London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202103815)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202103815

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

21 September 2022

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 landlords handling of void works and condition of the property.
This service has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom flat. The tenancy commenced on 28 September 2020.
The landlord’s void home standards policy states that during the void period it will carry out repair works to ensure a property is a clean, safe and lettable home and meets the specific standards.
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, Section 11 implies repair obligations for landlord tenants. It states, ‘In a lease to which this section applies (as to which, see sections 13 and 14) there is implied a covenant by the lessor—
1. to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling-house.
2. to keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling-house for the supply of water, gas and electricity and for sanitation (including basins, sinks, baths and sanitary conveniences, but not other fixtures, fittings and appliances for making use of the supply of water, gas or electricity), and
3. to keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling-house for space heating and heating water.
Section 1 of the landlord’s ‘Your home and your maintenance responsibilities’ document states its responsibilities are:
1. To keep the structure and exterior of your home safe, secure and weatherproof.
2. To make sure all fixtures and fittings for the supply of water, gas, electricity, heating and sanitation are in working order.
3. To maintain communal areas and facilities (unless there is a separate managing agent).
The landlord’s repair timeframe states that for emergency works it will attend within 24 hours. For routine day to day repairs it will aim to complete works at the earliest mutually convenient appointment.
Section 3.2 of the landlord’s compensation policy states discretionary payments are made to acknowledge impact, inconvenience, distress and time/effort.
Section 5 of the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code sets out what is expected of landlords when responding to resident’s complaints.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that for stage one complaints it will aim to resolve complaints within 10 working days. If it is unable to, it will explain this to the resident and aim to respond within a further 10 days. For stage two it will aim to provide an outcome within 20 working days. In the instance it is unable to it will provide a written explanation and aim to respond within a further 10 working days.

Summary of events

The resident’s tenancy commenced on 28 September 2020, however she did not move into the property at the beginning of the tenancy.
During October 2020, the resident expressed concerns about the condition of the property to the landlord. In response the landlord asked her to provide images of all concerns raised. The resident expressed the urgency of her concerns as the brick wall in the bedroom was exposed due to plastering falling off after she attempted to remove the wallpaper from the wall. The landlord proceeded to make an appointment for the bedroom wall. She had also expressed various concerns, including pipes being exposed in more than one area of the property. Following this, on 22 October 2020 an operative attended the property to assess the plastering issues in the bedroom. It was agreed remedial works were required.
On 9 January 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to chase repairs, it was explained that she wanted the majority of the repair works to be completed before moving into the property.
The landlord states it issued its stage one response to the resident on 25 January 2021( the Ombudsman has not seen this response). Following this, throughout February 2021 there were several communications between the landlord and the resident. On numerous occasions the landlord apologised for delays in responding. The landlord arranged for an inspection to be carried out on 11 February 2021 to assess what work was needed. Following this it arranged for several orders to be raised for 15 March 2021. This was for works to the windows, hallways, kitchen unit, pipes, plaster, and brickwork.
On 22 February 2021, the resident had been in touch with the landlord stating that the home and maintenance responsibilities stated that checks or procedures should have been done before letting out the property. She explained that the kitchen document said flooring would be provided, however it was filthy and damaged. The resident also expressed that the cupboards were wet to touch and smelt of damp, there was mould on the bath sealant, the door and windows jammed and did not work properly. She expressed that she had no confidence that any of the procedures were correctly carried out prior to letting the property to her to ensure it met the letting standards.
The landlord appointed contractors to carry out the repairs on 15 March 2021. Following this on 16 March 2021, the landlord contacted the resident to apologise for delays in responding. It explained that it had been trying to speak with the voids team to establish what work was completed, what work was signed off and what inspections took place. Subsequently on 22 March 2021, the landlord informed the resident that it had received a response from the voids supervisor stating that she had sent all the information to the voids team to action, but had not received any updates.
The voids supervisor raised repairs for these orders and stated the following:
1. The landlord was not aware at the time that the window in the 2nd room was jammed closed. Windows should have been left in fully working order.
2. In response to remedial work required on walls and plastering it explained that the voids standard policy had recently changed from providing full redecoration to minimal, the walls would have been filled where necessary.
3. The kitchen cupboard should have been investigated and removed if needed.
4. It explained that for radiator pipes that were exposed in the bedroom, boxing in is not a void standard and therefore it would not need to do this.
5. The supervisor asked for images of the damaged flooring, in order to get a new work order raised.
6. In regards to the resident’s concerns about the glass window in the passage not being secure and the resident believing it was easily accessible. It explained the glass fitted is a safety glass with wires running through. It also explained this was a standard fitting and the same throughout the block. Therefore it would not make a repair.
On 7 April 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to state that she was waiting for a call back despite several requests. The resident expressed that offering new repair dates was not sufficient, she wanted answers to explain the lack of due diligence during the void period.
On 14 April 2021, the landlord emailed the resident apologising for the delay. It explained it had spoken with the voids supervisor and had been told the property was up to the required void standards before it was assigned to the resident. However it stated the cupboard above the hob should have been removed and apologised.
It had arranged for further works to the windows, cupboard, bathroom sealant and painting of the bedroom to commence on 28 April 2021, however this was later cancelled. Repair works were then completed between 11 and 14 May 2021.
The landlord confirmed the resident’s complaint had been escalated to stage two of its complaints procedure on 13 May 2021.
On 12 August 2021, the landlord issued its stage two response, it apologised for the delay in the case being allocated to an officer for review at stage two and explained this was due to an increase in volumes of work.
The landlord acknowledged that although the tenancy began on 28 September 2020, the resident stated she had not lived there due to the property being unsafe. It proceeded to address the resident’s concerns.
The landlord explained that the glass window fitted in the passage was a safety glass with wires running through. The only way someone would be able to gain entry is by smashing the glass and cutting the wires. It explained this was a standard unit throughout numerous properties.
The landlord said that it attended to the front door during January 2021 and repaired the door.
The landlord explained after investigating the bedroom windows it found they had been painted shut. To resolve this, the windows were eased and adjusted.
In October the resident had informed the landlord plaster was falling off the wall, after she had begun to remove the wallpaper. It attended the property to address this. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns for delays, but explained that the pandemic had limited work it was able to do. As a result of the government restrictions this resulted in a backlog of outstanding repairs that caused longer waiting times for appointments to be booked.
The landlord explained that it does not usually box in pipework, however as a gesture of goodwill it agreed to have this done in order to resolve the resident’s concerns.
The landlord said that following three visits from its carpenters the kitchen cupboard was removed, the damp issues were resolved and the cupboard was replaced. Following the cancellation of an appointment which was for 28 April 2021, its voids team visited the property between 11 and 14 May 2021 to carry out works to the windows, kitchen cupboards, bathroom sealant and painted the bedroom.
The landlord stated that the damaged flooring was raised to its contractors. However on three appointments for 23 April, 12 and 27 May it was unable to gain access to the property. The operative at the time had called the resident to inform he was close and waited 30 minutes until he left. The work to the floorings had now been scheduled for 27 August 2021.
The landlord said that an appointment has been booked for further plastering to the walls for 20 October 2021 as this was its next available appointment. Following a report of issues with the front door, a repair for the spindle to the front lock was also carried out.
The landlord acknowledged the resident was not currently living at the property, but explained that this made it difficult for its contractors to gain access and may cause further delays.
The landlord explained its voids policy was amended in May 2020 as a result of the pandemic and government guidelines. As the property was offered to the resident after these changes commenced, full decoration and carpets were not included. The landlord acknowledged repair work was required, but stated this would not require the flat to be vacant for these works to be carried out.
In response to the resident wanting a refund of rent, the landlord explained that it acknowledged repairs should have been addressed sooner and communication was poor. However it did not agree that the property was uninhabitable when the tenancy commenced, and noted that it was the resident’s decision not to move into the property.
In response to the resident’s claims that she had experienced mental distress, the landlord signposted her to its insurers and said should she wish to pursue a liability claim this would need to be done through the insurers as it would be outside the scope of its complaints process.
The landlord recognised that the service received, the inconvenience and distress, the length of time taken for it to address the reported concerns and lack of communication was not reflective of the standards it aims to provide. It apologised to the resident and in recognition of its service failings offered a total of £520 compensation. This was to cover the following:
1. £100 for lack of communications.
2. £100 for delays in getting the repairs underway.
3. £200 for time, effort and inconvenience this matter caused.
4. £120 for delays in its stage two response.
The landlord also said it would arrange for carpet to be fitted throughout the property. It provided the resident the option to have its contractors do the work but explained its colours would be limited. Alternatively it said it would contribute a sum of £1075.20 should the resident wish to supply her own flooring.
As the resident remained unsatisfied with the landlord’s response, the complaint was sent to this service for adjudication.
The resident would like £5000 compensation in recognition of the condition of the property when she moved in, the distress caused, and the time spent chasing the matter. She also does not wish to pay rent for the period of October 2020 to May 2021 as she states that the property did not meet a lettable standard.

Assessment and findings

This service understands the resident did not move into the property when the tenancy commenced due to her stating it was uninhabitable. Based on the evidence available, whilst it is not disputed that there were issues with the property which was no satisfactory, the issues and evidence that the Ombudsman has considered do not indicate that these issues rendered the property uninhabitable.
This service also recognises the resident states the poor condition of the property impacted her health. However it is beyond the remit of this service to decide on whether there was a direct link between the issues being complained about and the residents’ health. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced.

The landlord’s handling of void works and the condition of the property when the resident moved in.

Void works

When the resident informed the landlord that she was unhappy with the condition of the property and considered that the correct works had not been carried out during the void period, it proceeded to request information from its voids team to confirm what works had been carried out.
This service has reviewed the electrical voids check sheet and the void handover certificate. This states that the property was ready to let, however this does not state what works were carried out during the void period in relation to repairs. Whilst this service recognises the voids supervisor states the required works had been carried out during this period, it is best practice to have a record to confirm what works were completed during this time.

Windows and Doors.

In accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for the exterior of the home and ensuring it is secure. This includes windows and doors. Therefore when the resident informed the landlord of the issues concerning the windows and the door it was obliged to assess and to make repair if necessary.
The resident had explained that there were issues with windows being jammed and not staying fully closed. She expressed there was no visible draft proofing on the windows throughout the property to keep it as insulated as possible. In regard to the doors, she had explained there were issues with it not locking properly and being jammed. The resident’s view was that these were things that should have been noticed in the void period.
As noted above, this service has not seen any evidence of what works were carried out during the void period. In accordance with the policy it is important that windows and doors are fully operational. So considering that when the resident moved into the property she experienced issues with these, it is considered unreasonable that there is no evidence that the door and windows were checked during the void period.
This service understand it had been reported some of the windows had been painted shut and required easing and adjusting to resolve. However in the Ombudsman’s opinion this should have been addressed in the void period.

Walls and plastering.

This service understands the resident was unhappy about the condition of the wall in regards to plastering. She had stated that the plastering was carried out in some places but not all.
The landlord’s supervisor has explained that the works completed were all the voids team would be responsible for doing. It had also been explained that, as a result of the pandemic, it was only required to do minimal work.
On reviewing the changes to the void standards it states that work will only be carried out where necessary, and that decoration vouchers/ packs may be offered at supervisors’ discretion.
Whilst this service has reviewed the images and agree that the wall was not in the best condition, given the changes to the policy and the exceptional circumstances of the pandemic at the time, it is difficult to say that the landlord was required to do more than its minimal requirement. Therefore patchwork is not considered unreasonable in the circumstances.

Kitchen cupboard and holes.

When the resident reported issues regarding the kitchen cupboard to the landlord, it had sought feedback from its voids team and found that the cupboard should have been removed. The evidence shows the landlord had arranged for this to be removed.
It is understood the resident was unhappy with a cupboard that was wet to touch. She was also unhappy with holes left in the wall following the removal of the kitchen cupboard that was placed over the hob. The voids supervisor explained that these were usually left for the resident to fill, but it arranged to have this repaired.
This service understands the resident’s frustration and considering the cupboard had to be removed due to its placement, it was unreasonable for the landlord to expect the resident to fill this. This service has seen that the landlord made arrangements to rectify the issue, which was a reasonable approach to resolving this particular issue.
The resident explained that two contractors have told her that the cupboards above the hob should not have been placed there due to health and safety concerns. Whilst this service has not seen contractors’ comments in regards to this, this service has seen images of where the cupboard was placed and agrees this raises concerns and is something that should have been addressed during the void period.
The landlord has not made reference to this in its stage two response dated 21 August 2021, despite the resident raising concerns about this.
Whilst this service acknowledged the landlord’s efforts to rectify the issue, it is clear that this had not been taken into consideration when compensating the resident, as there is no reference to it in the landlord’s stage two response. The landlord’s offer of compensation therefore did not fully take into account all of the service failures in this case Therefore this service is ordering further compensation for this error which should have been noticed during the void period, or the landlord should have explained its position in its response to the resident’s complaint.

Bathroom sealant.

The resident states she had sent images to the landlord on 1 December 2020 regarding the sealant in the bathroom, however she states this was overlooked until March 2021. The landlord explained it was unaware of this being an issue and raised a new order to get this resolved. This was booked in for 28 April 2021 and completed. Whilst this service acknowledges the resident’s upset in the landlord not responding sooner, this service has not seen evidence to suggest the landlord had received this in December 2020. When the landlord became aware of the issues it arranged for the work to be completed within the next month, however this appointment was cancelled and the work was carried out in May 2021. In accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy, this type of repair would have been considered a day to day routine repair and therefore it was reasonable for it to arrange repair at its earliest convenient appointment.

Flooring.

It is understood the resident was unhappy with the condition of the flooring in the property, and felt this should have been replaced during the void period. She had made the landlord aware of this and when the landlord reviewed the damage and quality of the floor it agreed to have carpet fitted throughout the property or to provide the resident with a contribution to flooring.
This service has reviewed the voids standards policy which was amended on 18 May 2020, prior to the resident’s tenancy. It states that no new carpets will be provided and old ones will be removed. It also stated that vinyl sheets in kitchens and bathrooms were to remain.
This service has reviewed the images of the flooring, and it is clear there was damage to the flooring, however on reviewing the landlord’s responsibilities it states it is only responsible for flooring it provided where there is a trip hazard. Therefore this service is unable to say there was service failure by the landlord by not installing flooring during the void period as this was not required under the voids standard.
Despite this, the evidence shows that the landlord had arranged for this to be repaired and on three occasions appointments had been missed due to no access. Eventually this work was rescheduled for 27 August 2021.
In light of the above, the landlord has provided carpet throughout the property, recognised that repairs took longer than usual to resolve and this was taken into consideration with the redress. In addition it offered to arrange for carpet to be fitted throughout her property or to provide her with a contribution of £1075.20 to flooring.
It is the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord had been proactive and reasonable in attempting to resolve the resident’s concerns.

Radiator pipes.

When the resident raised complaints about radiator pipes being exposed in the bedroom, the landlord explained that boxing in is not usually a requirement of the voids team. However it agreed to have these works completed as a gesture of goodwill.
This service has reviewed the voids standard and it does not mention boxing in pipes is a requirement. This service has also not seen anything in the resident’s tenancy to suggest this.
This service understands the resident’s concerns, however is unable to agree that this should have already been fixed prior to the tenancy commencing. This would have been considered an improvement which residents in a tenancy would have needed to report.
When the resident informed the landlord of the issues, it explained this to the resident but proceeded to have the works completed, although it was not obliged to do so. It is understood there was a delay in the landlord having repairs completed.

Overall repair delays.

The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will aim to complete repairs at the earliest mutually convenient appointment, however this service has seen evidence to suggest that for several reported repairs there were delays in having these completed.
The resident had reported several repairs to the landlord during October 2020. However the majority of the work was not carried out until May 2021, with works to the flooring being completed towards the later part of the year.
Whilst this service notes some of the delays were outside of the landlord’s control, such as having no access to the property due to the resident not being present. There were other causes of delays to its service as a result of the landlord’s backlog for arranging repairs because of the pandemic. This service has seen there has been prolonged delays and lack of communication from the landlord to the resident on a few occasions. In these instances the landlord apologised and has also acknowledged this in its stage two response.
In recognition of its service failings the landlord offered the resident £400. However the resident expressed she is unhappy with the level of compensation and was seeking £5000.
In accordance with the landlord’s compensations policy, it awards discretionary payments for service failures. It does not state the exact amounts paid as this is on an individual basis. However in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord was correct in considering its compensation policy as there was evidence of service failings. The landlord was correct to consider its lack of communications, delays to repairs and impact this had on the resident. Whilst this service recognises the resident is seeking further monies, the amount offered is considered reasonable and in line with what this service would have recommended.
This service notes the resident wanted to be reimbursed for the period between October 2020 and May 2021 because she deemed the property unlettable. However as explained above, whilst it is clear that there were issues with the property, the evidence does not in the Ombudsman’s opinion indicate that the property was uninhabitable. Whilst the resident’s position on this is understandable and it was entirely reasonable for her to expect that all repairs would have been completed before the start of her tenancy, the Ombudsman, taking all the evidence into account, does not consider it appropriate or proportionate to order a rent reimbursement in this case.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

This service has reviewed the landlord’s complaint handling policy to get an understanding of what its procedures are. It is stated that the landlord has a two stage complaint process.
Section 5 of the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code and the landlord’s complaints policy, states the expected timeframes when responding to resident’s complaints. In accordance to the guidelines it is clear the landlord failed to provide a response to the resident’s stage two complaint within a reasonable period of time.
The evidence shows the landlord provided a response on 25 January 2021. Soon after the resident expressed she wish to escalate the complaint, however the stage two response was not issued until12 August 2021.
Throughout this period, there was communication between the resident and the landlord, and on 29 July 2021, she expressed that she felt her concerns were not being addressed. In its stage two response the landlord explained that it was unable to provide the resident with a timely response due to an increase of volume in work.
This service acknowledges the landlord’s reasons and appreciated that it explained this to the resident. However it is clear the landlord’s service fell below the required standards which caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
This service has seen that the landlord was proactive in acknowledging this, and in recognition of this service failure it offered the resident £120 compensation.
In accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy, it states a discretionary compensation of £10 is made when it fails to respond to formal complaints within the expected timeframe. Considering the landlord’s offer is significantly higher than this, it is the Ombudsman’s view that the amount offered is fair and reflects the level of inconvenience caused to the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of void works and the condition of the property when the resident moved in.
In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was in the Ombudsman’s opinion reasonable redress offered by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling.

Reasons

This service recognises the landlord acknowledged its service failings in regards to delays, apologised to the resident and awarded compensation which was considered reasonable. However it did not take into consideration its failings to ensure the correct work was carried out during the void period, particularly in relation to the cupboards above the hob, windows and door.
The landlords compensation amount for its failings in providing the resident with a response to her complaint, is above the recommended amount suggested in its policy. Considering the length of time it took the landlord to respond this is considered a fair amount.

Orders and recommendations

Orders.

The landlord to award the resident a further £100 compensation for its service failures.

Recommendations.

The landlord to ensure it has a better system in place to track the works carried out during the void period.
If not done so already, the landlord should pay the residents its previous offer of £520 compensation.
The landlord to ensure its complaint handling is in line with its guidelines and the complaint handling code.