London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202423708)

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat. The resident made a report to the landlord about a leak in the bathroom which damaged the walls. The resident was unhappy that the skirting boards and the boxing in of the bath was not painted as part of the job. The landlord subsequently painted the remaining areas and paid compensation, but the resident remained unhappy.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of skirting and boxing in repainting from a leak in the bathroom.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the repainting to the skirting and boxing in.
4. There was a service failure in the handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of the skirting and boxing in repainting

5. The landlord completed the original repairs from the leak and explained that the repainting of the skirting boards and the boxing in was the responsibility of the resident. However, the landlord then agreed to repaint these and delayed this by over 18 months. The landlord apologised for the delay and offered compensation, but it was not proportionate.

Complaint Handling

6. The landlord acknowledged and responded to the complaint in line with its complaint policy, apart from the brief stage 2 response delay. The landlord apologised for the delay and offered compensation, but it was not proportionate because the landlord did not clearly respond to all the resident’s queries or recognise and offer compensation for this.

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.

What we did not investigate

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 the complaint about her flat being flooded with sewage from drains not being cleared. Therefore, we have no power to investigate this issue.

What we did investigate

8. On 28 February 2023, the resident reported a leak in her bathroom, which the landlord repaired the next day in line with its repairs policy’s 24-hour timescale for emergency leak repairs. It then responded to a report on 9 March 2023 that the bathroom, including the skirting boards, had been damaged by the leak by attending on 19 April 2023. This was outside the policy’s 25-calendar-day timescale for non-emergency repairs, but the resident previously asked the landlord to change the appointment to that date. Its carpenter repaired the bathroom during the appointment but reported the skirting boards and boxing in were not painted as part of the repair job, but this was needed and she was unhappy it was not completed.
9. On 29 November 2023, the landlord noted that the resident would be contacted in due course about the skirting board and boxing in painting after the job was passed to its contractors but that she was told it was not responsible for this. There is no evidence to suggest that any contact was made regarding this until the resident raised a stage 1 complaint about it on 27 February 2024. If this had been acted on sooner, the resident would’ve been aware of what was going on and we would expect any actions or follow-ups to be carried out in a timely manner, but this was not the case.
10. The stage 1 response on 8 March 2024 explained that painting woodwork was not included in the contractor’s quotation for the bathroom repair and redecoration, which was why the skirting boards and boxing in were not repainted. The landlord said this was the responsibility of the resident and referred her to its repair’s booklet where it stated under “All rooms” that the resident has responsibility for “redecorating, such as painting and wallpaper”. This is in line with the landlord’s policy that says it will only redecorate after repairs if it is obliged to, or in exceptional circumstances at its discretion, and will make good so surfaces are ready for residents to do so. This also says residents are responsible for redecorating and that it will only do so if its works damage their decorations.
11. However, there was confusion around this, as a job was raised by the landlord, but this was not acted on until the resident raised a complaint. It appears there was a breakdown in communication between the landlord and the contractors about this specific repair, which then led to the resident not being contacted and then having to chase this for several months. The landlord is reminded to keep clear and accurate accounts of what work has taken place, what actions are outstanding, and act on them in a timely manner.
12. A stage 2 response was provided 9 April 2024, where it repeated that the painting was the resident’s responsibility. A phone conversation with the resident on 2 April 2024 led the landlord to agree for a new job to be raised for the skirting boards and boxing in. There is no explanation as to why this was agreed, other than that the resident was unhappy and not told the skirting boards and boxing in were not identified as needed for the original bathroom repair appointment. The landlord apologised for this and agreed for a contractor to come out and inspect the works that needed to be completed on 15 May 2024, which might need a follow-on appointment.
13. As the works were agreed, we would expect work to be completed in a reasonable amount of time and in line with the landlord’s non-emergency works policy timescale of 25 calendar days. However, the job was completed on 31 October 2024. This was over 5 months after the landlord’s May 2024 inspection, nearly 7 months after its stage 2 response, and over 18 months after this was reported in April 2023 before the job was completed. This was not in line with the landlord’s policy.
14. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that repairs and communications should have been managed more effectively and delivered more quickly and apologised for this. The landlord offered £80 compensation for the delays in the repair. Although this is in line with our remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation for such a service failure, this was not proportionate based on the time it took for the works to be completed of over 18 months, which is well over the landlord’s policy of 25 calendar days.
15. Our remedies guidance says that “the landlord may have made an offer of compensation, but it does not quite reflect the detriment to the resident and/or is not proportionate to the failings identified by our own investigation”. This issue caused the resident continuous distress, inconvenience, and time spent chasing the matter.
16. The landlord is therefore ordered to apologise and pay her total compensation of £180 for the delays in this being completed. This is made up of the £80 it previously offered, if this has not been paid already, plus £100 additional compensation. But this was a service failure rather than maladministration due to the minor aesthetic nature of the painting, the fact the landlord completed this when it may not have been required to, and its previous apology and compensation offer for this. This sum is in line with what we would award to recognise the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced, and the time and trouble she took to pursue the issue. We also recommend that the landlord reviews its repairs booklet to ensure there is no ambiguity and details are clear and understandable for a resident in relation to the responsibilities of both parties.
17. The Ombudsman’s previous special investigation recommended the landlord review its policy and practice in relation to repairs and record keeping. Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to the cases already determined. The landlord has demonstrated compliance with our previous recommendations, so we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case that would duplicate those already made to landlord. The landlord itself should consider whether there are any additional issues arising from this later case that require further action.

18. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The landlord’s complaints policy says that complaint acknowledgements will be issued within 5 working days, a stage 1 response will be issued within 10 working days, and a stage 2 response will be issued within 20 working days.
19. The landlord complied with the stage 1 timeframes by acknowledging and responding to the resident’s 27 February 2024 complaint on 28 February 2024 and 8 March 2024, respectively. However, while it acknowledged her 8 March 2024 stage 2 complaint on time on 14 March 2024, it was 2 working days late in providing a stage 2 response on 9 April 2024. This was a minor delay, but the landlord needs to be reminded to follow its policy and the Code.
20. The resident’s escalation included several questions and concerns, but the stage 2 response did not fully address these. She asked when it became her responsibility to paint the skirting boards, and that she did not recall signing a tenancy agreement which said this. Furthermore, the resident also asked for clarification on the landlord’s position about the skirting boards if they were damaged by a leak from a communal pipe. These issues were not clearly addressed in the stage 2 response, and they should have been under the Code, as the resident had raised these concerns. Had this been done then the resident would’ve had a better understanding of what work the landlord is and is not responsible for. The landlord is reminded to address all of the resident’s concerns to enable full transparency and accountability.
21. The landlord offered the resident £40 compensation for the delay in the stage 2 response and for the time and effort in bringing this matter to its attention. However, this was not proportionate, as it did not recognise its above failure to address all of her concerns that likely caused her further distress and inconvenience. This is also below the £50 minimum compensation recommended by our remedies guidance to recognise such service failures, which the landlord has been found responsible for.
22. The landlord is therefore ordered to apologise and pay the resident £100 total compensation to recognise the distress, inconvenience, time, and effort she experienced from all of its above complaint handling failings. This is made up of the £40 it previously offered, plus £60 additional compensation. This is in line with the amount suggested in our remedies guidance where a resident has been affected by the landlord’s minor failings and it has not done enough to put things right.
23. The Ombudsman’s previous special investigation recommended the landlord review its policy and practice in relation to complaint handling. Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to the cases already determined. The landlord has demonstrated compliance with our previous recommendations, so we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case that would duplicate those already made to landlord. The landlord itself should consider whether there are any additional issues arising from this later case that require further action.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. The landlord did not act on a query from the contractor about the skirting boards and boxing in, which resulted in delays to these works being completed. It is reminded of the need to keep full, accurate, sufficiently detailed, and accessible records and to act on reports from contractors in a timely manner.

Communication

25. The landlord’s communication with the resident about the repair was poor. It did not give timely updates, and it did not explain what works would and would not be carried out. And it did not fully address all the resident’s concerns. If this had been done from the start the then resident would have been fully aware of what the job was. The resident had to chase progress and make a complaint before the landlord organised the works. The landlord is reminded to make sure that it addresses all of the concerns raised by the resident and to be clear and open about a job’s description.