London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202338211)

Background

1. The residentrents her flat to her own tenant. The landlord owns and manages the block. In summer 2023, it carried out bathroom works as part of a building project. She reported that these works caused a leak, which her tenant noticed in December 2023.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of a bathroom leak.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of a bathroom leak.
   2. Complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a bathroom leak

4. The landlord delayed in providing the resident with insurance details, despite her requesting them several times over 2 months.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

5. The landlord delayed in acknowledging the resident’s escalation request. It did not acknowledge that it failed to address the resident’s main complaint point.

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 in summer 2023 that the landlord told her it was doing ‘leak detection works’ in the block. The works were to replace defective seals between the bathroom taps and pipework. It said works were expected to take several months. In October 2023 the landlord said it had nearly finished leak-detection works in the resident’s block. We have seen no evidence of when it completed the work, despite our request. However, the resident’s communication with it suggests it was completed in June 2023.
7. The resident told the landlord on 10 October 2023 that it had connected the water incorrectly. It responded and said it would forward this to its ‘Project Team’ but there is no evidence it did so.
8. The resident said shenoticed a water leak in the bathroom on 11 December 2023. She stated that this was caused by the landlord changing a ‘completely new and working joint’ in June 2023.She said she called andemailed the landlord shortly after 3pmasking it to send somebody immediately to fix the situation. We have seen no evidence of the call or that a repair was raised.  She organised her own plumber who fixed the pipe and broken seal.
9. The landlord’s repair policy says it will attend an emergency repair within 24 hours, or within 4 hours if it happens outside normal working hours. There is no evidence the landlord visited the property on the day of the report. The resident emailed the landlord the next day to say she had fixed the leak herself. We cannot say the landlord failed to follow its policytimescale, asit may have planned to attend the next day but the resident had already resolved the issue.
10. In her email the resident said the emergency plumber cost £216 and she rented a dehumidifier costing £443.50. She asked for the landlord’s insurance details so she could make a claim.
11. The landlord replied the same day and said it had asked its project team for advice, and it would update the resident when it received a response. She emailed again on 15 December 2023, again asking for its insurance information. It replied and said it had asked its programme manager to respond to her.
12. Over the next 4 weeks, the resident asked on 3 more occasions for the insurance information, but we have seen no evidence the landlord provided this.
13. On 6 March 2024, it told the resident how to make an insurance claim and provided her with the necessary information. This was 58 working days after she first asked for it. The delay was unreasonable, as the resident had made a simple request and should not have had to wait this long for basic information.
14. The leak happened several months after the landlord completed its earlier repair. Because of the gap in time, we cannot say whether the new leak was caused by the landlord’s previous work. It was reasonable for the landlord to direct the resident to its insurance process so she could seek compensation if needed but the delay was unnecessary.
15. In summary, the landlord failed to provide its insurance information in a reasonable timescale. This caused the resident time and trouble in chasing it for the information and likely delayed her making a claim. For these reasons we have made a failure finding and ordered it to pay £75 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for when there has been a failing which adversely affected the resident.

16. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints policy. It says it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and provide a response at stage 1 within 10 working days of that acknowledgement. If it needs additional time, it will tell the resident when it will send its response. At stage 1 the landlord must not extend the date by more than 10 working days. At stage 2, it says it will acknowledge the escalation request within 5 working days and respond within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. These timescales align with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
17. The landlord sent its stage 1 response oneworking day after receiving the complaint. However, the complaint response did not investigate or address the resident’s concerns about the bathroom leak, even though she clearly raised this in her complaint. It missed an opportunity to resolve the issue and did not demonstrate that it understoodthe complaint.
18. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request 40 working days later than its 5 working day policy timescale.
19. The landlord sent its stage 2 response 13 working days after acknowledging the escalation request, in line with its policy timeframe of 20 working days. It acknowledged and apologised for its delay and offered the resident £90 compensation made up of £40 for the delay and £50 for inconvenience.
20. The landlord’s stage 2 response again failed to address the resident’s complaint about the bathroom leak. Instead, it again referred to a leak in a communal area, which was not relevant to the complaint. This was likely confusing and frustrating for the resident.
21. In summary, while the landlord offered some redress for its complaint handling delays, it failed to respond to the resident’s complaint about the bathroom leak or demonstrate any learning. We have, therefore, made a failure finding and ordered an additional £50 compensation for the inconvenience this likely caused. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance for when a landlord has offered compensation, but it was not proportionate to the failings we found.

Learning

22. It is not clear the landlord fully understood the resident’s complaint or the works it had completed in the building. It should review this case to understand how it might have resolved the resident’s complaint at stage 1.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. The landlord should maintain clear and accurate repair records to support its repair obligations and evidence it has done so.

Communication

24. The landlord should clarify its understanding of the complaint with the resident before issuing its response.