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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202331279)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331279

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

8 August 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 the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Repairs to the front metal gate obstructing access to and from the property.
    2. A request to install a stair banister and a wheelchair ramp.
    3. Reports of a pest infestation.
    4. A leak from the water tank, remedial works following leaks including to plasterwork and kitchen units, and repairs to uneven paths.
    5. The associated complaints.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy with the current landlord began on 11 October 2010. However, the resident has lived in the property, as a tenant, for over 30 years. She lives with her adult son. The property is a 3 bedroom house. The resident has multiple vulnerabilities. She is registered disabled and requires the daily assistance of carers.
  2. The resident has given permission for an advocate to act on her behalf. For the purposes of this report both the resident and her advocate will be referred to as ‘the resident’.
  3. The evidence shows that the resident contacted the landlord on 7 November 2022, in response to an email from the landlord, to arrange access to complete outstanding roof repairs. The resident told the landlord that there was continuing water ingress from the skylight on the upper floor which had damaged the electrics, ceilings and flooring. The resident said her property was in a bad state of disrepair and she asked the landlord to arrange an inspection.
  4. The landlord logged a stage 1 complaint (Complaint 1) on 16 November 2022, as the resident reported that she had been left without heating/hot water because the scaffolders had removed the boiler flue whilst erecting the scaffolding on 11 November 2022, to complete the roof repairs.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord again on 25 November 2022 and raised further concerns in relation to disrepair. She said she had been left without heating and hot water for over 2 weeks. The roof was in a state of disrepair and continued to leak internally in several locations. The kitchen units and floor were damp, unsafe, and in disrepair, and the front gate and path required an inspection as it was uneven and a trip hazard.
  6. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, dated 6 December 2022, only addressed the issue relating to the boiler flue and the loss of heating and hot water. It did not address the issues raised by the resident in her further correspondence on 25 November 2022. As the resident did not escalate the complaint to stage 2, the issue relating to the loss of heating and hot water has not been included within this investigation.
  7. The resident attempted to raise a further formal complaint (complaint 2) with the landlord on 8 September 2023. She said the matters she raised in November 2022 were still outstanding and her property had been in a severe state of disrepair for over 12 months. However, this correspondence does not appear to have been logged as a complaint by the landlord.
  8. The resident sent a further email to the landlord on 8 November 2023, in relation to the outstanding issues. This was logged as a complaint. The resident informed the landlord that the repairs to the plaster, kitchen and pathways had not been completed.
  9. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response in relation to complaint 2 on 9 November 2023. Although it did not provide a detailed response and said it would provide a further update by 24 November 2023.
  10. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 15 November 2023. The landlord provided a follow up to its stage 1 response on 23 November 2023. It said the work to the front path had been passed to its minor works team. The work to the kitchen was showing on its system as “no access”, and its contractor had attempted to contact the resident on 3 occasions to arrange the asbestos survey without success.
  11. The landlord opened a new complaint on 12 December 2023 (complaint 3) following a report of a further leak into the resident’s property on 3 December 2023. The resident said the landlord had failed to respond appropriately to the leak. She said she felt she was being discriminated against based on her disabilities and because she was an older person, as the landlord had not completed the repairs and had not kept her safe in her home. The resident said she had been left with dangerous ceilings and no electrics due to the leak.
  12. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 13 December 2023 in relation to complaint 3. It said the leak was caused by a perished cold-water pipe on the cold-water tank in the loft. It was originally thought that the leak was from the boiler, and due to the electrics being isolated, the boiler was disconnected. An appointment had been made to reinstate the boiler on 14 December 2023, and to install dehumidifiers to help dry out the property. A further order had been raised for its electrical contractor to return on 15 December 2023 to check the electrics and test the circuit, and it had raised a job for its contractors to assess the damage to the property following the leak.
  13. Following the escalation of complaint 3 to stage 2, the landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 14 March 2024. It said it had considered the inconvenience and distress the resident had experienced and it awarded compensation of £205.
  14. Following contact from this Service the landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response, in relation to complaint 2, on 8 April 2024. The landlord said:
    1. It apologised for the late stage 2 response and the delays in completing the repairs. It acknowledged that it should have considered the resident’s vulnerabilities and urgently prioritised the repairs.
    2. It accepted that the property was in an unfit state for the resident to live in and that it should have decanted or rehoused the resident.
    3. It was sorry that the resident had been left without electricity for a prolonged period of time. Although it had attempted to resolve the issue but the operative could not gain access to the property. However, it understood that the resident should not have been left without electricity in view of her vulnerabilities.
    4. It understood that the installation of the kitchen units and cooker remained outstanding and it was sorry for the length of time it had taken to complete the work.
    5. Following the work to the kitchen, all plaster works would be completed to repair the damage following the leaks.
    6. The damaged pathways would be re-laid due to their current condition, particularly as the resident was a frame and wheelchair user.
    7. It upheld the complaint and offered the resident compensation of £1,298.
  15. The evidence shows that as of 13 June 2024, the work was still outstanding.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint, or part of a complaint, will not be investigated.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that “are made prior to having exhausted a members complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale”.
  3. After carefully considering all the evidence, the following complaint points sit outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction as the landlord has not investigated these matters through its complaints process:
    1.  Repairs to the front metal gate obstructing access to and from the property.
    2. A request to install a stair banister and a wheelchair ramp.
    3. Reports of a pest infestation.

Scope of investigation

  1. The Equality Act 2010 (the Act) provides a legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals with protected characteristics from unfair treatment. The landlord has a duty under the Act not to unlawfully discriminate against a person on the basis of their protected characteristics. The Act prohibits direct discrimination, which occurs where a person treats another person less favourably because of a protected characteristic.
  2. The resident makes reference to feeling that the landlord’s behaviour, in delaying the completion of repairs, amounts to discrimination based on her disabilities and being an older person. It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to establish whether the actions, or inaction, of the landlord amounted to discrimination. Allegations of discrimination are legal issues better suited to a court of law to decide. Therefore, we cannot find a landlord has breached the Equality Act. However, we can decide whether a landlord has had due regard to its duties under the Equality Act.
  3. The resident has also expressed concerns regarding the impact the situation has had on her health. This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impact on health and wellbeing. Claims for personal injury must be decided by a court, who can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. However, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

A leak from the water tank, remedial works following leaks including to plasterwork and kitchen units, and repairs to uneven paths

  1. S11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires the landlord to: 
    1. Keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling-house (including drains, gutters and external pipes).
    2. Keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling-house for the supply of water, gas and electricity and for sanitation; and
    3. Keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling-house for space heating and heating water.
  2. It is not disputed that there have been significant and unreasonable delays in the completion of the required remedial repairs. It is also not disputed that the landlord failed to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities, that it left her in an unfit property for a prolonged period of time, and that there are lessons to be learnt from this case.
  3. It is clear from the evidence provided that the issues have been ongoing since at least November 2022, when the resident requested a property inspection and informed the landlord that her property was in a bad state of disrepair following water ingress/damage. It is also clear from the evidence provided that the landlord was fully aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities and the additional impact the delay in repairs would likely have on the resident. However, it is unclear from the evidence provided as to whether the landlord undertook a property inspection at the time of the resident’s request, or whether it carried out any of the required repairs.
  4. The landlord’s system notes, dated 3 August 2023, refer to a property inspection that was arranged due to “many health and safety issues” within the resident’s property. This appears to have been booked in for 16 August 2023. Although it is unclear from the records provided whether this went ahead and, if it did, what the outcome of the inspection was. However, given that the resident made a formal complaint on 8 September 2023, as she felt her property had been in a severe state of disrepair for over 12 months, it would be reasonable to assume that the repairs had not been completed and were still outstanding.
  5. The landlord has obligations under s11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, and its repairs policy says it will complete routine repairs in an average of 25 calendar days. The repairs policy also says it will adjust its service standards where a delay would put a vulnerable resident at risk because of their condition. It would be reasonable to conclude, from the evidence provided, that the landlord did not act in accordance with its legal obligations, or its own policies. Therefore, its actions were inappropriate in the circumstances. This was unfair and unreasonable, particularly given the resident’s disabilities and vulnerabilities, the length of time the work had been outstanding, and the greater impact this would likely cause.
  6. Under the Equality Act 2010 (the Act), the landlord has a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where there is a provision, criterion or practice which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled. As the resident is disabled, and vulnerable, the landlord should have recognised the need to make reasonable adjustments to its usual processes. It should have followed the guidance in relation to vulnerable residents within its own repairs policy and treated the resident’s repairs as a priority. Therefore, as it did not comply with its own policies, the landlord has not demonstrated that it had due regard to its duties under the Act, and its actions were inappropriate in the circumstances.
  7. The landlord repaired the damage to the bathroom ceiling, kitchen ceiling and around the window on 1 November 2023. It could not complete work to the landing ceiling as it was still waiting for the results of the asbestos test. The operative also noted that the furniture in the rooms had not been moved prior to the work taking place as agreed.
  8. The resident contacted the landlord again on 8 November 2023, to follow up on her formal complaint as she had been in hospital. She confirmed:
    1. The plasterer had attended on 3 occasions but had still not completed the work. One of the reasons was because the bed/furniture had not been moved prior to the appointment, even though the landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities and her inability to move her furniture.
    2. She had provided the landlord with details of her chosen kitchen units. She had ordered a new cooker and had paid extra to ensure it arrived in time so it could be fitted with the kitchen. When the operative attended on 6 November 2023, he said he was unable to complete the work. This meant she was without the use of a cooker and unable to cook healthy meals which affected the management of her diabetes.
    3. She had been told by the landlord that the pathways to the front and back of the property would be resurfaced as it was unsafe for her due to being a wheelchair and frame user. However, the work was still outstanding.
  9. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 9 November 2023. However, it did not provide a sufficient response. It said its operative had advised that a full asbestos survey was required and, although it should have been aware, it asked the resident if its contractors had made contact. In addition, it could not provide any information in relation to the kitchen or pathways and said it would provide a further response by 24 November 2023.
  10. The resident sent the landlord a request to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 15 November 2023, as she was unhappy with the stage 1 response. The landlord then sent a further letter to the resident on 23 November 2023, providing an update on its stage 1 response. It confirmed that it had inspected the resident’s path and passed the work to the minor works team. The kitchen work had not been completed due to “no access”, and the survey had not been completed as the contractor had been unable to contact the resident. The response did not recognise the urgency of the situation or provide any solutions to the outstanding issues.
  11. The resident reported a further water leak to the landlord’s out of hours service on 3 December 2023. An electrician attended to make the electrics safe. The landlord’s records show that it sent a letter to the resident on 4 December 2023, to inform her that it had cancelled the order to complete the follow up work due to “no access”. It was unfair and unreasonable of the landlord to consider it acceptable to cancel the work, given the resident’s vulnerabilities and the history of this case, and put the onus on the resident to rearrange the appointment. Particularly as the leak was severe and the resident was bedbound at the time.
  12. The resident contacted the landlord on 5 December 2023 and 6 December 2023. She explained on both occasions that she was vulnerable, bedbound, and subject to a severe and ongoing brown water/liquid leak. She informed the landlord that, apart from an electrician, no one else had attended until an operative had attended that day (6 December 2023). The resident said she felt the landlord was discriminating against her based on her disability and her being an older person as they had failed to complete repairs on time and keep her safe in her home.
  13. Under the Equality Act 2010 (the Act) the landlord has a duty not to unlawfully discriminate against a person on the basis of their protected characteristics. As the resident raised concerns of discrimination based on her disabilities and being an older person, the landlord should have taken her concerns seriously and carried out a full investigation. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord recorded or investigated the resident’s report of discrimination. This demonstrates the landlord’s lack of due regard to its duties under the Act, and its inaction was inappropriate in the circumstances.
  14. The landlord’s repairs policy says for emergency works that occur outside of its usual working hours it will attend within 4 hours to “make safe” any immediate risk. The follow-on repair would then be completed at the earliest mutually convenient appointment. However, although an electrician attended out of hours and made the electrics safe, the landlord did not make the leak “safe” and left the resident with the ongoing leak of water and brown liquid for at least 3 days. Therefore, the landlord did not act in accordance with its repairs policy and its actions/inaction was inappropriate in the circumstances. It was unfair and unreasonable of the landlord to leave a vulnerable resident in such poor conditions for a prolonged period of time.
  15. The evidence provided suggests that the landlord disconnected the resident’s kitchen sockets and lighting circuit from the consumer unit on 9 December 2023, as the leak was too severe to make it safe. This left the resident without power to her kitchen, including her fridge. The resident contacted the landlord on 11 December 2023, to request that the landlord re-instate the electrics immediately, as her diabetes medicine had to be kept in the fridge. The landlord checked its systems and found that the job was scheduled for 19 December 2023, although it did request that the job was brought forward.
  16. It is unclear from the evidence provided why a repair to reinstate the electrics of a vulnerable person would be scheduled in for 10 days after disconnection. The landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities and should have ensured that the work was completed as a priority in line with its vulnerable resident’s policy, which says it can provide priority repairs for health and safety repairs to vulnerable residents. Therefore, as the landlord left the resident without electricity in her kitchen until 15 December 2023, it did not act in line with its policy and its actions/inaction was inappropriate in the circumstances.
  17. Given the extent of the outstanding repairs at the resident’s property and her vulnerabilities, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to appoint a single point of contact to oversee the completion of the repairs. Particularly as the evidence suggests that the repairs process was disorganised and disconnected, and the repairs had been outstanding for a significant period of time.
  18. The resident contacted this Service on 11 December 2023 for advice and support as she had only been out of hospital a short time and she was without electric, heating and hot water.
  19. The resident contacted the landlord again on 12 December 2023, as she had been without heating and hot water since the leak on 6 December 2023. The information provided by the landlord is contradictory as the engineer who attended on 11 December 2023, said he would be re-attending on 22 December 2023 to reinstate the boiler. However, the landlord’s records show that it confirmed a new order needed to be raised as “no jobs had been raised for no heating or hot water”.
  20. The resident raised a new formal complaint on 12 December 2023 (complaint 3), in relation to the new leak and the loss of her electrics, heating and hot water, and damage to her ceilings. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response on 13 December 2023, although it was unsympathetic, and insufficient, as it showed no urgency to the situation and it offered no real resolution to the issues raised or any reasonable redress. It said:
    1. The leak was found to be from the cold water tank in the loft. Therefore, it would need to look back at the history to see whether there was a service delivery failure.
    2. It was initially thought that the leak was from the boiler, and due to the electrics being isolated, the boiler had been disconnected. It had arranged for its gas contractors to attend on 14 December 2023 to re-instate the boiler.
    3. The mini circuit breaker (MCB) had been isolated on the fuse box on 11 December 2023 (although this contradicts other information that suggests the MCB was isolated on 9 December 2023). A new appointment had been made for its contractors to check the electrics on 15 December 2023.
    4. It would install dehumidifiers to help dry out the water damage.
    5. It had raised a job for its contractors to assess the damage to the property following the leak. However, it was the resident’s responsibility to carry out any decorating works to their property, and it would carry out any plastering where required. Its contractors would be in contact to arrange an appointment to inspect the damages, and report back their findings and recommendation. It would then be assessed by its surveyor to confirm the works were in line with its repairs policy.
  21. The landlord attended the resident’s property on 13 December 2023 with a dehumidifier. However, as there was no power in the kitchen and the cable would not reach the closest power point, it could not be installed. The resident was informed that a new dehumidifier would be delivered on 29 January 2024, which was over 6 weeks later. It is unclear why the landlord did not leave the dehumidifier at the resident’s property as the electrics were due to be reconnected within a matter of days. This meant that there was an unnecessary delay in drying out the property, which was unfair and unreasonable.
  22. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 19 December 2023, as she was unhappy with the stage 1 response. The landlord’s stage 2 response, dated 14 March 2024, said:
    1. There was an active outstanding repair to rectify the leak and make good any damage. It was scheduled to attend to complete the repair on 21 March 2024.
    2. As part of the review, it had considered the inconvenience and distress experienced by the resident, and it had awarded compensation of £180. This was made up of £60 for the delay in the repair from December 2023 to March 2024. And £120 for distress and inconvenience.
  23. Although the landlord acknowledged the 3 month delay in resolving the leak and making good the damage, the compensation awarded failed to reflect the extent of the service failures and the level of detriment caused to the resident. Particularly as this was one of a number of leaks she had endured over a period of 2 years, the repairs were still outstanding, and the likely cumulative impact on the resident due to her vulnerabilities.
  24. This Service contacted the landlord on 27 March 2024, as the resident had not received a stage 2 complaint response in relation to complaint 2. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response for complaint 2 on 8 April 2024. It said:
    1. It apologised as it had taken longer than necessary to complete the repairs.
    2. The resident’s vulnerabilities should have been considered and the repairs should have been urgently prioritised. The property was in an unfit state to live and the resident should have been decanted or rehoused whilst the outstanding repairs were completed.
    3. It had raised the issues with management so that lessons could be learned from the resident’s case.
    4. It was sorry that following the leak the resident had been left without electricity for a prolonged period of time. It understood how important this was due to needing the fridge for essential medication. There had been attempts to resolve this, but the operative could not gain access to the property. The operative had reported no access on 4 December 2023, 7 December 2023 and 11 December 2023, before closing the job down on 13 December 2023. It was sorry the job was not re raised any sooner.
    5. It understood that the kitchen units and cooker installation remained outstanding. It could see that the resident had raised these issues on 25 November 2022, yet it had still not been resolved. A surveyor had attended on 2 April 2024 and referred the outstanding work to minor works team as urgent.
    6. Following the work to the kitchen, all plaster works would be completed to repair the damage, caused by the leaks, throughout the property.
    7. The damaged pathways would be re-laid and the planners would make contact to schedule the work.
    8. Any damage to personal belongings would need to be reported to its insurance team.
    9. It offered compensation of £998 made up of £28 for loss of electricity, £270 for loss of appliances, £500 for distress and inconvenience for failing to recognise the impact due to vulnerabilities, and £200 for misinformation and delay to repairs.
  25. Although the landlord acknowledged the serious failures and delays in completing the repairs and apologised to the resident within the response, there was an element of fault attributed to the resident in relation to the loss of electricity. This was unfair and unreasonable. The evidence shows that the resident contacted the landlord on 5 December, 6 December, 11 December and 12 December 2023. The landlord also attended the property with a dehumidifier on 13 December 2023. Therefore, it is unclear as to why the electrician was unable to gain access.
  26. In addition, the compensation awarded failed to reflect the extent of the multiple service failures and the level of detriment caused to the resident due to her vulnerabilities, particularly in relation to the distress and inconvenience caused. The resident had been left in a property in a state of disrepair since at least November 2022 with ongoing water ingress, damp, mould, unsuitable pathways, and an insufficient kitchen as there had been no functioning cooker since November 2023. These issues had still not been rectified by 13 June 2024, even though the landlord said it would treat the repairs as “urgent”.
  27. In summary, the landlord delayed unreasonably in completing repairs to the resident’s property following leaks from the roof and water tank. It delayed unreasonably in completing repairs to the kitchen, which left the resident without a working cooker, and uneven paths at the front and rear of the property. It failed to comply with its obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, failed to comply with the timeframes set out in its repairs policy, and failed to comply with its vulnerable persons policy. It failed to have due regard to its duties under the Equality Act 2010, as it failed to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities and failed to investigate her reports of discrimination. It showed a lack of urgency throughout the case and at times it behaved in an unfair and unsympathetic manner. Although it did offer the resident compensation for the delays at stage 2 of its complaints process, the amounts were insufficient to reflect the level of distress and inconvenience caused by the multiple and significant failures.
  28. As a result of these failings, the level of detriment caused to the resident by the delay in completing the required repairs and the landlord’s failure to provide reasonable redress, the Ombudsman finds that there was severe maladministration by the landlord in this case.

The associated complaints

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Stage 1 complaints are responded to within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints are responded to within 20 working days.

Complaint 2

  1. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 8 September 2023. The landlord attempted to contact the resident by telephone on 11 September 2023 and sent an email to the resident on 12 September 2023, asking her to make contact. However, from the evidence provided, the landlord does not appear to have logged the formal complaint until the resident made further contact on 8 November 2023.
  2. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) (April 2022) says at paragraph 4.1 when a complaint is made, it must be acknowledged and logged at stage 1 of the complaints procedure within 5 working days of receipt. Therefore, as the landlord did not log the complaint when the complaint was first made, it did not act in accordance with the Code, and its inaction was inappropriate in the circumstances.
  3. Following the resident’s subsequent contact on 8 November 2023, the landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 9 November 2023. This was within the timeframe of 10 working days set out within the landlord’s complaints process. However, the response was insufficient. Paragraph 5.5 of the Code says that a complaint response must be sent to the resident when the answer to the complaint is known. The response asked the resident to confirm whether she had been contacted by the landlord’s surveyors, which the landlord should have been able to find out itself, and it deferred any further response until 24 November 2023. Therefore, by not providing a full response at stage 1, the landlord did not act in accordance with the Code, and its actions were inappropriate in the circumstances.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 15 November 2023 and, although she received an email from the landlord on 16 November 2023 confirming that it had “escalated the issues to the relevant team”, she did not receive a stage 2 response until 8 April 2024, which was after she had involved this Service. This was almost 5 months from the date of escalation and significantly outside of the timeframe of 20 working days set out within the landlord’s complaints policy. Therefore, due to the unreasonable delay in issuing the stage 2 response, the landlord did not act in accordance with the timeframes set out in its complaints policy and its actions were inappropriate in the circumstances.
  5. The landlord did acknowledge its complaint handling failures in its stage 2 response. The response was empathetic and demonstrated some learning. The landlord apologised for the delay and offered the resident £300 compensation. This amount was sufficient to reflect the extent of the service failure and the level of detriment caused to the resident by the unreasonable delay. However, there was a lack of follow through on the commitments made in the stage 2 response as the landlord failed to ensure the outstanding urgent repairs were completed in a timely manner.

Complaint 3

  1. The resident raised a further complaint with the landlord on 12 December 2023. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 13 December 2023. This was within the timeframe of 10 working days set out within the landlord’s complaints process.
  2. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 19 December 2023. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 14 March 2024. This was almost 3 months from the date of escalation and significantly outside of the timeframe of 20 working days set out within the landlord’s complaints policy.
  3. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord contacted the resident to keep her up to date of its progress or to agree an extension for the stage 2 response. There is also no evidence to explain why the delays occurred. Therefore, due to the unreasonable delay in issuing the stage 2 response, the landlord did not act in accordance with the timeframes set out in its complaints policy and its actions were inappropriate in the circumstances.
  4. The landlord did acknowledge its complaint handling failures in its stage 2 response and it offered £25 compensation for distress and inconvenience to the resident. However, this amount failed to reflect the extent of the service failure and the level of detriment caused to the resident by the unreasonable delay. Particularly as the landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities and disabilities and the outstanding repairs she was attempting to resolve. There was also a lack of follow through on the resolutions offered by the landlord in the complaint response. The landlord has not provided any evidence to suggest that it “made good” the damage caused the leaks on 21 March 2024, as promised. This was unreasonable and unfairly raised the resident’s expectations.
  5. In summary, there were complaint handling failures in both complaint 2 and complaint 3. The landlord failed to comply with the timeframes set within its own complaints policy and delayed unreasonably in providing both stage 2 responses. Although it did offer the resident compensation for the delays at stage 2 of its complaints process, the amount of compensation offered in complaint 3 was insufficient to provide reasonable redress.
  6. As a result of these failings, and the level of detriment caused to the resident by the delays in the stage 2 complaint responses, and the landlord’s failure to provide reasonable redress for its failings in complaint 3, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord in this case.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint concerning the landlord’s handling of repairs to the front metal gate obstructing access to and from the property is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint concerning the landlord’s handling of a request to install a stair banister and a wheelchair ramp is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint concerning the landlord’s handling of reports of a pest infestation is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of a leak from the water tank, remedial works following leaks including to plasterwork and kitchen units, and repairs to uneven paths.
  5. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of the report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report (the apology should be offered by the landlord’s Chief Executive in writing).
    2. Pay the resident total compensation of £2,000 (the landlord can deduct from the total any amount it has already paid) made up of:
      1. £1,600 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the multiple and significant failures found in the landlord’s handling of a leak from the water tank, remedial works following leaks including to plasterwork and kitchen units, and repairs to uneven paths. This amount includes and recognises that there was water damage throughout the property from at least November 2022, the resident was without a functioning cooker from November 2023, and without electricity to her kitchen for an unreasonable period of time given her vulnerabilities in December 2023.
      2. £400 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.
      3. The landlord must pay the compensation directly to the resident.
    3. Complete a further property inspection to identify the remaining outstanding works to the property, including the decoration of areas affected by leaks and/or remedial repairs. The landlord must provide this Service, and the resident, with a copy of the schedule of works. Complete all outstanding works within the 4 week period and provide evidence of completion to this Service.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, within eight weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must complete a full review of this case to determine what went wrong in terms of its response to the resident (specifically in relation to the landlord’s lack of consideration for the resident’s vulnerabilities and its failure to have due regard to its duties under the Equality Act, its failure to comply with its vulnerable persons policy, the significant delays in completing outstanding repairs, and its delays in providing the stage 2 complaint responses). The landlord should:
    1. Provide this Service with a copy of the review document.
    2. Use the review as a learning resource to ensure that the issues encountered by the resident do not happen again.
  3. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.