London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202348232)
|
Case ID |
202348232 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
London & Quadrant Housing Trust |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Assured Tenancy |
|
Date |
30 January 2026 |
- The resident had an energy efficient hot water tank that could be controlled by a smartphone app. In late December 2023 she reported that she was unable to connect to the app, the tank was heating constantly and she had no hot water. The resident was unhappy with how the landlord dealt with her reports considering she is disabled and was at times without hot water and her energy bills increased.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
Our decision (determination)
- We found service failure in the landlord’s handling of:
- Repairs to the water tank.
- The associated complaint.
We have made some orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
Tank repairs
- The landlord failed to demonstrate it completed full repairs within its repair policy timescales. Or that it always considered the resident’s vulnerabilities when allocating appointments. It though recognised mistakes and took some appropriate actions to put right the impact of its failings. However, it did not follow its compensation policy in considering if the resident’s energy usage increased because of its service failures. It may then have not fully put things right for her.
Complaint handling
- The landlord deviated from its complaints policy by issuing 2 stage 1 responses. Its final response was also delayed and it has not evidenced that it kept the resident updated during this time. The landlord acknowledged some but not all of its failings and did not then take enough action to put the impact of these.
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.
|
Order |
What the landlord must do |
Due date |
|
1 |
Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the further failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure:
|
No later than 26 February 2026 |
|
2 |
Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident the compensation of £1,185 made up as follows:
It must provide evidence that this has been paid by the due date. The landlord may deduct any payment already made from the above. |
No later than 26 February 2026 |
|
3 |
Directional order The landlord must advise the resident what evidence it requires to consider the increased energy bills she may have incurred because of the delays in resolving the tank failure concerned in this report. The landlord must clearly explain its approach to calculating this, such as whether it compares another year’s usage to the period complained about. Provided the resident supplies the evidence required, the landlord must provide a response to her with reasons why or why it will not pay further compensation, and the amount it will pay if applicable. |
No later than 26 February 2026 |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
22 December 2023 |
The resident complained about the length of time until her water tank repair appointment. She said she was using more energy from it heating up constantly, she was disabled and without hot water. |
|
27 December 2023 |
In the landlord’s stage 1 response, it said it booked a routine repair because the resident had not initially reported being without hot water. It had though since rescheduled the appointment to that day. The landlord concluded there had been no repair failure. |
|
In early January 2024 |
The resident escalated her complaint because the problem with the tank was not fixed, though we do not know what date this was on. |
|
17 January 2024 |
The landlord responded again at stage 1. It stated that it had attended as an emergency call out to fix a leak from the tank and the operative, who needed to order a part, showed the resident how to turn the water off and on. It also said its operative had recorded not being able to gain access to reconnect the tank to the app at an appointment in January 2024. The landlord confirmed dates for further appointments and awarded compensation of £268, made up of:
|
|
18 January 2024 |
The landlord recorded that the resident that the asked to escalate her complaint because she was unhappy with the time it was taking to complete the repairs and that it was costing her more money. She said she had experienced problems with the tank for over 5 years. |
|
26 March 2024 |
In its stage 2 response, the landlord advised it had limited its investigation to the previous 12 months. It acknowledged there had been delays and poor communication in its handling of the tank repairs. This included not acting sooner on a recommendation to convert the tank so it could be used via a control panel. It apologised, confirmed it had scheduled this, and had awarded compensation for the impacts over 12 months of £1,125, made up of:
|
|
8 May 2024 |
The tank system was converted. |
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident referred her complaint to us because she was unhappy with the amount of compensation awarded. She told us she was inconvenienced from not having hot water at times over winter and her energy bill increasing. She wants the landlord to improve its service and treatment of vulnerable residents and to pay more compensation. |
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.
|
Complaint |
Repairs to the water tank |
|
Finding |
Service failure |
What we have not considered
- The resident said she had experienced intermittent problems with the water tank for 5 years. While the repair logs show the resident reported some issues with the tank leaking in the past, there was over 19 months between the last report and the issue she complained about. According to the logs this was also not the same problem that occurred later.
- We expect residents to raise complaints with their landlords within a reasonable time. This is usually within 12 months from the date a resident became aware of a problem. Not only does this ensure that evidence to investigate the complaint is available, but also so that effective steps can be taken to put things right.Considering the date the resident raised the complaint, and the availability of evidence, the investigation will focus on the period from 22 December 2023, when the resident reported the problem with her water tank.
What we have considered
- The landlord’s repairs policy states it aimed to complete emergency repairs within 24 hours and non-urgent issues within 20 working days. Though we have not seen a record of the resident’s first report on 22 December 2023, it is undisputed that she did not reference having no hot water until her email to the complaints team of the same day. It was reasonable, therefore, for the landlord to allocate its non-urgent repair timescale given there was no known risks that would warrant a more urgent repair.
- It was unclear from the resident’s complaint email how the tank could both be heating up constantly and for her also to be without hot water. Nonetheless, it was appropriate for the landlord to reprioritise the appointment based on her stating she had no hot water and that the issue could be affecting her financially. This is because both its vulnerable persons policy and repairs policy commit to faster appointments for residents with disabilities and financial difficulties.
- The landlord advised in its responses that this appointment happened on 27 December 2023, which though not confirmed in the records seen, was not disputed to have happened. It was scheduled on the same day as the landlord’s initial response so would have been within its 24-hour emergency repair timescale. Under the landlord’s repairs policy, it was required to complete a full or temporary repair within the prescribed right to repair timescales, which was 3 working days for partial loss of heating (unless it was over £250). In its response the landlord indicated this would have been scheduled sooner had it been reported by telephone, which we accept would likely have been the case. As such, we find the landlord responded to the initial report within an appropriate timescale.
- Neither the records or the landlord’s responses were clear about whether it was able to reconnect the app and the tank prior to converting it to a control panel in May 2024. Or if its operatives found that the resident did not have access to hot water. It is a failing that the landlord’s record does not contain this level of detail because it cannot demonstrate sufficiently that it was doing everything it could to meet its repair obligations and timescales. While true, we find it is more likely than not, based on the resident’s reports in her complaint and escalation that the tank was heating up constantly, that this problem did not likely impede her access to hot water. It may though have caused her energy bill to increase, which is also something she repeated in her complaint.
- The landlord attended twice in early January 2024, but the operative was unable to access the tank because the resident’s belongings were in the way. We cannot hold the landlord responsible for these appointments not going ahead. The landlord then rescheduled the appointment to early February 2024. This suggests that it did not consider there to be an urgent problem. As explained, we are unable to establish if it was an appropriate timescale from the available records.
- The resident then reported a leak from the tank on 9 January 2024. Repair logs show the landlord attended within its 24-hour emergency timescale and isolated the leak. The operative recorded, as referenced in the complaint response, that they showed the resident how to turn the water on and off.
- It is not always possible to complete full repairs at an appointment, which was the case here because the operative needed a part. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to attempt to minimise the impact of the leak by turning the water to the tank off. We would only expect this to be a very short-term solution. However, according to the landlord’s response it scheduled an appointment for the repair on 24 January 2024, though it is not documented in the records provided. It is a failing that the resident was left without access to hot water for 14 days. And that there is no evidence the landlord considered if it should provide temporary accommodation.
- In the main, the landlord provided a fair response to the resident’s complaint about its handling of the tank repairs. It recognised mistakes with delays and poor communication and took some appropriate actions to put things right to remedy impact on the resident. It was in keeping with its compensation policy and our remedies guidance to award payments for impacts such as distress and inconvenience, and time and effort. It was also in line with its policy to award compensation for failure to meet the right to repair timescales.
- The landlord, however, awarded compensation for impacts over a 12-month period when available records show the intermittent problems occurred over a 5-month period. There is no reason given in the landlord’s responses, which we will return to later. While the impact on the resident was serious, particularly given her vulnerabilities, we find the amount the compensation the landlord awarded of £720 was above the amount our remedies guidance recommends (between £100 and £600) for adverse impacts that are not permanent. It also paid above the amount its records and compensation policy states it was required to pay under the right to repair scheme (at £365), though it has not been possible to establish what this should have been due to the standard of the repair logs.
- In her complaint the resident repeatedly said that the problem with her tank being on constantly was causing her energy bills to be much higher. The landlord did not address this issue in its responses. This was not in keeping with the approach set out in its compensation policy to consider reimbursing proven costs arising from its failure.For this reason, we have made a service failure finding and have ordered the landlord to take some actions to put this right.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
Service failure |
- The landlord’s complaints policy and 2-stage process at the time aligned with the timescales and principles of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It was required to acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days, then respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and 20 working days at stage 2. The process allowed for up to a 10 working day extension and, if needed, it would write to the resident.
- It took the landlord only 3 days to acknowledge and respond to the resident’s first complaint on 22 December 2023 at stage 1 (on 27 December 2023). This was prompt and well within the required timescales. We were unable to see when the resident contacted the landlord again about her complaint because, despite requesting it, it was not included in the records shared. As such we cannot determine how long it took to respond to this, which is a failing. We can though say that it was not in keeping with the landlord’s policy to respond at stage 1 again on 17 January 2024. Doing this effectively meant the resident had to go through a 3-stage process, which was a significant failing. The landlord did not recognise this or take any steps to put this right.
- The landlord recorded that it had spoken to the resident and that she wanted to escalate her complaint on 18 January 2024. It then took the landlord 47 working days to respond at stage 2 on 26 March 2024. While we have seen the initial responses included some wording about the landlord’s final stage taking longer, we would still expect to see that the landlord was following its process. However, there was no record of it acknowledging the escalation in writing or advising the resident of a revised response time. It is a failing that the landlord cannot evidence it was keeping the resident updated about its final response.
- The Code requires landlords to provide clear explanations for decisions. As explained earlier, it was not clear from the landlord’s final response on what basis it awarded compensation for a 12-month period. And nothing in the records explains this. While this is true, we have not seen this negatively impacted the resident. It does though mean that the landlord has more likely than not awarded more compensation than its policy required it to.
- Appropriately the landlord acknowledged in its final response that it was delayed. It also awarded compensation of £40. Though this was slightly below the range (£50-£100) our remedies guidance recommends for low impacts, it was proportionate to recognise the minor impact of the delay of just over 20 working days. However, given the further failings identified, we have made a finding of service failure and have ordered the landlord to pay compensation in place of its original award.
Learning
Knowledge information management (record keeping) and communication
- We found it difficult to fully understand from the landlord’s records what repairs it had completed and when. It also recorded some, but not all, contractor work on its centralised records. For example, some of the repairs referred to in the complaint responses were not evident in the records provided. We also saw no consistent records showing what issues the resident was reporting or if and how the landlord considered her vulnerabilities when allocating repairs.
- These findings are consistent with those made in an investigation of the landlord’s handling of repairs in another case and events from a similar period. In that case we made a wider order under our Scheme for the landlord to review its repairs and record-keeping practices which it complied with. We have not then made any further orders for the landlord to improve in these areas but encourage it to consider taking any learning from its handling of this case.