London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202321581)

Background

1. The resident lives in a two-bedroom house with sole use of a garden. The date that the resident moved into the property had not been confirmed by the landlord, however the tenancy agreement was signed on 29 May 2023.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of reports of a leak in the bathroom.
   2. Handling of repairs to the resident’s fence.
   3. Responses to reports about multiple repairs required to the kitchen.
   4. The handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
   5. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. The complaint about the handling of reports of a leak in the bathroom is out of jurisdiction.
   2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s fence.
   3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s responses to reports about multiple repairs required to the kitchen.
   4. There was maladministration in the handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
   5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The handling of reports about a leak in the bathroom.

4. We are unable to investigate complaints that have not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process (ICP).

The handling of repairs to the resident’s fence.

5. The landlord’s responses did not follow repair policy timescales.

The responses to reports about multiple repairs required to the kitchen.

6. The landlord failed to provide correct information concerning the repair of the worktop in the kitchen. The landlord took over 6 months to provide correct information.

The handling of the reports about damp and mould.

7. The landlord failed to respond to reports of damp and mould within the policy timescales.

The handling of the complaint

8. The landlord failed to respond to complaints within its policy timescales.
9. The landlord also failed to acknowledge and/or raise complaints about:
   1. The safety of the kitchen step.
   2. The requests for a surveyor to attend the property.
   3. The removal of scaffolding.
10. The landlord also failed to provide a stage 1 complaint responses about damp and mould, though it did provide a response at stage 2.

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.

11. The resident reported a leak in the bathroom on 20 September 2023 to the landlord. The landlord provided evidence that it completed repairs to the bathroom on 4 October 2023. There is no evidence that the resident raised any further complaints with the landlord about a leak in the bathroom, though she has told this Service that there is currently a leak in the bathroom.
12. We are unable to investigate complaints that have not exhausted the landlord’s ICP. Therefore, we would advise the resident to report this issue to the landlord and raise it as a new complaint if needed.

13. The resident reported the fence in the back garden had fallen down on 14 August 2023 as part of her complaint. The resident explained that the fence shared a boundary with an allotment and left the property open to the public which concerned her.
14. Within the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, it failed to provide a timescale for repairs. The resident reported that the landlord failed to attend to complete the repairs on multiple occasions. The fence was repaired on 31 January 2024.
15. The landlord’s repair policy said that it aimed to complete routine repairs in an average of 25 calendar days. The landlord took 170 calendar days to complete the repair and failed to attend and communicate cancelled appointments on multiple occasions. The landlord did not acknowledge the delays and cancellation of the appointment regarding the fence in its stage 2 response.
16. Though an offer of compensation was provided, this was not specific to the individual failings and considered multiple failings. As the landlord was not specific, we’ve taken the number of failings it identified and divided it by the amount it offered (excluding the goodwill gesture and amount offered for complaint handling). The compensation was therefore not deemed sufficient in relation to this area of complaint. The landlord should have apologised and awarded compensation for the individual complaint failings and acknowledged that the delays to repairing the fence was unacceptable. The landlord’s failings led to the resident feeling uneasy as members of the public were able to access her property.

What we did not consider

17. The resident told us that the condition of the property, specifically a step in the kitchen caused an injury to her foot. 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.

What we did consider

18. On 14 August 2023, the resident raised issues with the layout of the kitchen and requested for her cooker and hob to be installed. Within the stage 1 complaint response, the landlord failed to respond to the issues about the layout and standard of the kitchen. It also said that it was unable to complete the installation but offered to reimburse the resident for the costs associated with this. This was considered a reasonable response that went above the responsibilities of the landlord.
19. The resident contacted the landlord again on 31 August 2023. She explained that she needed the worktop to be replaced so that she could fit the cooker and hob. The landlord incorrectly booked worktop repairs rather than replacement for 30 October 2023. The resident reported 3 no shows for the repair on 1 February 2024. 
20. The landlord refused to complete the worktop replacement within its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord said that the job was booked in and cancelled as the request was an improvement not a repair. The landlord took 2 months to book the incorrect job and then a further 3 months to inform the resident that she needed to apply for the work to be completed. This was not reasonable or acceptable. The landlord apologised in the stage 2 response for misleading the resident and awarded compensation in recognition. As the landlord was not specific, we’ve taken the number of failings it identified and divided it by the amount it offered (excluding the goodwill gesture and amount offered for complaint handling). The compensation awarded in relation to this aspect of complaint was not deemed sufficient, considering the actions of the landlord caused unnecessary delays and impacted the resident as she was unable to install the cooker and hob which she had been attempting to do for at least 6 months.
21. The stage 2 complaint response also responded to issues about the kitchen design and said that when the resident signed for the property, she was aware of the layout of the kitchen. The landlord provided information for the resident to make an application for home improvements. This information should have been provided when the resident raised the issue in August 2023. It delayed the resident in being able to progress with applying for home improvements to the kitchen for over 6 months which was an unacceptable delay.

What we did not consider

22. The resident raised concerns about the landlord failing to take responsibility for issues raised in a survey for damp in 2022 which she says resulted in the damp issue. There has been no evidence that the resident raised any complaint with the landlord about damp and mould prior to October 2023. Therefore, this investigation has considered the landlord’s response to the issues about damp and mould raised from October 2023.

What we did consider

23. The resident raised issues multiple times with the landlord about damp in multiple locations from 23 October 2023. There was no action taken by the landlord until the landlord responded on 27 December 2023. This was a failure to follow the landlord’s Damp and Mould Policy which said:

“Following a report of Damp and Mould, we will establish if an immediate repair is required (leak, health and safety risk) and act in accordance with our Repairs policy.”

24. The landlord failed to respond to the reports about damp and mould and therefore failed to establish if an immediate repair was required. It also failed to act in accordance with the repairs policy as it took 46 working days to reply to the initial concern. During this period, the resident made multiple reports about the damp which all went unanswered by the landlord.
25. Within its response on 27 December 2023, the landlord apologised for the delay in responding and raised an order for a damp and mould specialist to attend the property. This inspection was completed on 4 January 2024, with a mould wash completed on the same day and identified repairs completed on 19 January 2024.
26. The landlord did not acknowledge the delays in responding to the reports of damp and mould in its stage 2 response. Though an offer of compensation was provided, this was not specific to individual failings but included failings in multiple complaint areas. As the landlord was not specific, we’ve taken the number of failings it identified and divided it by the amount it offered (excluding the goodwill gesture and amount offered for complaint handling). The compensation was therefore not deemed sufficient. The landlord should have specifically apologised for the individual complaint failings and acknowledged that the delays to responding to the damp and mould was unacceptable. This delayed the response to the issue and the repairs being completed within policy timescales which was not acceptable. The poor response to reports about damp and mould meant that the resident had to continually contact the landlord to report and chase action from the landlord.

27. The resident raised her complaint on 14 August 2023. The landlord acknowledged and responded to the complaint within the timescale of the complaints policy.
28. The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 5 December 2023. The landlord did not acknowledge the request until 31 January 2024, and a response was not provided until 7 February 2024. This was not in line with the landlord’s complaint policy which said the final written response would be provided within 20 working days of the resident’s request to escalate. The delay in responding to the escalation request in good time meant that it took longer than it should to exhaust the ICP and this delayed the resident in being able to bring her complaint to the Ombudsman.
29. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the complaint. The Ombudsman advised the landlord of several complaint issues raised by the resident on 30 January 2024. The complaints included the issue of damp and mould in a bedroom which had been reported to the landlord on 23 October 2023. The landlord failed to raise this as a new complaint as per its complaint process and included a response to the issue in its stage 2 response on 7 February 2024. The landlord should have raised this as a new complaint as per the landlord policy and Complaint Handling Code. By failing to do so, the landlord restricted the resident from opportunities to resolve the issue prior to accessing this Service.
30. The resident raised complaints about the removal of scaffolding from the property from August 2023. The landlord responded to the issue at stage 1 and said that it had asked for the scaffold to be removed as quickly as possible. It was not confirmed when the scaffolding was removed, but the resident told this Service on 6 December 2023 that the scaffolding had been left up for over 8 months. The complaint was raised for escalation and although the scaffolding was referenced in the stage 2 response, it failed to respond to the complaint at all. There was no acknowledgement of the delays, no apology and no offer of compensation for this failing. This was not acceptable as the resident had told the landlord in August 2023 that the scaffolding blocked light from two windows and affected her quality of life in the property.
31. The resident made several requests for a surveyor to inspect the property from December 2023 to February 2024. The landlord missed multiple opportunities to acknowledge and respond to the resident’s request. The failure to respond or acknowledge the requests added to the resident’s distress and inconvenience with communicating with the landlord and meant she had no clarity about the safety of the property.
32. The resident also raised additional complaints with the landlord about the safety of the kitchen step on 14 December 2023. She linked this with the landlord’s failure to send a surveyor as detailed above. The landlord failed to acknowledge or respond to the concern. This prevented the resident from escalating her concerns within a timely manner and to establish whether there was indeed a health and safety issue.
33. The landlord made an offer of compensation for poor complaint handling at stage 1 and response time at stage 2. This offer failed to consider the multiple failings identified within this report and is not considered sufficient to put right the failings of this case. The landlord missed multiple opportunities to respond to multiple issues and raise complaints when requested. This impacted the resident’s experience of the landlord and meant that she faced significant delays and failed to get responses for some of her issues. This was a clear failure by the landlord in its handling of complaints.

Learning

Communication

34. The landlord did not provide evidence that it acknowledged or responded to all complaints raised. It included new complaints in its stage 2 response which should have been investigated as new complaints and should have completed the ICP prior to reaching the Ombudsman. The landlord should ensure staff are familiar with the requirements of the Code, particularly the importance of acknowledging complaints and responding within the prescribed timescales.