London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202324213)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324213

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

14 June 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the toilets in the property,
2. the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The property is occupied by 2 residents as shared owners with the landlord. For ease of reference, this report refers to “the resident”, which represents both residents.
The resident purchased and moved into the property in December 2021. On 4 February 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that waste was backing up into the 2 toilets in the property. This was initially dealt with as a possible blockage of the main pipe in the building. However, it later transpired that there was an issue with the plumbing of the toilets in the property which resulted in waste passing between the toilets each time either one was flushed. Multiple contractors have attended to try to resolve the issue.
It is agreed between the parties that the resident complained about the outstanding repairs to the toilets in a telephone call to the landlord on 10 October 2022. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint acknowledgement and decision letter on 3 November 2022. It said that delays between the contractor appointments were due to the need for authorisation of the costs of the proposed works. It accepted that these delays were unacceptable and that it could have kept everyone informed of the position. It apologised that this had not happened and “for any stress or inconvenience this has caused”.
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 on 24 January 2023. She referenced the delays with the repairs and in the landlord’s handling of her complaint. She requested an update on the outstanding repairs and noted that part of her original complaint related to the lack of communication and updates.
The landlord acknowledged the escalated complaint on 6 April 2023 and defined the issues it would investigate. Its stage 2 complaint response was sent to the resident on 2 May 2023. It accepted failings in the handling of the repairs to the toilets, that its communications with the resident were not prompt, consistent or reasonable in the circumstances, and shortcomings in its handling of the complaint. It offered compensation totalling £3,780 for its poor handling of the repairs and complaint handling.
Since its Stage 2 Complaint Response, the landlord has continued to engage contractors in order to try and resolve the plumbing issue affecting the toilets in the resident’s property. To date, the issue remains outstanding.
The resident has told this Service that the situation with the toilets is a health hazard and she would like the toilets repaired without further delay. She is also seeking compensation for the stress, distress, and inconvenience caused to her and her partner as a result of this longstanding issue, and in recognition of the time and effort she and her partner have put into having this matter resolved.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has told this Service that the outstanding repairs to the toilets has impacted negatively on her mental health. This Service recognises that this situation has caused the resident significant distress as she has experienced the issue with the toilets in her property over a prolonged period of time. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. However, unlike a court, we cannot establish what caused the health issue, or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the toilets in the property

Each party’s repair obligations are set out in the lease. As a shared owner, the resident has the primary responsibility for repairs within the property. This is confirmed in the landlord’s repairs policy: “Leaseholders repair responsibilities are set out in their lease. With a few small exceptions, leaseholders are responsible for all repairs to the interior of their property and all facilities that service only their home.” In its Stage 2 Complaint Response dated 2 May 2023, the landlord confirmed, “For Shared Owners and leaseholders in flats, we are only responsible for communal repairs.”
However, it went on to accept responsibility for the repairs to the plumbing of the toilets in the resident’s property on the basis that “there is an element of doubt that the faulty WCs should have been fixed by L&Q during the defect period.” This set the resident’s expectation that the landlord would repair the plumbing issue.
The resident’s initial report to the landlord on 4 February 2022 stated that she had contacted a plumber to look at the issue with her toilets and they advised that there may be a blockage in the main pipe of the building. On 18 February 2022, the landlord confirmed to the resident that it had arranged for a contractor to attend. It apologised for the delay in responding, stating this was due to issues with its mailbox. Irrespective of the email issues that delayed its response, given the nature of the issue reported by the resident, a 2-week delay in arranging for a contractor to attend was unreasonable.
The contractor’s invoice, dated 19 February 2022, recorded that they had attended to clear the blockage and recommended a CCTV survey to check the condition of the pipework. This recommendation was overlooked by the landlord, which caused additional delays in finding a resolution for the resident.
The resident emailed the landlord for an update on 1 March 2022. She expressed concern that the contractor had sought to diagnose the issue based on what she told them. She asked for reasonable notice of attendances by contractors going forward due to security concerns and the need for her partner to arrange homeworking. The landlord responded on 3 March 2022 and apologised for the lack of warning of the contractor’s visit on 18 February 2022, saying it would pass on the request for advance notice. It stated that the contractor had jetted the soil stack and the works had been marked as complete.
On 3 May 2022, the resident reported further drainage issues, including the shower, which she thought might be connected to the issue with her toilets. An appointment was arranged for the contractor to attend on 11 May 2022 to carry out the CCTV survey, but they did not attend. The resident has told the Ombudsman that the contractor attended unexpectedly, without warning, on 26 May 2022, but the landlord has not been able to provide evidence of this. The resident was put to time, trouble and inconvenience as a result of the missed appointment and, subsequently, the unexpected visit.
The landlord’s oversight of the contractor’s recommendation for a CCTV survey resulted in a delay of 3 months and 8 days, from 18 February to 26 May 2022. During this period, the landlord’s communications with the resident were inadequate. For example, it did not respond to her email of 3 April 2022 or tell her about the change in the appointment for the contractor’s attendance. These are failings on the landlord’s part, which have contributed to the resident feeling that it did not prioritise the repair or take the matter seriously.
There is no evidence – neither maintenance and repair records, nor any communications between the parties – from 10 May to 26 July 2022. The resident’s call to the landlord on 26 July 2022 prompted it to action the contractor’s recommendation of 30 May 2022 for the installation of parts to correct flow. However, an entry in the maintenance and repairs records on 29 July 2022 stated that those parts were already in place and, instead, recommended fitting non-return valves at the back of the toilets. This demonstrates a failure by the contractor – and, in turn, the landlord – to properly and accurately investigate and diagnose the cause of the issue. It also highlights inadequate recordkeeping by the landlord and its poor communications with the contractor.
Thereafter, aside from the landlord’s stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 3 November 2022, there is no evidence of any progress in the repairs to the toilets or any meaningful communications from the landlord to the resident up to the end of March 2023. This was inappropriate. It resulted in the resident emailing the landlord on at least 8 separate occasions to chase the repair and escalation of her complaint to stage 2, which clearly evidences the distress caused to her and the time and trouble she was put to in pursuing the matter.
The landlord gave the resident unclear, inconsistent, and confusing information about what steps it would take to resolve the problem. For example, on 2 March 2023, the landlord told the resident that it had met with the area surveyor and was chasing the contractor’s report on their investigation and proposed solution. When the resident expressed concern that a report had still not been received, the landlord said it no longer required a further report but a joint visit to agree works. Its email of 23 March 2023 stated that it had no further clarity on the next steps and would update her on ‘Tuesday’. It did not do so. Despite assurances to keep her updated, it failed to do so, causing the resident evident frustration.
The stage 2 acknowledgement was sent by the landlord on 6 April 2023. From this point onwards, there was a marked improvement in the landlord’s communications with the resident as the complaint handler acted as a single point of contact between the resident, its repairs team, the surveyor and contractors. This provided the resident with a more responsive, consistent, and accountable service.
On 21 April 2023, the landlord booked a new contractor, who attended the property on 27 April 2023. The resident’s email to the landlord that day noted that they had suggested “there may be a solution where they take out the toilets and install a valve on each toilet pipe to direct the water flow.” This was the same recommendation made by the first contractor on 29 July 2022. It demonstrates that there was no material progress with the repairs to the resident’s toilets for nine months, from July 2022 to April 2023. This caused the resident a significant amount of concern and inconvenience, as well as putting her to the time and trouble of repeatedly chasing for the repair and for information and updates.
The recommended works were carried out on 3 May 2023. Initially, the resident reported that the contractor believed they may have fixed the issue. However, records show she contacted the landlord on 16 and 19 May 2023 as waste was still flowing between the toilets. The landlord replied on 22 May 2023, informing her that it would discuss matters with the contractor and a drainage specialist. However, there is no evidence of involvement from a drainage specialist or a plan of action to repair the toilets.
The landlord’s stage 2 response accepted failings in its handling of the repair to the resident’s toilets, that its communications with her were not prompt, consistent or reasonable, and failings in its handling of her complaint. It acknowledged that the issue affecting her toilets was distressing, frustrating and very inconvenient. She had shared the fact that she had to purchase large amounts of cleaning fluids and drain cleaners to keep her toilets hygienic, and she felt embarrassed to have friends home. In recognition of its failings and the resulting impact, it offered, and paid, compensation totalling £3,780 to the resident. Of this, £3,630 was for its poor handling of the repair and £150 related to its complaint handling failures.
This Service recognises the landlord’s commitment to resolving the issue at the heart of this complaint. Its acceptance of responsibility for the repair to the resident’s toilets is commendable and reflects the resident-focussed approach adopted in this case. Having accepted that repair responsibility, the landlord ought reasonably to have dealt with the repair in line with its repairs policy, namely to undertake repairs “to a good standard in a reasonable timeframe.”
It has been over 2 years and 3 months since the resident reported the issue with her toilets to the landlord, and over a year since the landlord accepted responsibility for this repair. During this time, although the landlord’s communications with the resident have improved, the repair itself is still outstanding.
Since the landlord’s stage 2 response, there have been several delays in the progress of the repair. There were long gaps between contractor appointments, change over to a third contractor, and repeat appointments to carry out work that had either been done previously or was not possible. This was compounded by the landlord’s failure to keep accurate records relating to the repairs. For example, its maintenance and repairs records do not include details of the contractor’s visits on or around 26 May 2022 and 3 May 2023; nor is there any evidence of the outcome of CCTV surveys or inspections.
The Ombudsman recognises that the nature of the problem affecting the resident’s toilets was not straightforward and the landlord has committed significant time and resource to trying to resolve the issue. However, it had no clear plan of action once its initial interventions failed. Despite the involvement of the landlord’s surveyor and three separate contractors, the cause of the plumbing issue has not been diagnosed, nor a workable solution identified. This demonstrates a failure on the landlord’s part to manage the repair effectively, in line with its repairs policy. This contributed to a significant and extended period of time without a resolution for the resident.
The cumulative impact of the landlord’s poor communications, the numerous and lengthy delays, and the fact that the repair is still outstanding is sufficiently serious to make a finding of maladministration.
As the repair to the toilets remained outstanding, it is noted that the landlord made a further offer of compensation on 5 January 2024. This was not accepted by the resident at the time and was, subsequently, superseded by a revised compensation offer of £2,935 on 18 April 2024, which it duly paid. This was largely for the outstanding repair, but included £320 for its poor complaint handling. Altogether, the landlord has paid the resident £6,245 relating to the delayed repair and £470 for its complaint handling failures.
Whilst the landlord has paid significant sums of compensation to the resident, these cannot be considered as reasonable redress under paragraph 53 of the Scheme. This is because a significant proportion of that compensation was offered after the resident had exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure and only after the involvement of this service. The revised financial offer was, however, reasonable and this Service will not be making a further order of compensation for the outstanding repair issue.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the toilets in the property:
1. There were numerous and lengthy delays in progressing the repair, with multiple contractor and surveyor visits, several missed appointments, repetitive recommendations and works, and no clear diagnosis of the issue or a viable solution;
2. Its communications with the resident were inconsistent, unclear, and unreasonable;
3. It failed to keep accurate records of the repair to the toilets, which contributed to its poor communications with the resident;
4. The repair to the toilets remains outstanding over 2 years and 3 months after the issue was first reported to the landlord and over a year after its Stage 2 response.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The parties agree that the resident raised her stage 1 complaint on 10 October 2022. This was not acknowledged by the landlord within the 5 working days specified in its complaints policy.
The landlord’s stage 1 response, dated 3 November 2022, was not consistent with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. It did not address the crux of the resident’s complaint relating to the repair of the toilets. Whilst it apologised for delays between contractor visits and not informing the resident of the reason for these delays, it offered no resolution in respect of the repair, nor any compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused as a result of its shortcomings.
In the absence of any notification to the resident that the landlord required additional time to respond to her stage 1 complaint, its stage 1 letter was 8 days beyond the 10-working day timeframe provided in its complaints policy. The resident replied on the same day, seeking clarification of the outcome of the landlord’s response. She set out her expectations: specifically, that she wanted the issue affecting both toilets to be fixed, to be kept informed and updated during the process, and compensation for the time and stress caused to her and her partner. The landlord did not respond to this email nor recognise it as a request for an escalation of her complaint, which was inappropriate. As a result, she had to chase it again and formally request escalation on 24 January 2023, causing her evident frustration.
The landlord was slow to acknowledge this request. It did not respond to the resident until 6 April 2023 to confirm the complaint definitions it would be investigating. This acknowledgement was 107 working days after the landlord ought reasonably to have escalated her complaint and 52 working days after her express request for escalation, which was inappropriate and contrary to the expected timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint on 2 May 2023, 122 working days after the complaint ought to have been escalated to stage 2.
The stage 2 response has been highlighted and commended above for its resident-focussed approach and commitment to resolving the repair issue. It is a better reflection of the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. It dealt fairly and comprehensively with the different aspects of the resident’s complaint. It acknowledged and apologised for its failings in its handling of the repair, its communications, and its handling of her complaint. It identified that its complaint handling failures were due to a lack of training and took the opportunity to provide feedback to the relevant departments in order to improve its service to residents.
The landlord sought to put things right by way of its compensation offer totalling £3,780. This included £150 for ”no Stage 1 decision letter, a late Stage 2 Review, the complaint handling at Stage 1”. Additional compensation was paid by the landlord to the resident following its revised offer of 18 April 2024. This included £320 for issues relating to its handling of the resident’s complaint. Paragraph 30 of this report explains why this Service cannot make a finding of reasonable redress in respect of the compensation awarded to the resident by the landlord after its stage 2 response.
It is also relevant that the landlord has demonstrated it took away learning from the resident’s complaint. In all the circumstances, a finding of service failure is appropriate. This encompasses the landlord’s failings at stages 1 and 2 of the complaints procedure, while also taking into account the commitment to resolving the complaint that is reflected in the landlord’s stage 2 response.
The total amount of compensation already paid by the landlord to the resident for its complaint handling failures is fair and reasonable to reflect the service failure and resulting distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. Therefore, no further compensation payment is necessary.
However, to improve its service to residents, the landlord must ensure its staff are familiar with its own complaints policy and this Service’s Complaint Handling Code. It should also review its inter-departmental practices for dealing with and escalating complaints.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repair to the resident’s toilets;
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that the landlord must:
1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination:
  1. Obtain a specialist drainage contractor’s report on the cause of the issue affecting the resident’s toilets and their recommendation(s) for a workable solution;
  2. Provide a copy of the drainage specialist’s report to this Service and the resident;
2. Within 2 weeks of the date of the drainage specialist’s report:
  1. Produce an action plan for the work it proposes to carry out to repair the resident’s toilets;
  2. Provide a copy of the action plan to this Service and the resident;
3. Within 4 weeks of the date of the action plan, complete its proposed works.

Paragraph 49 investigation

The Ombudsman completed a special investigation report in July 2023 into the landlord using its systemic powers under paragraph 49 of the Scheme. It found the landlord responsible for a series of significant systemic failings impacting residents. These included the handling of repairs and its complaints procedure.
The Ombudsman required the landlord to make changes including improvements to its complaint handling and therefore no orders or recommendations have been made in addition to those made within the special report.