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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202321860)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202321860

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

7 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 response to reports of:

  1. Defective heating.
  2. The fence needing replacing.

2.             The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3.             The resident, who has vulnerabilities, has occupied the property, a 2 bedroom house, on an assured tenancy since August 2021.

4.             The landlord’s records show that, prior to the resident moving in, there had been issues with the living room and bathroom radiators not working. The boiler was classified as dangerous on 28 July 2021, but the resident was allowed to move in on 2 August 2021 and a new boiler was not fitted until 6 August 2021. Therefore, she was without heating and hot water for several days when she first moved in.

5.             The resident initially reported that radiators were not working on 3 September 2021, and she was advised that it was an issue with the valves. She reported that the boiler stopped working on 22 September 2021 and again that the radiators were not working on 6 October 2021.

6.             The resident made a complaint on 19 October 2021 about not having hot water since the start of her tenancy. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 18 January 2022. It accepted that she was without a fully operational boiler when she first moved in, apologised for this, and offered £180 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused and the time and effort it took to get a resolution. It also offered £50 for complaint handling delays.

7.             The resident again complained on 29 March 2022 that the radiators were not working. The complaint was acknowledged and, on 6 April 2022, the resident told the landlord she wanted £10,000 compensation, and the complaint was then escalated to stage 2. The resident chased the landlord on 24 May 2022 and at the same time, raised an issue with a boundary fence being dangerous. She was told on 25 May 2022 that there was a delay of about 4 to 6 months addressing complaints at stage 2.

8.             The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 20 June 2023, when it:

  1. Did not accept responsibility for the fence; however, it had agreed to fix it, and the work was completed in January 2023.
  2. Noted that it had already paid the resident £230 compensation for the heating repairs.
  3. Detailed its efforts to carry out a powerflush to the radiators between June 2022 and June 2023, and acknowledged that there had been failings in that regard. It offered £60 compensation for missed appointments.
  4. Offered £120 compensation for delays addressing the complaint at stage 2.

9.             The resident remained unhappy and said she wanted £5,000 compensation. The landlord arranged for an engineer to attend on 19 July 2023, who believed there was a blockage under the kitchen floor.

10.        Another engineer attended on 24 August 2023 who said the radiators in the kitchen and hallway needed to be changed, and the radiator in the living room should be removed and cleaned. In addition, the pipework downstairs needed to be powerflushed. They confirmed the first floor heating was working but there was a blockage in 3 of the ground floor radiators. They should be replaced and there was no need to lift the flooring.

11.        The resident complained to the landlord again on 20 February 2024 as the radiators had not been replaced and she was still without heating.

12.        On 22 May 2024, radiators were replaced and an engineer found a blocked pipe underneath the kitchen floor. They noted the landlord may need to lift hallway and living room flooring to redo pipework.

13.        On 10 September 2024 the landlord sent the resident £430 compensation: £270 to recognise a 24–day delay (£240) and 1 appointment rebooked (£30); an appointment on 3 July 2023 rebooked (£30); a 10–day delay on a job raised on 6 July 2023 (£100); and a 3–day delay on a job created on 28 May 2024 (£30).

14.        The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 20 September 2024, to the 20 February 2024 complaint. It apologised for the delay in responding and offered the resident £360 compensation: £25 per month for 6 months of distress (July and August 2023, and February to May 2024) and a further £25 a month for these 6 months to recognise inconvenience caused. It also offered £60 for not providing a final stage 1 decision in April 2022.

15.        On 1 October 2024, the landlord sent the resident a cheque for £128.58 to cover 1 week’s rent for her first week’s tenancy when she had no boiler.

16.        The resident remains unhappy with the amount of compensation offered.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s response to reports of defective heating

17.        The evidence shows that the property had had issues with its heating several years before the resident moved in, and just 5 days before she moved in, the boiler was classed as dangerous so could not be used. The landlord has said the property was ready for the resident to move in to subject to the gas being commissioned upon occupation. The resident has said she was without a boiler for 10 days after moving in. The evidence shows a new boiler was fitted 4 days after she moved in; so, she was certainly without heating or hot water during this time.

18.        In response to the resident’s complaint of 19 October 2021, the landlord did then offer £180 compensation to recognise that she did not have a working boiler initially. In addition, the landlord sent her a cheque for £128.58 in lieu of 1 week’s rent (although this was not sent until October 2024, some 3 years later).

19.        The Occupancy Agreement says the landlord is responsible for all fixtures and fittings for sanitation, the supply of water, gas, electricity and space and water heating. Therefore, the boiler replacement should have taken place before the resident moved in. While it is noted the landlord later refunded the resident’s first week’s rent, it should not have taken over 3 years to do this, or for the resident to involve this Service before it did so.

20.        Having said that, the landlord’s original offer of £180 compensation was not, in itself, unreasonable based on its Compensation policy which says it should pay £10 per day up to a maximum of £100 per defect. In this case, the resident was without a boiler for 4 days (equating to £40) and this payment would cover a delay of up to 10 days. As the landlord’s offer at the time exceeded the guidelines set out in its Compensation policy, the remedy offered was not unreasonable.

21.        After the boiler was changed, the resident had further issues with the heating. She reported that the boiler and downstairs radiators were not working in September 2021 and, although a job was created, it was then cancelled (although it is not clear why). An engineer attended on 19 November 2021, but this was 2 months after the issue was reported, and the heating system was not actually repaired at that time. A further visit took place on 3 December 2021, and chemicals were added to the system. The landlord’s records say the heating system was then working, but it failed again on 30 December 2021. The landlord arranged for a temporary oil radiator to be provided, which was appropriate to ensure the resident could have some heating downstairs.

22.        In January 2022, an engineer concluded that 6 thermostatic radiator valves needed replacing and this work was carried out, along with a flush of the system. A leak from the system was then reported, which was addressed on 1 February 2022. However, by 30 March 2022 the resident was reporting she still had no heating downstairs, so the source of the problem had not been identified. She said she had had a winter dealing with a broken heating system, which was understandably difficult and frustrating.

23.        While the landlord’s records indicate that the heating system has occasionally worked, the resident disputes this. Regardless of the specific timings, it is apparent that the resident has been without heating downstairs for the majority of her tenancy. She had to chase the landlord on several occasions in early 2022 and, while the delay seems to have been a result of the landlord seeking a new contractor, it should not have been left to the resident to get the landlord to take action.

24.        Even after the landlord found a new contractor, between June and December 2022 no repairs were carried out. This was evidently a result of both the landlord being unable to contact the resident, and appointments being rescheduled. The landlord’s records show that it tried to contact the resident on 20 June, 20 July and 5 August 2022 and, although an appointment was made on 8 August 2022 for 19 September 2022, that then had to be rescheduled.

25.        Three attempts were made to speak with the resident in October 2022, before a new appointment was made for 7 December 2022, but the engineer was sick so another appointment was needed. While the Ombudsman accepts the landlord did try to arrange for work to be done, it was not appropriate for it to simply close the job down on 29 December 2022, knowing the repair was still needed and had been outstanding for 15 months.

26.        Despite it being Winter, there is no evidence of the landlord taking any further steps to complete the works until March 2023, which is unacceptable. This is particularly the case as its records show it knew the resident had “limited heating and hot water”. It created a job to carry out a powerflush of the system but it recorded no access on 8 April 2023. It tried to contact the resident on 12 April 2023, but again closed the job on 17 April 2023, despite the work being outstanding.

27.        This led to the resident escalating her concerns and although the landlord’s record shows someone attended on 8 May 2023, they apparently could not gain access. However, no evidence has been provided to show the resident was made aware of the appointment in advance. The landlord closed down the job once more, but did try to contact the resident 5 times between May and July 2023, without success.

28.        The resident denies not giving access but there does seem to have been issues contacting her on a number of occasions. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have kept the job open until it was satisfied the work had been completed. The landlord was ultimately able to arrange for an engineer to attend on 19 July 2023, who confirmed there was heating upstairs but no circulation downstairs. A further visit was arranged for 24 August 2023, when it was determined the kitchen and hallway radiators needed to be changed, and the radiator in the living room should be removed and cleaned and the pipe work downstairs be powerflushed.

29.        The landlord did then try to arrange for the necessary work to be done, but its records show the resident did not agree to only 2 radiators being replaced. She felt all 3 downstairs should be changed. As a result, the engineers were unable to arrange for the work to be done, and the job was closed down on 13 October 2023 on the basis of the work being refused.

30.        The resident continued to raise the fact that she had an issue with her heating in February 2024 and this led to further visits taking place. An engineer’s report sent to the landlord on 8 March 2024 again recommended replacing radiators, but this time, changing 5 radiators and doing another powerflush. In response, the landlord said a powerflush should be done first, to see if that resolved the issue. That was done on 21 March 2024 but failed to improve matters, so the landlord authorised the radiators to be replaced.

31.        The radiators were ultimately replaced on 22 May 2024 which resolved the issues. However, in the meantime, the resident had again complained about the length of time things were taking, and how she had had no heating downstairs for 3 years.

32.        Having changed the boiler, the landlord was put on notice in September 2021 that there was an issue with the heating system. While there were certainly periods when the landlord struggled to make contact with the resident, by regularly closing down jobs despite knowing there was still an outstanding issue, it was usually the resident having to chase for the work to be completed.

33.        In August 2023, the landlord was aware radiators needed to be changed, and a powerflush carried out. Although there was a discrepancy with the resident about the number of radiators to change, the evidence does not indicate she refused work being done. Rather, the contractor took it to be that way, because she said more than 2 radiators needed to be changed (which was later proved to be correct).

34.        It is clear the resident was continually pushing to get the heating system repaired, and despite knowing radiators ought to be replaced, the landlord wanted another powerflush carried out. This could have been arranged in 2023, but it did not happen because the job was closed down prematurely, creating an unnecessary delay. The fact the landlord only managed to resolve the issue with the heating system by replacing all the radiators, shows the resident was right to raise her concerns when it proposed only changing 2 of them.

35.        The Ombudsman accepts the landlord was not always able to contact the resident, but that must be balanced with its obligation to ensure the property was in good repair and it failed to do that. The resident has shown that as a result of not having heating in the property, it developed damp and mould. She has sent in photographs which show mould in several places, damp above a radiator and a recording of the radiator in the bedroom making a whistling noise.

36.        No evidence has been provided to show the landlord assessed the property within 20 working days, in line with its Damp and Mould policy to establish if an immediate repair was required. The resident had to live with no heating downstairs, as well as damp and mould day to day, including 3 winters which would have been very hard. Having to repeatedly raise the same issue over and over again and for it to take nearly 3 years to get matters resolved amounts to severe maladministration.

37.        The landlord’s Compensation policy says a service failure would be a failure to attend a booked appointment without good reason. In that situation, it would make a payment of £20 for failure to keep an appointment without at least 24 hours’ notice. It goes on to say that, in an emergency, such as no heating between 31 October and 1 May it will pay £10 per day with a maximum of £100 per defect if not made good within 24 hours. In addition, an urgent defect such as no hot water (between 30 April and 1 November) should be made good in 5 days otherwise payment of compensation should be paid at £5 per day to a maximum of £100 per defect.

38.        The landlord’s offer of £1,098.58 (specifically in relation to the substantive issue) exceeds these policy provisions, as follows:

  1. 18 January 2022 – £180 compensation for distress and inconvenience and time taken to resolve the boiler/heating issue.
  2. 20 June 2023 – £60 compensation for missed appointments.
  3. 10 September 2024 – £430 compensation for delays in attending appointments.
  4. 20 September 2024 – £300 for its failure to recognise distress caused.
  5. 1 October 2024 – the landlord sent a cheque for £128.58; reimbursing the resident for 1 weeks rent for the first week’s tenancy when she had no boiler.

39.        The landlord’s failure to repair the heating system for nearly 3 years potentially presented a statutory hazard and had a significant effect on the resident. She has been living without heating downstairs as well as mould, for such a long time it has clearly caused her a great deal of inconvenience and frustration. While the landlord did increase its compensation offer, it only did so once this Service became involved, and 4 months after the necessary repairs were ultimately completed.

40.        In terms of remedy, in cases like this, compensation of around £1,000 would be considered appropriate. While the total amount offered by the landlord is in line with that, the majority of that was only offered after the Ombudsman’s investigation began. This indicates that the landlord did not take the opportunity of the complaint process to properly investigate the circumstances of the complaint and make a suitable offer of redress as soon as it could. Therefore, a finding of reasonable redress would not be appropriate.

41.        As there has been severe maladministration in this case, an order is made that the landlord should now pay the resident £1,098.58 compensation. Any amount already paid to the resident in respect of this complaint may be deducted from that total.

42.        This investigation has considered the issues raised as part of the formal complaint relating to repairs to the heating system. It is noted that the resident has since raised concerns about damage caused to her floor and other areas of the property as a result of the repairs being done. While not considered as part of this assessment, the Ombudsman recommends that the landlord should take the opportunity to attend the property and agree with the resident a schedule of works in order to remedy any damage caused as a result of works carried out.

Landlord’s response to a report the fence needed replacing

43.        The landlord’s Repairs policy states that it does not repair dividing fences and gates (fencing and gates which separate a garden from a neighbour’s garden). This was explained to the resident on 27 May 2022. The resident felt the landlord should repair the dividing fence between the property and the neighbour’s because of both the cost of the works and the unrelated issues within the property (particularly the heating).

44.        While the Ombudsman understands the resident’s strength of feeling on this point, the landlord was right to advise that its Repairs policy makes it clear that it was the resident’s responsibility to repair the fence. As a result, there was no obligation on the landlord to carry out the works the resident was requesting.

45.        Despite this, the landlord exercised its discretion to repair the fence in January 2023, at no cost to the resident. As a result, it went over and above its responsibilities to the resident in order to satisfactorily resolve her concerns. Therefore, there was no maladministration by the landlord on this point of complaint.

The landlord’s complaint handling

46.        The landlord’s Complaints policy says a complaint will be acknowledged within 5 working days and a stage 1 response issued within 10 working days. It says, “if we need more time to reach a decision, we’ll explain why and write again after no more than 10 working days. In exceptional circumstances we may need even longer”. A complaint can then be escalated to stage 2, if the request is made within 6 months of the stage 1 decision and a response issued within 20 working days. Again, if an extension is required, it will write and explain that.

47.        It took the landlord 3 months to respond to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 which was in breach of the timescales set out in its Complaints policy. It acknowledged this within its stage 1 response of 18 January 2022 and appropriately offered £50 compensation by way of remedy.

48.        On 29 March 2022, the resident made it clear to the landlord that she remained unhappy as there was still an issue with the heating. At this point, the complaint should have been escalated to stage 2, but the landlord confused matters.  On the same day it sent a stage 1 acknowledgement, but also recorded the complaint as being escalated to stage 2. When asked why it did this, the landlord has said “the complaint never reached stage 1, and as a result of our failure to respond, we escalated it directly to stage 2”. It is not clear what the landlord’s comment means, as it had issued a stage 1 response.

49.        In any event, the complaint was escalated to stage 2, and the resident was advised of that on 7 April 2022. She chased for a response on 24 May 2022 and the landlord then explained that there was a 4 to 6 month delay in responding to stage 2 complaints. Although the landlord attempted to manage the resident’s expectations at this point, in terms of timescales for receiving a response, it should not have taken the resident chasing to obtain this information. If there was a backlog, and the landlord knew it was unable to comply with its own Complaints policy, this should have been explained to the resident as soon as the complaint was escalated.

50.        These communication failings indicated that the landlord had failed to learn from its earlier mistakes and delays at stage 1. In addition, having said the resident should expect a stage 2 response within 4 to 6 months, the landlord ultimately sent it on 20 June 2023, nearly 15 months after she escalated her complaint. There is no evidence the resident received any other updates about her complaint, after May 2022, which is unacceptable.

51.        These recurrent failings in the landlord’s complaint handling exacerbated an already difficult situation for the resident. The landlord did offer £120 compensation to recognise the delay, this amount did not sufficiently recognise such significant delay and that her expectations had been mismanaged.

52.        The resident went on to make another complaint on 20 February 2024, about the same issue, the length of time it was taking to resolve the heating issue. It was acknowledged appropriately the following day as a new stage 1 complaint, but once again there was a delay as it took 7 months for the landlord to respond. It offered £60 compensation by way of a remedy but it is indicative that even now, the landlord continues to fail to adhere to its Complaints policy.

53.        Overall, the landlord has offered the resident £230 compensation for its poor complaint handling over a 3 year period. While the landlord has apologised along the way, this has little merit as it has continued to repeat the same mistakes as there have been extensive delays at every stage. While the Ombudsman appreciates the landlord has always acknowledged its failures in relation to complaint handling, it could have done more to not only consider the delay at each stage, but to look at the bigger picture.

54.        The landlord should have taken into account that not only was the issue complained about still outstanding, but that at every stage of the complaint process, there had been a delay, compounding the issue. Therefore, a more reasonable response would have been to acknowledge how the repeated failures exacerbated the situation.

55.        As the landlord’s complaints handling fell short at every stage and there were such extensive delays, this amounts to severe maladministration. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord apologised along the way, offered compensation, and issued comprehensive responses (albeit too late). Taking that into account, the level of compensation is increased in line with this Service’s remedies guidance but at the lower end of the severe maladministration scale. Therefore, the level of compensation payable for its overall poor complaints handling, should be increased from £230 to £600.

Determination

56.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:

  1. No maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to a report the fence needed replacing.
  2. Severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to:
    1. Reports of defective heating.
    2. The associated formal complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders  

57.        Within the next four weeks the landlord is ordered to:

  1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report.
  2. Pay the resident £1,698.58 compensation made up of:
    1. £1,098.58 for its failures related to its handling of reports of defective heating.
    2. £600 for its poor complaint handling.
  3. Meet with the resident and inspect the property and agree a schedule of works.
  4. Carry out a review in order to establish why there is such a significant delay addressing complaints and provide a report setting out how this will be addressed.

58.        Any amount already paid to the resident in respect of this complaint may be deducted from the above compensation award.