London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202410589)

Background

1. The landlord agreed to replace 4 damaged doors in the property. It varnished the kitchen fire door after fitting it. The landlord thereafter returned to replace 3 of the other doors which had been damaged. The resident complained that it had not varnished the 3 newly fitted doors and escalated her complaint to us. She said she would like all the doors varnished and if the landlord would not do that, then for it to provide her with compensation.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s request for it to varnish the 3 newly fitted doors.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to varnish the 3 newly fitted doors.
4. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to varnish the 3 newly fitted doors

5. The landlord clearly explained that it was not its responsibility for internal decoration relating to the 3 newly fitted doors. It provided her with the information contained in its tenancy agreement showing the varnishing of the doors would be the resident’s responsibility.

The handling of the associated complaint

6. The landlord failed to adhere to its own complaints procedure and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It said it was understaffed for the volume of complaints it was receiving. It failed to maintain appropriate contact during the complaints procedure or request extensions which would have helped manage the resident’s expectations.

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.

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 has happened or comment on all the information we have reviewed. We have only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we have not considered

7. The resident’s complaint about the replacement of the damaged doors and its repair delays was resolved within the landlord’s internal complaint procedure. Our investigation concentrates on the resident’s complaint to us that the landlord refused her request to varnish the 3 newly fitted doors.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to varnish 3 newly fitted doors

8. The landlord’s tenancy agreement specifies that internal decoration is the responsibility of the resident. The varnishing of the newly fitted doors would be classified as internal decoration. It was therefore the responsibility of the resident and not the landlord to varnish the doors.
9. The landlord clearly explained that it was not its responsibility for internal decoration relating to the 3 newly fitted doors. It provided the resident with the information contained in its tenancy agreement showing the varnishing of the doors was her responsibility.
10. We have seen no evidence the landlord made any commitment to varnish the 3 doors. The resident may have however believed it was the landlord’s responsibility as it had varnished the kitchen door. The landlord’s clear responses showed effective communication in relation to the repair and was a reasonable response.

11. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints procedure which is in line with the Code. It states it will acknowledge complaints and escalations within 5 working days of receipt. It will aim to provide a response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and will agree any extension to this timescale with the resident. It will aim to respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days and will agree any extension to this timescale with the resident to a maximum of 20 days.
12. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response, the day it was received on 22 March 2023. It provided an appropriate response, on time and covered all areas the resident had complained about.
13. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation of 2 May 2023 on 10 May 2023 which was 2 working days beyond the 5 days allowed in its complaints procedure. This delay was appropriately acknowledged in its stage 2 response.
14. The landlord’s acknowledgment email stated it was currently dealing with a backlog and could not provide a timescale for a response. This was later repeated in a response to one of the resident’s chaser emails on 28 June 2023.
15. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 15 August 2023 which was 49 working days beyond the 20 days allowed in its complaints procedure. This was an unreasonable delay and had caused the resident to have to chase the complaint on 7 occasions. It would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to have explained to the resident the need for an extension which would have provided it a further 20 days to investigate. This would have reduced the resident’s uncertainty of receiving a response and meant she would not have had to continually chase it. The landlord’s offer of £150 for its complaint handling failures was in line with our remedies guidance for a failure which adversely affected the resident.
16. However the Code puts a number of responsibilities on its member Landlords. Landlords are expected to prioritise complaint handling and have a culture of learning from complaints. It is important that complaints are seen as a core service and must be resourced to manage complaints effectively. The landlord’s communication indicates that it failed to effectively prioritise and staff its complaint handling team. Although it did offer compensation to reflect this, it has not shown any learning or explained what it has done to improve its complaint handling.
17. We have therefore found there to have been service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. We have ordered the landlord to write to the resident and apologise for its service failures. We have also recommended it reviews the complaint handling failures to identify what went wrong and what it will do differently.

Learning

18. The landlord must ensure it has the appropriate number of staff to deal with the level of complaints it receives. It should have a process in place to allow it to increase its capacity when required.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

19. The landlord’s record keeping was poor. Had it been better it may have been able to follow the Code and ask for extensions for its complaint responses. This would have provided better customer service and reduced the distress and inconvenience caused by the resident chasing a response.

Communication

20. The landlord’s communication was clear in relation to its position on the repair issue, but as highlighted above, it needs to improve this for its complaint handling.