, the amount of compensation offered is not considered reasonable given the extent of the delay and the lack of evidence provided by the landlord showing the steps it had taken to resolve the issue and the communication provided to the resident during this time. This Service considers an award of £650 inclusive of the £300 already offered to be appropriate.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. The landlord has a two stage complaints process. At stage one it will issue a response within ten working days and at stage two within 20 working days. At both stages if the landlord needs longer to issue the response it will inform the resident and issue the response or write again within a further 10 working days.
  2. The landlord records showed it raised a complaint for the resident on 18 May 2023 and the complaint appeared to be made by telephone. The landlord issued an email to the resident the same day which acknowledged the complaint which was positive by the landlord and inline with its complaints policy.
  3. However, the acknowledgment letter stated to the resident it was providing its decision and proceeded to provide the resident with its full complaint response. The landlord failed to issue a separate stage one letter to the resident and the response also failed to state it was providing the resident with a response under stage one of its complaints process. The landlord should ensure that when issuing a response at each stage of the complaints process it is made clear to the resident what stage the complaint is at. 
  4. The stage one response provided the resident with an update of the status of the quotation the landlord had received informing her it was still to be reviewed. The response however did not provide the resident with any further explanation for the delays she had incurred up to that point or when the resident would have been expected to be provided with further updates.
  5. It is noted that the landlord issued the stage one response the same day the complaint was received. Given the complaint was made and the landlord issued the response on the same day, it is difficult to establish the extent of the landlord’s investigations before the complaint response was issued. The landlord has not evidenced it took an appropriate amount of time to investigate the complaint, and this was reflected in the level of detail provided to the resident in the stage one response.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint on 28 June 2023 after not receiving any further contact from the landlord since the stage one response was issued. Following an update on the matters on 30 June 2023 the landlord asked the resident if she still wished to continue to escalate the complaint to stage two. It also noted that it was currently experiencing a backlog at stage two, and it would be unable to provide a timeframe on a response.
  7. This response to the resident was not appropriate. The resident had already stated to the landlord that she wished for her complaint to be escalated, and the landlord was therefore under an obligation to do so. The landlord should not be asking the resident if she still wished to proceed with the complaint after an update is provided. That is a decision for the resident to make based on the information and Service she had received at that point.  Although the resident did inform the landlord, she was happy at that time to leave the complaint at stage one the landlord did not demonstrate correct complaint handling. 
  8. However, the resident following lack of updates from the landlord asked the landlord again to escalate her complaint to stage two on 11 July 2023 and requested confirmation from the landlord on 25 July 2023 as she had not had a response. On 31 July 2023 the landlord responded to the resident’s request for an escalation to stage two with an update on her case and proceeded to inform the resident that there were backlogs at stage two and if the resident still wished to escalate her complaint it would do so and to let it know. The landlord then informed the resident she may not receive any updates whilst the complaint waited to be assigned to a customer relations officer. The resident responded on 3 August 2023 stating if she did decide to escalate further, her concern was that she would not get any updates for the works and that deterred her from escalating the complaint.
  9. It is concerning to this Service that on each occasion the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage two that the landlord proceeded to provide an update and then asked the resident if she still wished to escalate the complaint. It is equally concerning that on each occasion the landlord informed the resident of backlogs which may delay a response being issued. The landlord’s complaints policy is clear that it will respond to stage two complaints within 20 days and the landlord would be expected to provide a response within that timescale. It is not appropriate of the landlord to inform the resident of delays at stage two while the resident is making a request for escalation as this could be interpreted as the landlord trying to deter the resident from escalating the complaint as evidenced by the resident email to the landlord on 3 August 2023.
  10. The landlord did inform the resident it had escalated the complaint to stage two on two on 10 August 2023 but was informed the landlord was unable to give a timeframe on its response, however once it had been assigned to a stage two reviewer she would be contacted.  This was not appropriate as the landlord’s complaint policy clearly states the resident should expect a response within 20 working days. To leave the resident with no expected response date was not appropriate especially considering her repairs request was still outstanding. This was a further failing by the landlord that would have caused the resident further distress and inconvenience.
  11. This Service contacted the landlord on 18 October 2023 following contact made by the resident requesting the landlord to issue its final complaint response. The landlord eventually issued its formal stage two acknowledgment on 19 October 2023. This was 72 working days after the resident informed the landlord of her request to escalate the complaint on 11 July 2023. The response was issued on 25 October 2023 making the time to issue the stage two response 76 working days.
  12. The landlord offered £90 for its handling of the complaint consisting of £30 for the delay at stage two and £60 for complaint handling. Given the delays in issuing the stage one response, the difficulty the resident had in escalating the complaint at stage two and the delay in the stage two response being issued, the offer of compensation was not appropriate, and the landlord should pay the resident £300 inclusive of the £90 it had already offered.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s windows and a communal door being in disrepair and in need of replacement.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Provide the resident with a written apology for the failures identified in this report. This must include an explanation of the time taken to reach the stage of issuing the Section 20 notice which caused the resident to continually chase for an update.
    2. Pay the resident £650 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s windows and a communal door being in disrepair and in need of replacement inclusive of the £300 it has already offered.
    3. Pay the resident £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of her complaint inclusive of the £90 it has already offered.
    4. Provide the resident with an update on the status of the replacement of her windows and communal door.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord reviews its repairs procedure and record keeping practices to ensure repairs are appropriately monitored and residents are kept informed to ensure repairs are completed within the timescales of the landlord repairs policies.
  2. The landlord reviews its staff training to ensure its staff follows the landlord’s complaint process to ensure residents are responded to within the timescales of its complaint policy.