London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202410241)

Background

1. The resident reported a radiator leak in his flat. To stop this the landlord turned off the water supply. There was a delay in fixing the source of the leak and reinstating the water supply.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to reports of a radiator leak and it turning off the water supply.
   2. Complaints handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of a radiator leak and it turning off the water supply.
4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Response to reports of a radiator leak and it turning off the water supply

5. The landlord delayed restoring the resident’s water due to miscommunication, incorrect repair orders, and access issues. Although it apologised and offered compensation, some repair work remains outstanding.

Complaints handling

6. The landlord acknowledged and responded to the complaint at each stage within the timescales. Its complaint responses covered all points and information that the Code requires.

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.

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.

7. On 31 December 2023, the resident reported that a radiator was leaking. The repairs policy says the landlord will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours. Out-of-hours teams attend within 4 hours to make the situation safe. An out-of-hours operative attended, removed the radiator, drained the system, and identified damaged pipework under the floorboards. He said a carpenter needed to lift the floorboards so a plumber could fix the pipework. He turned off the water supply to prevent further leaks and made the situation safe, in line with the policy.
8. Over the following weeks, the landlord raised multiple orders to reinstate the water supply. The landlord’s procedure states it should arrange follow-on repairs for the earliest mutually convenient time. It should complete routine repairs within an average of 25 calendar days. It raised some as out-of-hours emergencies to get the water reinstated, but operatives noted they could only deliver bottled water as the issue had already been made safe.
9. It recorded some appointments as “no access.” The resident said he was at home during the no access visits. He explained that his doorbell was not working, so he needed a call 30 minutes before arrival. The occupancy agreement states that the landlord will normally give 24 hours’ notice of an appointment unless it is an emergency. However, the landlord’s policy does not require operatives to call ahead. Access remained the resident’s responsibility, however it could have prevented missed appointments if it had accommodated the resident’s needs. The landlord knew the hardwired doorbell was not working, something it is responsible for under its repairs policy. The landlord’s failure to repair the doorbell contributed to the access problems.
10. An internal email in February 2024 shows confusion within the landlord’s teams. The landlord raised the issue as a water supply problem, but the actual fault was a damaged underfloor heating pipe that required a heating engineer, not a plumber. A carpenter also needed to lift the floorboards before the pipe could be repaired. The landlord could not reinstate the water until this work was done.
11. Over the next few months, the landlord made further attempts to resolve the issue. There were more “no access” appointments and difficulties contacting the resident. On 9 May 2024 operatives attended, removed the flooring, fixed the pipe, and refitted the flooring. They reinstated the water supply. They also noted the radiator was missing and needed replacing. That work is still outstanding, far beyond the timescale of 25 calendar days for routine repairs.
12. The resident had no water supply for around 130 calendar days. There is evidence that the landlord tried to rectify the problem. There was miscommunication and confusion around what repair was needed, leading to incorrect repairs being raised. At times, the landlord could not gain access, however if the doorbell is not working there is no way of the resident knowing of its attendance. The landlord missed multiple opportunities to repair the hardwired doorbell, which would have improved access. It is not possible to say if the landlord tried to contact the resident 30 minutes before arrival, as requested by the resident for each appointment.
13. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, repairs, and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
14. At both stages the landlord apologised for delays and setbacks. It recognised the inconvenience of having no water. It offered compensation of £1,600, made up of £800 for time and effort and £800 for distress and inconvenience. This is in line with our remedies guidance, however, there is still outstanding work to be completed. This amounts to maladministration. We have ordered the landlord to complete works for the radiator.

15. The landlord’s definition of a complaint is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). Its complaint policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of logging the complaint. This can be extended by 10 working days for complex cases. It will provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days of the request to escalate. This can be extended by 20 working days for complex cases. This is in line with the Code.
16. The landlord acknowledged and responded to the complaint at each stage within the timescales. The complaint responses covered all points and information that the Code requires. Therefore, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

17. The landlord did not manage access effectively. It was aware that the hardwired doorbell was faulty but did not act on this information, which contributed to repeated failed visits. When a landlord becomes aware of a repair, it should recognise its responsibility, record it and act on it.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

18. There was confusion around what work was needed and repairs raised incorrectly. Had the landlord reviewed its own repair history, it would understand what was required. The operative who attended on 31 December 2023 had already set out the correct follow-on works.

Communication

19. There were difficulties managing communication between the different trades needed. This led to delays because the sequence of work was not coordinated. The landlord needs clear internal communication when multiple trades are needed.