London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202500555)

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat with her adult son, who is vulnerable. The flat is on the top-floor of a converted semi-detached property. The resident’s downstairs neighbour (‘the neighbour’) built a shed next to the property. The resident told the landlord she was concerned the shed was a fire risk. The landlord said it would take legal action to remove the shed,

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to concerns about a shed and the handling of repairs.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s:
   1. Response to concerns about a shed and the handling of repairs.
   2. Complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Response to concerns about a shed and the handling of repairs

4. The landlord took too long to complete repairs. It acknowledged the shed was a potential fire risk and promised to take legal action but failed to do so.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord did not follow its complaints policy. It did not address all the issues in the resident’s complaint.

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.

6. The resident said the neighbour built the shed in 2020. She said in 2021 she told the landlord the shed was a fire risk. We usually consider the 12-month period before a complaint is made. This investigation has looked at the period from March 2022 until the landlord’s stage 2 response on 10 September 2024. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the actions it said it would do in its stage 2 response.
7. The landlord has not sent us customer contact records. The resident said she reported concerns about the shed in 2022 and reported damp and mould in November 2023.
8. In her complaint the resident said the shed was 6 inches from the building. The resident said if there was a fire, the shed stopped her and the neighbour exiting via the rear of the property. She said the shed meant the landlord could not put up scaffolding and had not fixed the damp and mould in her property.
9. In its stage 1 response the landlord said it had given approval for the shed. It said having seen pictures, it understood the resident’s concerns. The landlord said the shed was a health and safety issue, and a potential fire risk. It said it would inspect, find a better position for the shed and finish repairs. The landlord did not inspect the shed.
10. The landlord did a ‘healthy homes’ assessment in April 2024 and found damp and mould. The report said water was entering the property through cracked mortar. It said scaffolding was needed but the shed prevented access.
11. In April 2024 the resident asked the landlord when the shed would be moved. The landlord did not respond.
12. In May 2024 the landlord cancelled scaffolding. In June 2024 it cancelled the ‘healthy homes’ repairs. The landlord’s records do not say why the repairs were cancelled.
13. The landlord wrote to the neighbour on 2 July 2024. It said the shed was too close to the house. The landlord said it was a health and safety issue, and a fire risk. It asked the neighbour to move the shed. The landlord said it may take legal action if the shed was not moved.
14. In July and August 2024, the resident chased the landlord for updates. The landlord said the neighbour would be in breach of tenancy if he did not move the shed.
15. In its stage 2 response the landlord said it sent a second warning letter in June 2024. It apologised for not taking any further action. The landlord said the neighbour had not responded and it was starting legal action. It said this could take time. The landlord awarded £200 compensation.
16. The resident asked the landlord for monthly updates on the legal case. The landlord did not respond.
17. The landlord finished the ‘healthy homes’ repairs in November 2024. This was over 6 months after the timeframe in its repairs policy for non-urgent repairs.
18. The landlord’s records do not list the repairs it did. The resident said the landlord repaired the mortar and window frames. She said the landlord got access through her bedroom. The resident told us the repairs fixed the damp and mould.
19. In October 2024 the landlord wrote to the neighbour. It said he had to move the shed within 14 days or it would seek a legal injunction. The landlord sent a referral to its legal department in January 2026.
20. In January 2026 the resident told us the neighbour had not moved the shed. The resident said this made her and her son feel very anxious.
21. Where the landlord admitted failings, we consider whether the redress it offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. We take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
22. The landlord recognised the shed was a potential fire risk. It acknowledged the shed, and the repair delays had caused the resident distress. It completed the repairs 2 months after it sent its stage 2 response. It said it would start legal action but failed to do so until. The landlord awarded £200 compensation, but this does not reflect the scale of the distress caused to the resident. For these reasons we have found maladministration. We have ordered the landlord to take action, apologise to the resident and pay £500 additional compensation. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident.

23. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints policy. It says it will acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days and provide its response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. It says if additional time is needed to provide a response the landlord will agree this with the resident. At stage 2 it says it will respond within 20 working days. This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’).
24. The resident complained to the landlord on 15 March 2024.
25. It acknowledged her complaint on 19 March 2024 and sent its stage 1 response on 28 March 2024. This was within its policy timeframes.
26. The landlord did not address the resident’s complaint that the position of the shed had delayed repairs. The Code requires landlords to investigate all complaint issues.
27. On 8 July 2024 the resident escalated her complaint. The landlord acknowledged her escalation request on 24 July 2024. It said it had a backlog of complaints and did not know when it would send its stage 2 response. The landlord did not agree a revised response time with the resident.
28. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 10 September 2024. This was 27 working days after the response time in its policy.
29. The landlord awarded £40 compensation for the time and effort it took the resident to get the complaint resolved.
30. When the resident escalated her complaint, she raised new concerns about estate management, roof repairs and a tree. The landlord failed to log these issues as a new complaint.
31. As a result of these failings, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay £100 additional compensation. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance where there have been failings that adversely affected the resident.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

32. The landlord did not send us complete customer contact or repair records. The landlord should learn from this complaint to ensure the recordkeeping failings are not repeated.

Communication

33. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s queries. It did not provide updates on the legal case. The landlord should learn from this complaint and consider how it communicates with residents. It should ensure it responds to queries and provides meaningful updates.