London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202445695)

Background

1. The resident lives with her young son in a 2-bedroom flat. The property shares a communal boiler system with other flats in the block. In November 2024, the resident reported she had no heating or hot water. The landlord attended on at least 2 occasions before reinstating the services on 4 December 2024. The resident raised concerns about her family’s health and requested the landlord fully resolve the issues with the heating and hot water supply. She has also requested more compensation.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. A loss of heating and hot water supply to the property.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. The landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress which resolves the complaint about its handling of a repair to the property’s heating and hot water system.
4. The landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress which resolves the complaint about its handling of the associated complaint.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of a repair to the property’s heating system

5. There was an unreasonable delay in attending the initial report of a lack of heating and hot water. The landlord apologised and offered fair compensation which reflected the inconvenience and distress caused by its identified failures. This was reasonable and consistent with our Dispute Resolution Principles.

The complaint handling

6. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was insufficient as it failed to identify the correct time the resident was without heating and hot water. It did not evidence it had fully acknowledged the impact of the lack of heating and hot water had on the resident’s household. It committed to provide an offer of compensation but did not do so at stage 1. It rectified these issues in its stage 2 complaint response, apologised and offered fair compensation. This was reasonable and consistent with our Dispute Resolution Principles.

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.

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.

What we have not looked at

7. The resident has raised complaint issues which have occurred since the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. There is no evidence the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord about the ongoing issues with the heating and hot water supply. Therefore, we have no power to investigate this issue. We have however seen the landlord chose to deal with these issues as service requests. If the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s actions she could raise the issues as a formal complaint. If she remains unhappy after exhausting the landlord’s complaint’s procedure she would then be able to escalate this to us.
8. The resident told us that the lack of heating and hot water caused her son to be ill. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

The handling of a loss of heating and hot water supply to the property

9. The landlord acknowledged it would have been reasonable for it to have attended the resident’s report of no heating and hot water (19 November 2024) as an emergency repair. Its repair policy states it will attend an emergency repair within 24 hours.  The landlord’s file shows that it took 7 days to attend (26 November 2024). The delay was unreasonable and caused the resident to have to purchase an additional heater to heat the property.
10. During the visit on 26 November 2024 the landlord identified further investigation was needed to restore the heating and hot water and appropriately provided an additional heater.
11. The landlord has stated the heating and hot water supply was fully restored on 4 December 2024. The overall repair took 15 days which could have been significantly reduced if it had attended in line with its repair policy.
12. The landlord has failed to evidence any timely communication with the resident during these delays. This would have left the resident unsure of what was happening, causing unnecessary distress and inconvenience which was not appropriate. 
13. In the landlord’s complaint response it acknowledged it would have been appropriate for it to have attended within 24 hours and apologised. It did not explain what went wrong or what it would do to prevent the same mistake happening again. We have therefore made a recommendation for it to write to the resident and explain this.
14. The landlord appropriately offered the resident statutory compensation under the right to repair scheme totalling £84 for the loss of heating and hot water. It acknowledged the distress and inconvenience the delay caused her household and offered her £100 discretionary compensation. It also noted the time and trouble taken by the resident in making the complaint and awarded her £20 discretionary compensation. It also showed understanding of the resident’s situation and offered to reimburse her £14.99 for the heater she had purchased. The landlord’s total offer of £218.49 for the substantive complaint reflects a finding of maladministration on the lower end of the scale. This is appropriate considering the period the resident was left without heating and hot water and impact on the resident.
15. The landlord also agreed to consider any increase in electricity costs incurred during the period the resident was without heating which was a reasonable response. It requested copies of electricity bills, however there is no evidence the resident ever provided these. It also explained it could not refund the meter‘s standing charge taken by the third-party provider which was a reasonable response as this is an agreement not within its control.
16. The landlord provided a response which acknowledged its failings and offered fair compensation. This is reasonable and consistent with our Dispute Resolution Principles. Accordingly, a finding of reasonable redress has been made.

17. The landlord has not evidenced it acknowledged the resident’s formal complaint. It did however provide its stage 1 complaint response (2 December 2024) within 7 working days of her raising it on 22 November 2024. This is in line with its complaint handling policy of 10-working days.
18. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation on 9 December 2024. This was within 5 working days of her raising it on 2 December 2024, and in line with its complaint handling timescales (5 days).
19. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 17 December 2024. This was within its 20-working day timeframe for handling stage 2 complaints. It acknowledged it could have done better in its initial investigation, apologised and offered £40 discretionary compensation.
20. The landlord provided a response which acknowledged its failings in its initial investigation, covering all the points raised by the resident in its stage 2 complaint response and offered fair compensation. This is reasonable and consistent with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. Accordingly, a finding of reasonable redress has been made.

Learning

21. The landlord failed to evidence it had sent a complaint acknowledgment at stage 1 and its response was insufficient. It showed learning when it acknowledged the escalation and provided an improved stage 2 response.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

22. The landlord displayed good record keeping principles which allowed us to establish what went wrong and the measures required to put things right.

Communication

23. The landlord has failed to evidence it kept the resident informed during the life of the repair which would have added to the resident’s distress and inconvenience.