London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202409100)

Background

1. The resident complained about a blown window in the bedroom and a smashed window in the living room. She also complained about the length of time taken to complete the repairs. During that time, she was worried about her safety.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of:
   1. Repairs to windows in the property.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to windows in the property.
4. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Repair to windows in the property

5. The landlord delayed in replacing the windows which meant the resident lived with broken windows for over a year. While it apologised and offered compensation, its offer was not proportionate to the failings identified.

The associated complaint.

6. The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint promptly and in line with its complaints policy. However, it did not respond to the stage 2 request in line with its complaints policy.

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.

7. The resident’s tenancy agreement requires the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the home in good repair, this includes windows. The landlord’s repairs policy sets a 25-calendar day target to complete routine repairs, and 24 hours to attend emergency repairs.
8. The resident reported the bedroom window had blown on 5July 2023. the landlord measured the window on 24 October 2023 and replaced it on 30 April 2024. It said there was a 20-week wait for the glass to be delivered. Although some delays are outside the landlord’s control, taking 3 months to carry out measurements was not reasonable.
9. This delay, which was outside of the landlord’s published timescales to complete repairs, caused a significant delay in the window being replaced. During which time the resident was left with a broken window for a period of 10 months. This delay did not meet the timescale set out in the landlord’s repairs policy.
10. The resident said the living room window was smashed on 25 September 2023. The landlord attended the same day and boarded the window to make it safe. This was reasonable and in line with its emergency repairs policy.
11. The landlord measured the window on 24 October 2023 and was due to replace the window on 30 April 2024. When the operative arrived, it found the measurements were incorrect and could not replace the window as planned. It was unfortunate the window was incorrectly measured, especially as it had been measured before; The error caused further delays and inconvenience to the resident.
12. However, the landlord apologised for the error in its complaint response and appropriately remeasured and ordered the window. It fitted this within the 20-week lead time in August 2024.
13. When the operative attended in August 2024, the resident said she had not been told about the appointment. She was concerned that because she did not know about the appointment the repair could have been delayed further if she was not at home. There is no evidence to show that the landlord had informed the resident of the appointment. It needs to ensure it has effective communication with the resident before attending to complete repairs.
14. The resident said she was worried about her safety because she lives on a busy road and the boarding looked tampered with. The landlord attended promptly to check that the window was securely boarded. However, there is no evidence that the landlord considered if it needed to provide any temporary solutions to alleviate the resident’s concerns during the period it was awaiting the delivery of the new window.
15. The landlord offered £135 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. This is at the lower end of our guidance on remedies for the failings identified in this case. While the landlord accepted its failings and apologised, its offer of compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified in this case and this was a missed opportunity.
16. Overall, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repair. The landlord took a long time to replace the windows and did not measure the living room window correctly. This caused further delays while the resident had safety concerns. We order the landlord to pay compensation of £200 for the inconvenience, time, and trouble this has caused the resident. This is inclusive of the £135 it has already offered.

17. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code), published on our website, sets out our expectations for landlord’s complaint handling. The Code states that landlords must acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. Landlord’s must respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days, of acknowledging the complaint. The Code states if landlord’s need more time to investigate a complaint, any extension must not exceed 10 working days at stage 1, or 20 working days, at stage 2.
18. The resident raised her complaint on 15 February 2024. The landlord issued its stage 1 response, in line with its policy, on 16 February 2024.
19. The stage 1 response did not address the resident’s concerns. It said that it had asked for an update on the situation and would remain the residents point of contact. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided an update and given a complete response.
20. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 19 March 2024. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 20 May 2024, 42 days outside of its published timescale.
21. The landlord offered £20 compensation for the delay in issuing the stage 2 response. This offer was not reasonable, because it does not reflect the time and trouble the resident experienced asking the landlord for updates and a response.
22. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. The landlord’s response was delayed and the compensation offered was not in line with our remedies guidance. We order the landlord to pay compensation of £75 in recognition for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused. This is inclusive of the £20 offered in its stage 2 response.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. The landlord’s record keeping in this case did not contain enough detail and it needs to ensure it has an effective system in place to record repairs and communication. It could consider a self-assessment against the spotlight report on knowledge and information management.

Communication

24. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. The landlord could have given the resident regular updates during the complaint process and while waiting for the repair to be completed. It also needs to ensure clear communication when booking repairs with residents, to ensure they are available and to avoid missed appointments.