London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202428645)

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat on the third floor with a door intercom system. Between May and July 2024, the intercom system was intermittently reported as faulty. The resident said that during this time, he missed several deliveries and postal voting documents.

What the complaint is about

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

Our decision (determination)

3. We found that:
   1. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of intercom repairs.
   2. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord responded to the intercom repairs within the timeframes stated in its repairs policy. However, it did not consider the impact to the resident from the frequency of repairs or explain why one repair was assigned a higher priority over others.
5. The landlord significantly delayed in responding to the complaint and did not respond to all the points raised by the resident.

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 has referred to a previous intercom repair complaint from 2023 for which he received £250 compensation. While this information provides context, it has not been considered in this investigation. This is because we did not investigate the previous complaint, so we cannot say if the outcome was fair or not. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to compare this complaint against it.
7. The landlord’s repair policy says it’s responsible for repairs and maintenance in the common areas, including door entry systems. It also says that it will aim to complete routine repairs in an average of 25 calendar days and emergency repairs within 24 hours. The policy does not specify if an intercom repair is usually routine or emergency.
8. Issues with the intercom systems buzzer and camera were reported by residents on 3 occasions between May and July 2024. Each time, the landlord attended within the timeframe specified in its repairs policy. The repair records show that 1 of these repairs was raised as an emergency, but it’s not clear why the landlord considered this one as an emergency and not the other 2 reports.
9. When there are failings by a landlord, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
10. The resident said they missed several deliveries and an important postal voting document due to the faulty intercom. The landlord acted fairly by apologising for the distress and inconvenience the resident had experienced whilst waiting for the intercom to be repaired. It sought to put this right by offering £30 for the inconvenience of the loss of service and £10 for right to repair.
11. Although the landlord attended each repair within the timeframes set out in its repairs policy, it did not show that it considered the cumulative impact of several repair reports over a short period, which caused repeated disruption and inconvenience to the resident. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the duration and frequency of the repairs over 2 months.
12. It also did not explain why one repair was prioritised as an emergency over the other 2 repairs, which would have caused confusion to the resident and lacked transparency. Due to these service failures, the landlord must pay additional compensation of £50. This is in line with our compensation guidance for when the landlord has not acknowledged a failing.

13. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) April 2024 requires landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the timescales in the Code.
14. The resident first complained to the landlord on 5 June 2024and he received an automated acknowledgement. When he did not receive any further contact, he emailed the landlord on 17 July 2024 to chase a response. The landlord said it did not have a record of his complaint on 5 June.
15. The resident provided evidence of his original complaint and the landlord acknowledged that the complaint was not processed properly. Considering this, there was a delay of 41 days for the landlord to respond at stage 1. This is significantly outside the timeframe set out in its complaints policy and the Code. The landlord did respond at stage 2 within the required timeframes.
16. Within the landlord’s complaint responses, it details the repair history. However, it did not address the resident’s concerns about the effectiveness of the repairs. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to respond to this point. If it had done so, it may have been able to identify learning it could take to ensure effective repairs in the future.
17. The landlord acted fairly by apologising for its failings in processing the resident’s first complaint. It sought to put things right by offering compensation of £15 for this delay. However, it did not explain why his original complaint was missed or how it would prevent this from happening again. In addition, it has not shown that it considered the resident’s time and trouble in chasing responses or resubmitting his complaint. For these reasons, the landlord must increase its compensation offer by £50. This is proportionate to the failure identified and is in line with our compensation guidance for similar service failings.

Learning

18. As this report sets out, quickly identifying reoccurring repair issues enables clearer understanding of their impact and creates opportunities to improve the effectiveness of future repair responses.

Knowledge information management (record keeping) and communication

19. We did not note any concerns about the landlord’s record keeping during this investigation. However, its communication with the resident could have been better, particularly in how it responded to the complaint. To improve its service in the future, the landlord may wish to review our spotlight report on knowledge and information management.