London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202426691)

Background

1. The resident is the assured shorthold tenant of the property, which is a flat on the fourth floor of a block. The resident has complained about the landlord’s handling of various communal repairs and pest control within the block. She has asked the Ombudsman to investigate because she says the landlord has not resolved the issues.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Communal repairs including to the lifts, entrance doors, communal hot water system, leaks in communal areas, and pest control.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Communal repairs including to the lifts, entrance doors, communal hot water system, leaks in communal areas, and pest control.
   2. The complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord failed to properly address or create a plan to resolve the ongoing repairs and pest control issues in the block.
5. The repeated and on-going nature of the repairs issues showed the landlord’s approach to the repairs was ineffective.
6. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor and added to her dissatisfaction.
7. The landlord responded to the complaint outside of its policy timeframes and its responses were poor.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

8. Under the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for maintaining and keeping in repair the structure and exterior of the building and installations for the supply of hot water. It is also responsible for communal repairs including to the hallways and lifts. This is in line with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Its repairs policy confirms this and explains it is also responsible for repairing external doors.
9. Within the landlord’s repairs records there is evidence of multiple repairs having been raised for the lifts, communal doors and hot water system dating back to 2021. Between May 2023, one year before the stage 1 complaint, and the date of the stage 2 response there were 20 reports of the lifts being broken. Over the same period there were 16 reports of the communal doors being broken, insecure, or that their handles had come away. There were also repeated repairs raised for intermittent or a lack of hot water, for example between 8 and 15 May 2024 when the resident did not have hot water. Under its repairs policy the landlord will complete non-emergency repairs within 25 calendar days. The high number and repeated nature of the repairs suggests that the landlord’s repairs attempts were ineffective or temporary in nature.
10. Under its pest control and repairs policies, the landlord is responsible for pest infestations in communal areas. In line with its policy, it contracted a pest control contractor, which completed 4 visits and treatments to the block. However, it failed to follow the contractor’s advice to proof, or fill in, holes where mice or rats were entering the block. Despite the contractor recommending this twice, there is no evidence the landlord completed it which was a failing.
11. Within its stage 1 response the landlord said it was waiting for updates regarding the lifts and hot water. It would have been helpful if it had included these updates within its response with an action plan to resolve the issues. Instead, it gave a date 2 weeks later when it said it would provide the resident an update. There is no evidence it did which was a failing. While it was correct in its response that it had attended for pest control, it should have arranged further visits as the resident had reported further pests. It could have also considered whether regular scheduled pest treatments would have been appropriate, considering the frequency of pests being reported. Positively, the landlord did clean the carpet, following the leak, as promised within its response.
12. Regarding trespassers in the block, the landlord completely misunderstood the resident’s complaint. It failed to address the physical issues with the external communal doors, or the number of repairs which had been needed. It did not understand that the resident’s complaint was that trespassers were entering due to the doors being insecure, which had led to vandalism and thefts from the block. Instead, it referred to contacting residents about not allowing unknown persons to follow them into the block. The landlord’s response was completely inappropriate and showed a lack of understanding of the problem and poor-quality investigation of the complaint. Under its antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy, the landlord says it will work to prevent ASB by carrying out estate inspections to identify and maintain communal areas to minimise crime and ASB. There is no evidence the landlord has followed its policy.
13. Within its stage 2 response the landlord repeated its stage 1 response but failed to provide a full stage 2 response. It said it would contact the resident to discuss the issues on an unknown date, which was unhelpful. It also said repairs responsibility had passed to a new managing agent, which was incorrect and a significant failing. The evidence shows the landlord retained responsibility for communal repairs. This may explain why it again failed to provide a plan to address the repairs. Under its estate management policy, the landlord will work to ensure blocks are clean, maintained, and kept safe. The evidence shows the landlord has not followed its policy.
14. Throughout the complaints process the landlord failed to acknowledge or apologise for any failings in its handling of communal repairs, which was a failing. While it offered £450 compensation at stage 1, it did not explain why, as it did not admit any fault. At stage 2 it said its compensation offer was in line with its policy and therefore it would not increase it. However, it failed to consider the ongoing repairs issues which were still occurring after its stage 1 response and at the time of its stage 2 response. This was a failing.
15. Regarding the failures identified, 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. We consider 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. The landlord failed to put things right. It did not provide a plan to complete the outstanding repairs or pest control works as part of either of its complaint responses. At the date of this report the resident has told the Ombudsman that there is still a rodent infestation. She also said the entrance doors are still damaged and insecure, meaning trespassers are still entering the block. She also said one of the lifts has not been working for over a year. This is not evidence that the landlord resolved the complaint satisfactorily.
16. The landlord’s communication with the resident throughout the complaints process was also poor and made its other failings worse. It has failed to provide to the Ombudsman any evidence of its contact with her about repairs or pest control. It is understandable that the resident felt ignored and that the issues which were affecting her were not being treated as urgent by the landlord. Overall, there was maladministration, and an order has been made that the landlord pay £800 compensation to reflect the significant distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident by its failings. This amount is in addition to the £450 it offered at stage 1.

17. The landlord’s complaints policy is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
18. When the resident raised her stage 1 complaint the landlord acknowledged it within its policy timeframe. However, it failed to provide its stage 1 response until 64 working days later. This was not in line with its policy or the Code, which allows for 10 working days. The landlord also failed to ask for an extension of time, which was permitted under its policy and the Code. Positively, it accepted and apologised for its delayed response, and offered £150 compensation, within its stage 1 response. However, the tone of its response was inappropriate when referring to its compensation offer which was a failing. The landlord also failed to include information on how the resident could escalate her complaint as required under the Code.
19. The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s stage 2 complaint within 5 working days as required under the Code. It took 13 working days to do so, and then provided it stage 2 response after a further 22 working days. This was not in line with its policy or the Code and was a further failing. Positively it apologised for the delay and offered £20 further compensation. However, in reply to an email from the resident chasing its response, the landlord said its response would be late due to annual leave and it would offer compensation. There were 2 failings here; firstly, the landlord could have asked for an extension of time but failed to, and secondly offering compensation is not a solution to failing to comply with the Code.
20. There was maladministration and an order has been made that the landlord pay £100 compensation to the resident to reflect the inconvenience, time and trouble caused. This amount is in addition to the £170 it offered at stages 1 and 2.