Quadrant-Brownswood Tenant Co-operative Limited (202319498)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319498

Quadrant-Brownswood Tenant Co-operative Limited

14 May 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 the resident’s request for temporary accommodation or respite care during repairs.
2. Handling of repairs to the resident’s wet room.
3. Response to the resident’s request for a key safe box.
4. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident has held a tenancy with the landlord from on or around July 1994. The property is a ground-floor flat in a converted 4-storey mid terraced house. The landlord is a cooperative and registered provider of social housing. It has used a managing agent since February 2015 to deliver services to the resident’s property. The managing agent is aware of the resident’s health conditions. These include physical vulnerabilities and dementia.
The resident’s son raised the complaint on his mother’s behalf. We will refer to him as ‘the resident’ for the purposes of this report.
Throughout the complaint, the resident discussed matters with the managing agent. He also referred to his dissatisfaction regarding the lack of communication and action from both the managing agent and the landlord. For the purposes of this report, we have referred to both the managing agent and the landlord as ‘the landlord,’ unless it is otherwise necessary to distinguish between them.
On 3 August 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. He also sought help from his member of parliament (MP) and the Housing Ombudsman. He expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s poor communication and repairs since 2015. This included recurring bathroom leaks, which caused additional heating costs, structural issues, and the household’s need for a key safe. He described the deteriorating health of his mother, and how he needed to ensure that carers could access the property. He said he felt ignored and disregarded having to repeat his concerns for years. He also questioned whether the landlord’s actions were based on discrimination.
On 29 August 2023 the landlord sent its stage 1 response. Its response included the following:
1. It had installed a temporary key safe box on 9 August 2023.
2. It would continue to consult with other resident’s regarding safety concerns to provide a permanent door entry solution.
3. Regarding the bathroom leaks, it acknowledged that it could have instigated a full wet room refit earlier. It accepted that, had it done so, this would have reduced the distress experienced by the resident’s mother.
4. It had not identified any significant causes for concern during a survey in January 2023 and it would repair cracks in the hallway at the same time as the upcoming wet room works.
5. It apologised that it had inadequately briefed its contractors about the household vulnerabilities before attending.
6. It offered £250 compensation, made up of £200 for poor communication and inconvenience caused by the recurring leak and £50 towards additional heating costs caused by the leak between 10 August 2022 to 19 August 2023.
The resident escalated his complaint on 11 September 2023. He raised 11 points about the landlord’s stage 1 response. These included how the landlord’s poor communication and lack of empathy had caused stress on the household. He also expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord had only considered its handling of the issues over the previous 6 months.
The landlord’s Managing Director sent a stage 2 response on 18 September 2023. The response addressed each of the resident’s points, offered apologies, and concluded that its stage 1 response had been satisfactory. It said it believed the refit of the wet room would provide the resident with the comprehensive solution he sought. It reiterated its stage 1 offer of £250 compensation.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought the complaint to us. He said he wanted the landlord to inspect the property, complete the outstanding work, and offer more compensation.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

The Housing Ombudsman Scheme governs what we can and cannot consider and what is within our jurisdiction. When a resident brings a complaint to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why we cannot investigate a complaint.
Paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.
The resident has advised that the works agreed to in the landlord’s stage 2 response remain incomplete. The landlord has advised us that the resident has not yet provided access for it to start the 10-day wet room refurbishment work.
The resident’s correspondence disputes the landlord’s position that he did not provide access for it to start the wet room refurbishment work. He also states he had repeatedly asked the landlord to consider temporary accommodation or respite care during the repairs.
While we recognise the distress new complaints can cause, these matters arose after the landlord’s stage 2 final response. It is not evident that the resident has raised these as a new complaint which have completed the landlord’s complaints process. The landlord should have a fair opportunity to investigate the issues raised and provide a response to the resident in line with its complaints process.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for temporary accommodation or respite care during repairs, is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
If the resident makes a formal complaint, progresses it through the landlord’s internal complaints process, and is dissatisfied with the outcome, he may then be able to refer the complaint to us.

Scope of investigation

In his contact with us, the resident stated that the landlord’s handling of his complaint and repairs significantly affected the physical and mental health of household members.
Although we are an alternative dispute resolution service, we are unable to prove legal liability. Nor can we award damages for personal injury or monetary loss. These matters require a decision by a court or an insurance claim. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if he wants to pursue a claim for damages.
The resident’s correspondence refers to a possible disrepair claim and previous complaints which includes the historical wet room leaks and cracks in the property’s hallway. We have confirmed with both parties that the resident has not made an application to court regarding this claim.
While these issue help to provide context of the overall experience he had, we are unable to assess each of these incidents. It is essential that residents raise matters with landlords within a reasonable timeframe and then progress these issues to us when they are not satisfied with how a landlord responds. In this case, this did not happen, and it has therefore limited the extent to which we can now investigate. The resident may therefore wish to seek his solicitor’s advice regarding the disrepair claim.
We also note the resident’s concerns that the landlord may have treated the household differently due to their race and disabilities. Allegations of discrimination are serious legal complaints which require a decision by a court. These matters therefore fall outside of our expertise. The resident may wish to seek legal advice if he wants to pursue his concerns further using equalities legislation or speak to The Equality Advisory and Support Service (EASS) for guidance.

Handling of repairs to the resident’s wet room

The landlord’s maintenance and repairs policy states that for works which either require planning or co-ordination with other services, or that it cannot complete within a 30-day period, it will develop a programme of works. It also states it will provide the resident with a specific target date for completion of the works.
The same policy states that it will make note of any vulnerabilities and, with the resident’s permission, share this information with its contractors if it will have an impact on the successful repair appointment.
When asked, the landlord failed to provide us with a copy of the resident’s specific tenancy agreement. This was not appropriate and not in line with the obligations of our member landlords. This has affected our ability to accurately assess the landlord’s obligations. The landlord’s failure to provide this information indicates gaps in the landlords record keeping and information management practices.
The landlord does not dispute that it completed multiple repairs to prevent water damage from the resident’s wet room to a bedroom between August 2015 to October 2022. In its complaint responses, it remained satisfied that it had responded appropriately and in line with its maintenance and repair policy on each occasion. The resident does not dispute this.
However, the resident considers that while the landlord may have responded to recurring leak reports, it had suitable opportunity to provide a permanent remedy, which it did not do. The resident therefore described experiencing distress, inconvenience, and avoidable disturbances waiting for the wet room refit.
In October 2022 the landlord recommended a full bathroom refurbishment and suggested the resident arrange an occupational therapist (OT) assessment. This was to ensure that any works met the household needs. The resident provided an OT report in April 2023 and the landlord’s management committee agreed to the works in principle on or around September 2023. This was reasonable in the circumstances and demonstrated the landlord acted to put things right.
It is unclear why there was a delay between October 2022 to April 2023 for the resident to secure an OT report. While this delay would understandably have caused distress, it was beyond the landlord’s control. It was also reasonable that the landlord required this information before starting any work.
However, it is also unclear why it took another 5 months between April 2023 to September 2023 for the landlord to agree to the work. Furthermore, we have seen no evidence that the landlord communicated the reason for any delays to the resident. Given its knowledge of the household vulnerabilities, this does not demonstrate effective communication. Nor does it show how the landlord gave due regard for the household members’ circumstances in this period.
The landlord’s stage 1 response in August 2023 stated it was satisfied that it had completed the resident’s leak repairs in line with its repair obligations and policies. However, it accepted its communication had been poor. It also acknowledged that, in hindsight, it could have started a full refit of the resident’s wet room sooner. The landlord appropriately acknowledged this may have reduced the distress experienced by the resident’s mother. It was therefore reasonable in the circumstances for it to apologise and offer compensation.
The landlord’s stage 2 response on 18 September 2023 offered numerous apologies. It said it recognised it had not provided solutions to the resident’s concerns before he complained. It also accepted that he had raised issues for many years. It apologised that its stage 1 response focused on the repairs without acknowledging the impact on the household members. This demonstrated the landlord’s attempts to acknowledge where its services had fallen short and its attempts to remedy matters.
The landlord’s stage 1 response noted that it would discuss works to the wet room in September 2023. However, its stage 2 response missed the opportunity to provide an update on these works. The landlord’s formal responses are its opportunity to demonstrate to the resident what it is doing to resolve the issue, and its failure to provide a meaningful update caused the resident further frustration.
When there has been an admission of failure, as is the case here, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the complaint satisfactorily. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our remedies guidance.
In this case, the landlord apologised for poor communication. It also recognised the household had experienced numerous home visits which was an inconvenience. It offered £200 to recognise the effects of the repair delays and made good use of its discretion to offer a further £50 to contribute to additional heating costs incurred. While it was appropriate it recognised the impact caused to the resident, its offers were not proportionate to the detriment caused.
The landlord has failed to demonstrate providing the resident with a programme of works. This is not consistent with the statements or timeframes set out within its maintenance and repairs policy.
The landlord has also not demonstrated monitoring the outstanding situation and not evidenced an improvement in communication. Furthermore, we have seen no evidence that it has effectively recorded the household vulnerabilities which the resident has repeatedly disclosed to it. Therefore, the landlord is not in a position to ensure that its contractors are aware of the household circumstances or of any reasonable adjustments prior to attending. This does not demonstrate the landlord taking steps to minimise any distress or inconvenience to the household. Nor does it show how the landlord has learned from its handling of this matter.
Our determinations should also recognise the fact that the distress caused to an individual resident is unique to them. Not all residents will experience the same distress in response to the same instance of maladministration. This might be due to their particular circumstances, or as a result of a vulnerability (‘aggravating factors’). Consideration of any aggravating factors could justify an increased award to reflect the specific impact on the resident.
Based on our findings, we find maladministration. While the evidence shows the landlord responded to individual issues from 2015, its permanent remedy was to refit the room. By not doing this, demonstrates further delays, and a failure to keep a promise made within its ICP. It is therefore reasonable to consider whether its offer of compensation for communication failures was proportionate to also appropriately consider the distress and inconvenience caused. In this case, given the timeframe and aggravating factors, we find that it was not.
Therefore, we order the landlord to pay £400 compensation. This is consistent with our remedies guide where the landlord’s failures adversely affected the resident, and its offer of compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £250.

Response to the resident’s request for a key safe box

On or around 24 April 2023 an OT raised a request for a key safe box outside the main communal front door. This was to enable carers to access the resident’s property. The evidence shows that the OT queried case file notes from a social worker which stated that the landlord would not install a key safe for security reasons. It is unclear when precisely the previous social worker first made the request.
The landlord’s guidance states that it is happy to install key safe boxes near to residents’ doors and not outside the communal door. As such, following the OT’s recommendation, it considered it necessary to consult with other residents of the building. Given the landlord’s obligation to all households within the converted house, it was fair and reasonable in the circumstances to consider any impact on other households.
That said, evidence shows that the matter remained outstanding as of July 2023. There is no evidence that the landlord communicated or progressed the matter until the resident’s OT chased it and reiterated the essential need for carers to access the property. This did not demonstrate that it gave due regard to the urgency of the household’s vulnerable circumstances and also evidenced a recurring theme of poor communication which has been present throughout this investigation.
The landlord’s stage 1 response said that it had installed a key safe box on 9 August 2023 following the resident’s request on 3 August 2023. The evidence shows that this is not an accurate summary of events. The resident had waited since at least April 2023 for the landlord to progress matters. Given the explanation for the request, this was an unreasonable amount of time before it acted.
The evidence shows that the landlord encountered objections from other residents of the building due to security reasons. This is a reasonable concern. However, the landlord may have addressed this sooner had it acted immediately on the request in April 2023. That it did not was unreasonable and caused delays as well as the resident time and trouble trying to resolve the matter.
While the evidence shows the landlord took at least 4 months to resolve the issue, it did provide a temporary arrangement while consulting with other residents. This was reasonable in the circumstances while it looked at permanent solutions.
Furthermore, it stated it introduced a key safe policy and said it would train staff in applying the policy. This demonstrates that the landlord learned from the resident’s complaint and took steps to prevent similar issues happening again.
Based on our findings, we find service failure with the landlord’s handling of this matter. We may have made a finding of maladministration, but for the steps to put things right. While the resident confirms the landlord resolved the request, it took time and trouble to achieve this. Therefore, we order the landlord to pay £100 compensation to reflect the impact caused to the resident. This is consistent with our remedies guidance for instances when there have been delays in getting matters resolved, along with other aggravating factors.

Complaint handling

At the time of the complaint, the landlord operated a 2-stage complaints process. It would acknowledge complaints at stage 1 and 2 within 5 working days. At stage 1, it would respond to complaints within 10 working days and within 20 working days at stage 2. This was appropriate and in line with the relevant Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), 1 April 2022.
The Code said that if the landlord needed an extension to enable it to respond to the complaint fully, both parties should agree this in advance.
The resident complained on 3 August 2023. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord acknowledged the complaint on 10 August 2023. This was consistent with the landlord’s complaint’s policy and the expectations of the Code.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 29 August 2023. This was 8 working days later than the landlord’s complaints policy response times. There is no evidence the landlord discussed a delay or agreed a response extension date with the resident. This was not appropriate and not consistent with the Code.
The landlord’s complaints policy at the time states that it may not accept or escalate complaints about something more than 6 months old. This is unless it is a recurring issue that has been continuing for longer than 6 months and is still persisting. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s decision to only consider its handling of the matter in the previous 6 months. While his dissatisfaction of a recurring issue is understandable, he had not complained about it since 2017. Therefore, the landlord’s decision demonstrated it recognised a recurring issue and appropriately acted in line with its complaints policy.
The landlord’s stage 1 response demonstrated it had used its complaints process to investigate the resident’s concerns and, in particular, took steps to install a temporary key safe. While raising a complaint had caused the resident time and trouble to achieve this outcome, it showed the landlord had used its complaints process effectively to resolve this issue.
That said, the landlord’s offer of £250 compensation was for the identified failures with its handling of the substantive complaint points. It was unreasonable in the circumstances that it offered no apology or redress for its complaint handling delays.
While the detriment of a delayed complaint response may be minimal, the theme of the resident’s complaint was about the landlord’s poor communication. Given it had acknowledged this failure, it missed an opportunity to demonstrate it had learned from it. By not sending its stage 1 response on time, failing to agree an extension in advance, and not apologising, it demonstrated repeat communication failures. This did nothing to improve the resident and landlord relationship.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request and sent its stage 2 response in line with its complaint policy. This was appropriate.
The landlord’s stage 2 response acknowledged its stage 1 response could have shown more empathy about the resident’s situation. This demonstrated the landlord recognised learning. Its apology was reasonable in the circumstances.
Based on our findings, we find service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling. While the landlord generally met the expectations of its response times, it initially lacked empathy and failed to acknowledge or apologise for its late stage 1 response. This demonstrated a recurring issue with poor communication. We order the landlord to pay £50 compensation. This is consistent with our remedies guide when a landlord has not appropriately acknowledged a service failure or put things right.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for temporary accommodation or respite care during repairs, is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s wet room.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a key safe box.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

We order the landlord to take the following action within 4 working weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
1. Pay the resident a total of £550 compensation. This is made up of:
  1. £400 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s wet room. The landlord may deduct £250 offered during its ICP, if already paid.
  2. £100 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s need for a key safe box.
  3. £50 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
2. Given the household vulnerabilities, the landlord should discuss with the resident if it should pay the compensation directly to his mother’s bank or to her rent account.
3. Ensure that its health and vulnerability records, and any reasonable adjustments, accurately reflect the current circumstances of the resident’s household.

Recommendations

We recommend that the landlord:
1. Reviews its processes on how it will inform contractors of the household vulnerabilities and any agreed reasonable adjustments prior to them attending the property.
2. Consider any professional evidence supplied by the resident regarding whether his mother will be safe remaining in the property during the wet room refit. This will inform the landlord’s decision regarding the need for either temporary accommodation or day care.
3. Discuss an action plan and schedule of works to resolve the outstanding wet room refit.