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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202347598)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202347598

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

21 October 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:
    1. Handling of a leak from the boiler in November 2023, leading to a lack of heating and hot water.
    2. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant and has lived at the property which is a 2 bed ground floor flat, since 2013. She lives with her 3 children, who are under the age of 11. The resident advised the landlord and this Service throughout her correspondence that she had mental health difficulties and is bipolar. Two of her children have asthma and her son has autism.
  2. The resident submitted a case to the Ombudsman (reference 202216813) in respect of damp and mould in the property, which she stated had been ongoing since 2013. On 22 March 2024, the Ombudsman made a determination of severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould along with maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  3. A new boiler was installed in the property on 9 November 2023. A contractor advised the landlord on 8 December 2023 that the resident had no heating or hot water and noted the household vulnerabilities. It was determined that the resident had run out of gas. The resident reported not having heating or hot water again on 12 December 2023. A contractor attended that same day but no access could be gained. It was subsequently found on 14 December 2023 that a hot water pipe was leaking under the floor, following the installation of the new boiler.
  4. The resident submitted a complaint on 20 December 2023 and stated that she was not able to have the heating and hot water on at the same time. She advised that she had been without hot water for over 2 weeks and asked to be moved to a different property. The landlord sent a stage 1 “acknowledgement and decision” the following day. It apologised for the issue and stated that it would update her further by 11 January 2024. The resident advised on 8 January 2024 that she was still without hot water. She believed the leak from the pipe had been going on for “years” and escalated her complaint.
  5. The landlord tried to gain access to the property in February 2024 but was unable to do so. The resident commenced legal action in respect of the damp and mould, outstanding repairs, the boiler and the impact on the health of the household on 6 March 2024. She submitted a further complaint on 7 March 2024 and reiterated her concerns about the lack of heating and hot water.
  6. Around 13 March 2024 a contractor attended and advised the landlord that new surface hot water pipes should be installed. The landlord tried to arrange these works the following day. It noted that the resident had “refused” the works as she did not want to hear noise from pipes which would be above the ground. It had tried to reassure her but noted that she had been focussed on moving out of the property.
  7. The landlord offered £400 compensation on 26 March 2024 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in resolving the matter. (The resident accepted this and it was paid to her). This was broken down as follows:
    1. Distress £85.
    2. Inconvenience £85.
    3. Time and effort getting the complaint resolved £70.
    4. Service Failure £160.
  8. A surveyor inspected the property on 3 April 2024 and recommended the above ground piping. The resident declined this. The landlord approved a temporary decant around mid to late April 2024. The resident advised the landlord that she needed to move out of the area to be near her family for support with her children.
  9. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 13 May 2024 and stated as follows:
    1. Works would commence once the resident had been decanted. It offered assistance with the move. Any request to move permanently would need to be made to its rehousing team.
    2. It could only address recent issues and not historic matters. Any claim for damages would need to be made via contents insurance or through its insurer.
    3. It offered £1,665 compensation, made up as follows:
      1. Having no hot water £305.
      2. Poor complaint handling at stage 2 £160.
      3. Distress £500.
      4. Inconvenience £500.
      5. Failure to recognise vulnerabilities and resolve repairs in a timely manner £200.

Correspondence following the completion of the internal complaints procedure

  1. On 24 June 2024 the resident’s legal claim was settled outside of court. This was for £2000 damages and for repairs to be completed within 120 working days of the resident being decanted. The resident advised this Service on 1 July 2024 that she did not want to return to the property. The landlord confirmed that works had been completed on 31 July 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. It is noted that the resident raised the impact of the issues on her and her children’s physical and mental health. Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider any personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. However, this Service will consider the landlord’s handling of the issues and any distress and inconvenience this may have caused. This Service would expect the landlord’s response to consider the resident’s reports on how the issues were impacting on the health of the household, as such issues reflect the detriment experienced as a result of potential failures by the landlord.
  2. The resident raised her concerns in respect of the damp and mould in the property going back a number of years. This was considered by this Service under case reference 202216813 on 22 March 2024. This Service is not able to consider matters which have already been considered by the Housing Ombudsman. As such, this investigation will only consider the events that occurred after this and which led to the resident’s complaint from 20 December 2023.
  3. The resident commenced legal action in relation to a disrepair claim and agreed a settlement. It is not within the remit of this Service to assess the offer made or the sum the resident had agreed to settle her claim for as this is better suited for the courts. This settlement agreement, however, is relevant to this investigation as it indicates that the resident received and accepted a financial settlement in relation to the issues under consideration, following legal advice.

Handling of a leak from the boiler in November 2023, leading to a lack of heating and hot water

  1. Sections 11 and 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 require the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair, and to ensure that the property is fit for human habitation throughout the tenancy. Landlords are required to consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards. A leak and a lack of heating and hot water are hazards that can fall within the scope of the HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under the HHSRS. They are expected to conduct additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
  2. The resident had advised the landlord that she had lost access to heating and hot water on 11 December 2023. This timeframe has not been disputed by the landlord. The landlord’s repairs records show that it had appropriately responded to this report, as it’s contractor attended the property the following day, however, there was no access.
  3. Following the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Damp and Mould (2021), the landlord developed a damp and mould action plan in September 2022. As part of this, it stated that it had amended its ‘No Access procedure’. This would ensure vulnerable residents were proactively contacted for an appointment for emergency repairs, if a no access occurred on the first appointment. A copy of this procedure was not provided to this Service by the landlord. This Service has not seen evidence that the landlord proactively tried to rearrange such appointments.
  4. Given the known vulnerability of the household, the landlord would be expected under the Social Housing Regulator’s Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard (in place in 2023), to demonstrate that it had taken steps to ensure that it understood the needs of the resident and to demonstrate that it had respond to those needs in the way it provided its services and communicated with her. There is no evidence that the landlord sought to determine why the resident had not enabled access or whether its text message notification of appointments was suitable to her needs. Given the health and safety risk posed by having no heating and hot water along with damp and mould from the leak, the landlord could have done more to support the resident to enable access. The landlord was aware that works were outstanding in respect of health and safety concerns. Therefore the lack of any further proactive follow-up action to try to arrange appointments was not appropriate.
  5. The right to repair scheme applies to Local Authorities and sets out the timeframe within which such landlord’s are expected to rectify certain repairs, which, if not carried out within a reasonable period of time, are likely to jeopardise the health or safety of a resident. Under the right to repair scheme, having no heating and hot water during the winter is something that the landlord should have repaired within 1 working day. Although not a Local Authority, the landlord’s compensation policy reflects the timeframe of the right to repair scheme and sets out that the landlord should respond in line with this scheme. Given that the landlord was aware of the lack of heating and hot water in the property during the winter, and the household vulnerabilities, it should have sought to reattend as a priority. There is no evidence that it did so.
  6. The landlord’s compensation policy states that for repairs under the right to repair scheme, it will pay £10 compensation, plus an additional £2 per day (for every extra day the repair is not fixed). This payment is uncapped. There is evidence that the resident did not have working heating and hot water from 11 December 2023 until she was decanted around 9 May 2024. This was a period of at least 103 working days. The landlord offered £305 compensation for the lack of hot water. This was in line with its compensation policy. It is also noted by this Service that the landlord had tried to carry out repairs during this timeframe which had been declined by the resident. This Service has considered the full offer of compensation further below.
  7. Despite the resident reiterating her reports of having no heating and hot water within her complaint of 21 December 2023, there is no evidence that the landlord took action until 23 January 2024, when it advised it would need to investigate under the flooring for the source of the leak. It is acknowledged that the resident stated that this suggestion was “disgusting” and that her child was autistic. Despite the resident’s reluctance for this to be carried out, it was appropriate for the landlord to suggest this in order to identify the source of the issue. There is no evidence however, that the landlord sought to discuss her concerns with her at this stage or how it could take steps to minimise any impact of disruption on the household.
  8. There was a further occasion where a contractor could not gain access to the property on 27 February 2024. The landlord re-raised this job on 8 March 2024, however, this was only after further contact from the resident. A contractor attended on 13 March 2024 and recommended that new pipe work be installed. The resident, however, declined to have this work carried out, and as such the landlord cancelled. The landlord’s attempt to arrange this work was appropriate as a way to reconnect pipework to the boiler in order to get it working again. It is also noted that the contractor had discussed the resident’s concerns with her to try to reassure her about the new pipework. This was appropriate. A surveyor subsequently recommended this work again on 3 April 2024, along with works to the flooring and walls. The resident again declined to have the works carried out.
  9. Despite the difficulties in carrying out the required work, this Service would expect the landlord to consider temporary steps it could take to alleviate the issues faced by the household. The resident advised this Service on 24 March 2024 that the landlord had offered her additional dehumidifiers. It is not clear if the resident had accepted these or how many dehumidifiers she had prior to the offer. This, however, was an appropriate offer from the landlord to try to reduce the moisture in the property pending the repair. However, this Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord provided the resident with temporary heaters. This would have been a reasonable action to take in the circumstances. Due to the landlord’s failure to do so, it failed to show that it had done all it could reasonably have been expected to do to support the resident.
  10. The landlord discussed the option of temporarily decanting the resident in order for the works to take place in April 2024. This was appropriate given the extent of the works and the household vulnerabilities. Prior to this, it had sought to carry out the works with the household in situ. It is not clear, however, if the landlord had considered offering a temporary decant to the household prior to its discussions in April 2024. This is something it could have considered at an earlier stage given the lack of heating and hot water, in order to support the vulnerable household.
  11. The resident raised her concerns that the landlord had not commenced works due to the flooring containing asbestos. It was, however, appropriate and necessary for the landlord to resolve the asbestos issue prior to the works commencing. The resident accepted a move to a temporary property on 9 May 2024 and the works were subsequently completed by 31 July 2024.
  12. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it aims to complete repairs in an average of 25 calendar days. For emergency works, where there is an immediate danger, it will attend within 24 hours. In this case, it took around 3 months (mid-December 2023 to mid-March 2024) for the landlord to identify and arrange works to the boiler pipework. Taking into account the difficulty in accessing the property and the resident subsequently not permitting the works to go ahead, this timeframe was still unreasonable. This timeframe was also significantly outside of the landlord’s repairs policy and the right to repair scheme. This delay also demonstrated that the landlord had not appropriately considered its obligations towards the household, to reduce risk, under the HHSRS. Following the failed access attempts, the landlord did not demonstrate that it had sought to rearrange these as a priority. Given that the landlord knew there was no heating and hot water and the household vulnerabilities, this was not appropriate.
  13. The landlord acknowledged its failures during its internal complaints procedure. This included acknowledgement of the distress and inconvenience caused, its failure in recognising the household vulnerabilities and the lack of a working boiler. It offered £400 compensation on 26 March 2024, which the resident accepted and this was paid to her. It is noted that £70 of this was for poor complaint handling. Within its stage 2 response, it offered a further £1665 compensation, (£160 of which was for complaint handling). As such, the landlord’s total offer of compensation in respect of its handling of the boiler issues was £1835. (The compensation offered for complaint handling has been considered separately below).
  14. When a failure is identified, as in this case, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  15. The landlord’s offer of £1835 compensation was significant and was in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for when there has been a serious failing by the landlord which caused a significant detrimental impact to the resident over a prolonged period. Given the amount of compensation offered, along with the completion of the works, this amounts to reasonable redress. It is noted that the resident was awarded an additional £2000 in damages as part of the settlement of the legal case in June 2024. This is an indication that, after legal advice, she had accepted the amount offered as a resolution.
  16. It is noted that throughout her representations to the landlord and this Service, the resident had indicated that she wished to move to a different property as a resolution to her case. This Service is unable to tell a landlord how best to utilise its housing stock and as such this is not a resolution this Service can offer. The landlord appropriately signposted the resident to its rehousing team should the resident wish to pursue this further.
  17. This Service issued an Investigation Report to the landlord on 4 October 2024 in respect of case reference 202336541. As part of that investigation, the Ombudsman ordered the landlord to consider how it manages access issues and what reasonable steps it could take instead of cancelling appointments, especially where the issues concern health and safety. As this order has been made recently, no further order in respect of the no access issue has been ordered in this case.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaint process. This states that it will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days. These timeframes can be extended by 10 working days with the agreement of the resident. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handing Code (the Code) which sets out best practice for complaint handling.
  2. The resident submitted her complaint 20 December 2023. The landlord responded at stage 1 the following day. The Code makes it clear that a stage 1 response should explain the investigation that the landlord had undertaken in response to the complaint and its findings. Instead, within the stage 1 response, the landlord apologised and advised that it had contacted its surveyor for information and it would update the resident the following month.
  3. This response was inadequate and did not demonstrate that an investigation had taken place. By stating that it would update the resident the following month, the landlord inappropriately extended the timeframe within which it would carry out its investigation. Providing an inadequate stage 1 response to meet the timeframe of the Code and the complaints procedure demonstrated poor complaint handling, which was contrary to the ethos of the Code.
  4. The Ombudsman issued a Special Report about the landlord in July 2023. This identified issues with the landlord’s complaints handling. It found that complaint responses were not genuine attempts to address complaints and often did not answer complaints sufficiently. This also identified a tendency for the landlord to state that the Code contributed to the high level of complaints it was receiving. The landlord’s stage 1 handling showed it was still conducting practices which were meeting the timescales of the Code, but were not appropriately investigating complaints. In this instance, its stage 1 complaint handling was evidence of failing to implement the lessons highlighted from the Ombudsman’s special report findings.
  5. The landlord did not provide a further update as promised, and as such the resident escalated her complaint on 24 January 2024. The landlord acknowledged this the following day. It advised that due to changes in its complaints process, 4 years earlier, (November 2020), which had been imposed by the Ombudsman, the response would be delayed. Relying on a policy change brought in 4 years prior and stating that this was due to Ombudsman was inappropriate and unreasonable. The Code requires that basic standards of good complaint handling are adhered to, and the landlord should have had sufficient resource in place to meet the Code and its timescales.
  6. As the landlord had not responded at stage 2, the resident submitted another complaint on 7 March 2024. She subsequently sought the assistance of this Service on 25 March 2024. 2 days later the landlord acknowledged the complaint and offered £400 compensation, £70 of which was for complaint handling. It then sent a further acknowledgment on 26 April 2024. This was the third acknowledgment the resident had received since escalating her complaint to stage 2. This caused frustration and confusion to the resident.
  7. The landlord provided the stage 2 response on 13 May 2024. This was 76 working days after the resident had escalated her complaint. The landlord apologised for the delay and advised within this response that this had been due to it receiving an increased number of complaints. To acknowledge the failure it offered an additional £160 compensation. This brought its total offer of compensation for complaint handling to £230.
  8. Whilst the landlord acknowledged some of its failures, it did not address the poor stage 1 response, nor the fact that the resident had to submit a further complaint and involve this Service before the landlord provided the stage 2 response. As such its redress in respect of this matter was not sufficient. The number and nature of failures in this case and the impact these had on the resident, amount to maladministration. To acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the complaint handling failures, £300 compensation has been ordered.
  9. It is noted that issues have been identified by this Service in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling in other recent cases. This Service has issued orders to the landlord in accordance with paragraph 54.f of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme to undertake management reviews of complaint handling failures identified. Such reviews were ordered in case reference 202202309 (30 January 2024) and 202221775 (21 June 2024). As the landlord has taken recent action in respect of reviewing its complaint handling, no further order will be made in respect of this within this report.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s handling of a leak from the boiler in November 2023, leading to a lack of heating and hot water.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of this report and provide evidence of compliance to this Service:
    1. Pay the resident £300 compensation to acknowledge the impact of the complaint handling failures on her. This includes the landlord’s previous offer of £230.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord take the following action:
    1. If not already paid, the landlord should reoffer the compensation of £1665. If this has already been paid, no further action is needed in respect of this.
    2. Investigate its communication with residents when complaints are escalated and its commitments to provide updates on cases.