London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202343223)

REPORT

COMPLAINT

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

23 January 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. handling of reported inappropriate conduct of its contractor.
2. response to reports that the kitchen units and flooring were damaged, following a leak.
3. handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a 4-bedroom ground floor flat. The landlord is a housing association.
The resident’s husband is autistic, and the landlord has recorded this vulnerability on its systems.
On 7 September 2023, the resident reported a leak from her kitchen sink. The leak had caused damage to the kitchen units and floor. The landlord’s repair records state that it attended and repaired the leak four days later.
On 18 October 2023, the landlord’s contractor visited the resident’s property. The resident states the visit was in connection with the repair to the kitchen units and flooring.
The landlord’s contractor attended the property again on 31 October 2023 and told the landlord a specialist contractor was needed to complete the work in the kitchen. A further contractor visit happened on 3 November 2023 to look at the issue, but there is no record of the outcome of this.
The landlord understood the repairs to the kitchen units and flooring were completed, following a contractor visit on 17 November 2023.
On 5 December 2023, the resident contacted the landlord as she felt repair work was incomplete. She requested the landlord replace the flooring in the kitchen and hallway.
The resident raised a complaint with the landlord, on 15 December 2023. She stated its contractor, who visited her property on 18 October 2023, was inappropriate with her child and conducted themselves in an inappropriate and unprofessional manner.
The landlord’s contractor who visited the property to repair the damaged kitchen units and flooring, on 18 December 2023 advised the resident that only patch repairs of the closest colour match were possible. The resident declined this. The contractor noted that the floor was in a good condition and her request to replace the kitchen and hallway floor would not be upheld.
In its stage 1 response on 18 December 2023, the landlord:
1. said it had reported the incident to the contractor, and it would be investigated internally in line with the landlord’s procedures.
2. advised the resident that the contractor’s operative would not reattend the property or contact her again.
3. advised that if the resident feels unsafe in her home or feels someone’s conduct is inappropriate to report it to the landlord or relevant authorities.
4. apologised for any distress caused to the resident.
5. escalated the complaint to a stage 2 complaint as requested by the resident.
On 18 December 2023, the landlord’s complaint review notes record additional actions added at stage 2 of the complaints process. While there is no record of the specific actions, it is the view of this investigation that this related to the reported damage to kitchen units and flooring.
The resident emailed the landlord on 11 January 2024, reporting remaining issues linked to the complaint. It was the landlord’s understanding the resident was unhappy it had not been undertaken certain works to repair the issues in her kitchen. This investigation has not been provided a copy of this email. It is referred to in the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 8 February 2024, addressing the two issues as separate complaints:
1. The report by the resident of inappropriate behaviour of a contractor. In its response to this the landlord:
  1. reiterated its advice on residents’ safety from its stage 1 response.
  2. apologised for the distress the incident had understandably caused the resident.
  3. advised that it had acted upon the resident’s complaint immediately.
  4. advised the resident that the operative was no longer working for the contractor.
  5. confirmed it had obtained a Discloure and Barring Service certificate for the operative from the contactor and reinforced the importance of appropriate behaviour, with the contractor.
  6. advised the resident that if she wished to take the complaint further with any authorities, the complaint case is logged on company records.
  7. awarded the resident £180 compensation (£100 distress for failure to recognise impact due to vulnerabilities. £40 for time and effort resolving complaint. £40 for poor complaint handling).
2. The repairs to the resident’s kitchen units and flooring that were damaged, following a leak. In its response the landlord:
  1. apologised to the resident for the distress caused and that she did not feel this was taken seriously when reported at stage 1.
  2. reiterated the point made in its stage 1 decision was correct and in line with company policy. The service offered was for repair only.
  3. had reviewed the case notes, job reports and correspondence. It considered the information given to the resident at stage 1 was correct and its contractors were reactive when called upon.
  4. believed its communication could have been handled better.
  5. awarded the resident £150 compensation (£60 distress for failure to recognise impact due to vulnerabilities. £50 for time and effort resolving complaint. £40 for communication issues throughout the process).

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s handling of reported inappropriate conduct of its contractor

The resident complained to the landlord about the conduct of its contractor who visited her property on 18 October 2023. She has stated the visit was in connection with the repairs to the damaged kitchen units and flooring. However, there is no record of the reason for the visit in the evidence submitted to this investigation by the landlord. The importance of data recording requirements is referenced in the Housing Ombudsman Spotlight report on knowledge and information management which states “If information is not created correctly, it has less integrity and cannot be relied on.” This service would expect the landlord to have recorded the visit of the contractor, which it could later have shared as part of the resident’s complaint to the Housing Ombudsman.
Upon receiving the resident’s initial complaint, the landlord took appropriate action in a timely manner. In its stage 1 response, it confirmed it had reported the incident to the contractor and ensured that the operative would not reattend her property. It apologised to the resident and gave her advice on what to do if she felt unsafe in her property.
In its stage 2 response the landlord confirmed it had obtained a Disclosure and Barring Service certificate for the operative. It acknowledged the impact on the resident, along with its delay in its stage 2 response and handling of the complaint. It awarded £180 compensation to the resident.
The resident advised this service that the incident had disturbed her, left her on edge and scared to answer the door when alone.
The landlord has acknowledged the distress the incident caused the resident and provided an apology. It acted immediately to investigate the incident and to make sure the operative did not return to the property or contact the resident again. It obtained a copy of the operative’s DBS certificate, in line with its safeguarding duties.
As part of its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord offered the resident £180 compensation, of which £100 was for the distress for failure to recognise the impact due to vulnerabilities. This was reasonable and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
Based on the actions the landlord has taken and the level of compensation, the Ombudsman finds there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of reported inappropriate conduct of its contractor. It took the concerns reported by the resident seriously, it was apologetic and advised her she may want to report the incident to the relevant authorities (if she considered a criminal offence had taken place). The landlord communicated effectively with the resident and gave a detailed outcome of its investigation and actions.

The landlord’s response to reports that the kitchen units and flooring were damaged, following a leak.

The landlord’s repairs policy states:
1. for routine day to day repairs, it will aim to complete the repair in an average of 25 calendar days.
2. kitchen units will not be replaced because of mismatching.
3. It does not undertake repairs to floor coverings in any rooms except kitchens and bathrooms where they were provided by the landlord and are causing a trip hazard.
The evidence shows that a leak from the resident’s sink caused damage to the kitchen units and floor. The landlord repaired the leak within 5 days of it being reported. This was within the landlord’s timeframe set out in its repairs policy, for routine repairs.
The landlord’s records show four repair visits to the resident’s property. On 31 October 2023, it undertook works to the kitchen units and noted minor vinyl staining. On 3 November 2023 and 17 November 2023, there was repair work to the kitchen units and flooring. After the resident called the landlord to report works were incomplete, it visited on 18 December 2023 to repair kitchen units and inspect the flooring. The evidence submitted to this service does not clearly show the reason for the ongoing delay to repair the damage, or that this was communicated to the resident.
The evidence indicates it was not until the final visit on 18 December 2023, the landlord informed the resident it would not replace the kitchen units and flooring. She declined the offer of repair to the kitchen units, as they would not be a like-for-like replacement. This decision not to replace the kitchen units is in line with the landlord’s repair policy, which states that kitchen units will not be replaced where they mismatch.
The landlord’s repairs policy advises it will not undertake repairs to floor coverings in any rooms except kitchens and bathrooms where floor coverings were provided by the landlord and are causing a trip hazard. The landlord accepted responsibility for repairing the flooring under its repairs policy. This policy does not clearly outline if the landlord will fully replace or patch repair floorings it is responsible to repair. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided the resident with a clear explanation on its decision not to replace the flooring.
In the stage 2 complaint, the resident advised the landlord, that patch repairs were refused as it would be distressing due to her husband’s autism. The landlord apologised to the resident in its response for the distress caused. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to address this issue at an earlier stage.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Attitudes recommends individual circumstances should prompt how the landlord assesses and respond to vulnerabilities. Had the landlord informed the resident of its policy that kitchen units will not be replaced where they mismatch, at the earliest opportunity, it could have managed any potential impact relating to the resident’s husband’s vulnerabilities better. It is not for this investigation to determine if any reasonable adjustments could have been made by the landlord. However, the landlord could have considered its obligations under the Equalities Act 2010, at the earliest opportunity and tailored its response to the resident accordingly.
In its advice to the resident, the landlord has followed its responsibilities in line with its repairs policy and acted in a reasonable manner. However, there were 70 days from the landlord’s visit to repair the leak, on 11 September until its final visit to repair the damage, on 18 December 2023. The landlord failed to meet its obligations set out in its repairs policy to complete routine repairs in an average of 25 calendar days. The landlord could have better managed the expectations of the resident better by informing her earlier, what its repairs policy states in relation to replacing kitchen units and flooring.
The landlord does not reference the damage to kitchen units and flooring in its stage 1 response. Evidence provided indicates that the landlord added this as additional actions for the stage 2 complaint.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord advised its contractor said the flooring had been stuck down using extremely strong adhesive that would mean the floor could only be lifted again by force. The resident raised concerns with the landlord about this quality of this work and it raised a further inspection of the flooring. The finding of this inspection is mentioned in the landlord’s stage 2 response, in that the operative noted the flooring was in good condition. In her correspondence to the Ombudsman, the resident refutes this. This investigation has not been provided with the two inspection reports. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence for this investigation to provide a determination on this matter.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said the decision not to replace the kitchen units and flooring had been taken in line with company policy. It is the view of the Ombudsman, that the landlord acted in line with its repairs policy here. However, unlike its responsibility for kitchen units, its policy does not take a definitive position, if flooring is replaced in any circumstance.
The landlord’s evidence does not show the outcome of the repair to the kitchen unit and flooring. The resident has informed this service that both issues remain unresolved.
It is the consideration of the Ombudsman that the landlord’s stage 2 response did not fully address the issues identified in this investigation. It did not acknowledge and address its failures to meet its own repairs target. It failed to identify that the resident’s complaint about the kitchen units and flooring, should have resulted in a separate stage 1 complaint being raised.
The landlord has recognised and acknowledged its communication failure, and the compensation awarded is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. However, it did not specifically apologise to the resident for this or the delay in telling her it would not replace the kitchen units or flooring. Therefore, the Ombudsman finds there was service failure by the landlord in its response to this issue. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £50 compensation, in addition to the £150 set out in its stage 2 complaints response.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

The landlord’s complaints policy requires a final written decision will be sent within 20 working days at stage 2. It sent its response after 35 days, although, this delay was acknowledged.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires landlords to carry out thorough investigations and issue timely responses that address all aspects of a complaint. If the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, the landlord should escalate it to stage 2. At both stages, the responses should acknowledge failures and set out how the landlord will learn from these.
The stage 2 response refers to information the landlord received from a contractor regarding the flooring. It also refers to an email the resident sent it on 11 January 2024, advising the landlord she was not happy that certain repair works had not been undertaken. There is no record in the evidence provided to this investigation of the advice the landlord got from the contractor, or email from the resident.
It is not this investigation’s role to confirm the accuracy of the information provided within the landlord’s stage 2 response. However, the absence of evidence does infer that improvements can be made to the landlord’s knowledge and information management practices.
The landlords written stage 1 complaint response considers only the issue of the contractor’s conduct. However, its written stage 2 response then considers, the contractors conduct and damage to the kitchen units and flooring as two separate complaints. It goes onto rely on information given in its stage 1 response relating to the damaged kitchen units and flooring, which is not reflected in its written response.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires landlords to incorporate new issues raised by residents into its stage 1 response or log them as a new complaint. The landlord’s complaints policy states at stage 1, it is unlikely to consider anything new that is raised later, particularly after sending the decision. It will treat this as a separate complaint. The landlord failed to do either by adding the new issues to the stage 2 complaint.
The landlord failed to identify that its stage 2 response did not accurately reflect its written stage 1 response, which is likely to have caused the resident confusion. The landlord’s stage 2 response states it was advised by its operative, the flooring was stuck down using extremely strong adhesive that would mean the floor could only be lifted by force. While the landlord is entitled to rely on this in its response, this investigation was not provided with evidence of the operative’s comments.
The landlord awarded the resident £40 compensation for poor complaint handling regarding the contractors conduct. The stage 2 response does not give a specific reason for the award, it is inferred it is due to exceeding its response time by 15 days. The Ombudsman considers that the compensation awarded is reasonable when applying it only to the delay in responding at stage 2.
The landlord did not awarded compensation for its handling of the complaint about the kitchen unit or flooring repairs. It failed to log these issues as a separate stage 1 complaint and the inaccuracies in its stage 2 response would have caused the resident confusion.
It is the consideration of the Ombudsman that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the landlord is ordered to pay £250 compensation to the resident in addition to the £40 set out in its stage 2 complaints response.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress in its handling of reported inappropriate conduct of its contractor.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to reports that the kitchen units and flooring were damaged, following a leak.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide an apology letter to the resident acknowledging the failures identified in this report. In drafting this letter, the landlord should consider the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance available on our website.
2. Pay the resident £300 in addition to the compensation it awarded in its stage 2 response, comprised of:
  1. £250 for the failures identified in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
  2. £50 for the failures identified in its response to the response to reports that the kitchen units and flooring were damaged, following a leak.
3. Pay all compensation, directly to the resident and not offset it against any rent arrears. This includes the compensation awarded in its stage 2 response, if not already paid.

Arrange an inspection to review the damage to the resident’s flooring and provide a written response clearly advising of its position.

The landlord must confirm compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within the time limits specified.

Recommendation

The landlord should provide complaint handling staff training on:
1. actions required when new issues are raised by a resident during a complaint.
2. addressing all aspects of a resident’s complaint in its response.