London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202406545)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 1 bedroom basement flat. In his property there was a leak which damaged his bathroom ceiling and caused an issue with the extractor fan.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of repairs related to a leak, damage to the bathroom ceiling and replacement of an extractor fan.
   2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs related to a leak, damage to the bathroom ceiling and replacement of an extractor fan.
   2. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of repairs related to a leak, damage to the bathroom ceiling and replacement of an extractor fan.

4. The landlord failed to complete repairs within the timescales of its policy. Its offer of compensation was not proportionate to the failures in its handling or for the detriment its failures caused to the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

5. The landlord acknowledged failures in its complaint handling and offered a reasonable amount of compensation to put things right.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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.

6. The resident first reported an issue with his bathroom ceiling on 4 October 2023. The landlord completed an inspection on 17 October 2023, which identified an issue with the resident’s Thermostatic Radiator Valve (TRV) in the bathroom. There is no information to show it checked the ceiling at this time.  The resident reported his extractor fan was not working on 23 October 2023. The landlord attended on 28 November 2023 to complete work to the bathroom walls. It’s repair records from this date note there was a suspected leak from the above flat. It’s repair records show it noted on 4 December 2023 and 22 January 2024 it needed to fix the ceiling before it could replace the extractor fan.
7. The landlord attended on 5 February 2024 to complete emergency repairs, as the resident reported the ceiling was bowing. This was 4 months after the resident initially reported the issue. The ceiling collapsed on 24 February 2024. The landlord attended on 24 February to make the area safe and remove the extractor fan, which was located on the damaged part of the ceiling. The landlord attended again on 5 April 2024 to board up the hole in the bathroom ceiling.
8. The landlord’s repair policy states it aims to complete routine repairs within an average of 25 days. Given the possible complexity of identifying and repairing the source of a leak, it is reasonable to assume not all leak repairs are classed as routine. The duration of such projects can vary due to various factors, such as arranging access to other areas of the building to identify the source of the leak and then arranging repairs. However, landlords are expected to act diligently, maintain clear communication with residents, and ensure that necessary repairs are completed as promptly as possible.
9. We have seen no evidence to show the landlord took any steps to investigate the cause of the leak until May 2024. It identified the source of the leak around 20 May 2024, which was in the roof of the top floor flat. The landlord did not complete repairs to fix the leak until 2 December 2024. While the landlord had to arrange access with another resident, we have seen no evidence to suggest it experienced any issues that prevented it from completing the repair sooner, such as the neighbour refusing access.
10. The length of time taken for the landlord to complete repairs to stop the leak was excessive and unreasonable. During this time, the resident had to continually chase the landlord for updates and there is no evidence that it took a proactive approach to fixing the leak. It is reasonable to conclude that the delay in it completing repairs resulted in part of the bathroom ceiling collapsing on 24 February 2024.
11. If the landlord had acted swiftly following the ceiling collapse, it would be appropriate for it to wait until it had stopped the leak before fixing the bathroom ceiling and installing a new extractor fan. However, the delay in the landlord fixing the leak resulted in the issues in bathroom remaining outstanding for approximately 16 months from October 2023 to February 2025. The resident told the landlord this left his windowless bathroom without any means of external ventilation, which he said caused damp and mould issues. He also said water and debris such as dust consistently fell into the bathroom following the ceiling collapse.
12. The landlord’s failure to act promptly following the ceiling collapse was directly responsible for the resident living in unreasonable conditions which led to distress and inconvenience and caused a significant impact on the resident’s enjoyment of the property.
13. When a failure is identified, as in this case, our 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, we take 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.
14. In its final response, the landlord acknowledged it had failed to provide a satisfactory service and offered the resident compensation of £480. It later increased this amount to £630. The amount of £630 was not proportionate to the scale of the delays or the impact this had on the resident. Its offer was significantly below what our remedies guidance suggests is an appropriate offer of compensation where the landlord’s failings have had a significant impact on the resident.
15. There is no evidence the landlord took any learning from its failures. It did not put things right through its complaint responses. Its initial response to the reports of a leak were ineffective and response to the ceiling collapse and the length of time taken to complete all the repairs was excessive. This was a series of significant failures which have had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident. Therefore, the landlord’s failures lead to a determination of severe maladministration. The landlord is ordered to pay £1,500 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings.

16. The landlord’s complaint policy is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint within the timescales of the code. However, it took the landlord 49 working days to provide its stage 2 response. This was outside the timescales of the Code which are to acknowledge a stage 2 complaint within 5-working days and respond within 20-working days of the acknowledgment.
17. In its final complaint response, the landlord acknowledged there was a delay in its response. It offered compensation of £40 for failures in its complaint handling. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the delay its response and recognise the inconvenience caused by offering compensation. Its compensation offer was proportionate to the delay and in line with what our remedies guidance would recommend. This leads to a finding of reasonable redress, in that the landlord has made an offer of compensation which satisfactorily resolves the complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

18. We have seen that the landlord kept records of contact made with the resident and repair logs. We have identified no issues with the landlord’s record keeping in this case.

Communication

19. We have not identified any issues with the landlord’s communication.