London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202432891)

Background

1. The resident moved into a newly built sixth-floor flat and reported structural noise from a bedroom window during high winds. The landlord had an agreement with the developer that they retained responsibility for addressing repairs needed to the property during the defect period. The resident complained about delays and said the noise continued after the repairs.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Window repairs.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of window repairs.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Reasons

What we have not investigated

4. The resident said noise from the window prevented sleep and affected her health. While we do not dispute this, 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 have not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
5. The complaint includes issues related to the developer’s responsibilities during the defects period for a new home. The developer is not a member of our Scheme so we cannot investigate its actions. As such, we have investigated the landlord’s involvement in raising the repairs with the developer.

What we have investigated

The landlord’s handling of window repairs

6. On 6 February 2024, the resident reported a banging noise from a bedroom window during windy weather which significantly disturbed her sleep. The landlord promptly raised this with the developer as a defect, with a completion date of 15 February 2024. This was an appropriate initial response.
7. On 27 February 2024, the resident said the issue remained unresolved. The landlord chased the developer, kept the resident updated, and the developer repaired the window on 20 March 2024. On 27 March 2024, the landlord confirmed the issue was resolved, apologised for the delay, and awarded £146 compensation for this in line with its policy which was appropriate.
8. On 1 July 2024, the resident reported the noise had returned. Although the landlord said on 3 July 2024 that it had raised jobs with the developer and would update her within 10 days, it did not ask the developer to inspect until 16 August 2024, around 6 weeks later. During that period, the resident had to chase for updates. The delay, and the landlord’s failure to do what it said it would, was unreasonable.
9. The resident complained on 18 August 2024 about the delay and in the following weeks continued to chase the matter. The landlord said it was pursuing the developer, but the developer told it on 11 September 2024 that it had closed the works order. The landlord did not respond to many of the resident’s emails around that time. Its communication was poor, although it did continue trying to get the developer to assess and repair the defect.
10. In its stage 2 response of 8 November 2024, the landlord apologised that the issue remained unresolved, said the developer would attend on 11 November 2024, and offered the resident £140 compensation. The amount was reasonable and in line with its policy and our guidance. However, the landlord did not explain the delay in arranging the repair or identify any learning which was a missed opportunity to put things right for the resident.
11. The developer attended 6 December 2024 but did not complete further repairs. The landlord then offered a joint inspection with the developer. The resident declined because she had lost faith in the landlord. While that was understandable, the landlord’s offer was reasonable because it needed to inspect the window itself if it was to challenge the developer’s position.
12. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the window repairs. It responded appropriately at first and reasonably acknowledged and compensated for earlier delays. However, its communication between July 2024 and September 2024 was poor, and it missed opportunities to progress the repair and seek a clear resolution. The landlord must apologise to the resident and pay additional compensation in accordance with our guidance for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor communication about the repair. The landlord must also renew its offer to inspect and assess the condition of the window, to determine if further repair is necessary.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

13. The resident complained to the landlord on 27 February 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint and issued its stage 1 response on 28 February 2024. It explained the resident could escalate to stage 2 within 6 months if dissatisfied. At this stage, the landlord acted in line with its complaints procedure.
14. On 29 February 2024, the resident explained why she disagreed with the stage 1 response and asked for escalation. The landlord did not respond to her request. This was a failure to follow its complaints procedure and the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) and was unreasonable.
15. After further correspondence, the landlord issued another stage 1 response on 27 March 2024. It did not refer to the earlier response, although it concerned the same complaint, and it did not acknowledge its failure to follow the correct procedure. It therefore did not properly respond to the complaint.
16. The resident made further attempts to escalate in August 2024 and in later emails up to  October 2024. These were clear expressions of dissatisfaction, but the landlord did not acknowledge the escalation until 22 October 2024. It then issued its stage 2 response on 8 November 2024. While that response addressed the repair issue, it again failed to identify or address the complaint handling failures.
17. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. It failed to follow its policy and the Code by issuing 2 further stage 1 responses instead of escalating the complaint to stage 2. This caused the resident unnecessary time and trouble and delayed complaint resolution. The landlord also failed to acknowledge and address its repeated complaint handling failures.

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.