London & Quadrant Housing Trust (201904482)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201904482

London & Quadrant H T

22 December 2020


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 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

  1. The resident complains about the landlord’s response to her concerns that it had not replaced her kitchen.

Summary of formal complaint

  1. In February 2020, the resident contacted the Ombudsman to complain about a lack of action from the landlord relating to her request for a replacement kitchen, which she explained she had been previously promised by a staff member. As the matter had not yet been dealt with via the landlord’s formal complaint process, this Service wrote to ask it to provide a complaint response. It did so on 2 March 2020, explaining that an inspection carried out on 11 October 2019 to assess the kitchen found that the kitchen was in reasonable condition and did not require replacement.
  2. The landlord understood that the resident asserted that a former staff member had said that they would arrange a kitchen replacement, but it was unable to find any confirmation that a kitchen renewal was agreed. It said that if the resident had any evidence to support this agreement, she could forward it for consideration.
  3. Following on from a conversation with the resident about this on 6 March 2020, the landlord wrote to her that same day reiterating that the kitchen did not qualify for renewal. It said digital images were uploaded to its systems from the 11 October 2019 inspection which showed it to be in good condition, and it did not appear dated as the resident had claimed. The resident had requested clarification of the visit as she was unable to recall this, and the landlord advised that it was completed by a member of its Direct Maintenance Team on 11 October 2019. It said “The decision for the kitchen not to be renewed is not open to negotiation or further review. Any repairs to the kitchen can be reported to L&Q in the usual way via the Customer Service Centre…”
  4. The resident made a further complaint about the conduct of the staff member that she spoke to on 6 March 2020. The officer in question responded on 10 March 2020 saying that he had discussed the case with his manager, and the manager was satisfied that he had assisted the resident in a customer focused manner. He said “I recognise I have not provided the answers you sought and that you want L&Q to renew the kitchen. The information you received from me is accurate and I have responded appropriately. Despite your dissatisfaction, in this instance the answers are unlikely to change and I may need to reiterate the same responses.”
  5. The officer confirmed that details, including photographs, confirmed that the kitchen was in good condition at the time of inspection in October 2019. He recognised that components could deteriorate and therefore had asked a surveyor to contact the resident to schedule a new visit to survey the kitchen and report back.
  6. There is no record of this taking place, and the Ombudsman assumes that it did not go ahead at that time due to the subsequent national lockdown. The resident has stated that there have been no further inspections of the kitchen since October 2019.

Assessment and findings

  1. This Service has a very specific role in considering whether a landlord has met its obligations to the resident, in line with any relevant policies and procedures, and taken reasonable steps to resolve the complaint. It is not the role of this Service to decide whether the kitchen at the property requires replacement, but rather to determine whether the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of problems in a reasonable and competent manner.
  2. When investigating complaints, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution: be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes; put things right; and learn from outcomes.
  3. The resident has reported to the Ombudsman that the staff member who looked at the kitchen told her that a new one was required. However, he did not record this and subsequently left the landlord’s employment. She is unhappy because she feels the new kitchen was promised to her and believes that this should be honoured. She also complains about the member of landlord staff she spoke with about her complaint on 6 March 2020, stating that he told her that she would not get a new kitchen  and that she could refer the matter to the Ombudsman but that this Service always sides with the landlord. She is also unhappy with the staff member’s attitude and the way he spoke with her.
  4. This Service has seen from the evidence available that on 10 July 2019 the resident contacted the landlord to complain about multiple outstanding repairs at the property that she said were refused some time ago, and stated that the overall condition of the kitchen was very poor. It is recorded that she said that the last surveyor that attended advised that the kitchen really should be replaced, and that was some time ago. The resident requested that a surveyor attend to properly assess the situation with the kitchen. On 19 July 2019 the landlord called the resident and arranged for an inspection of the property on 24 July 2019.
  5. The landlord acted quickly and appropriately here, responding in a reasonable time frame and ensuring that the kitchen was inspected to determine its condition. This was an appropriate response to the concerns that the resident raised. However, there is no information available of the outcome of this appointment. This is a failing on the part of the landlord, which should keep accurate maintenance records. Having said this, in this case the officer that had attended on 24 July 2019 appears to have gone on unexpected long term leave very soon after the inspection, which perhaps explains why no records were made.
  6. On 26 July 2019 the resident called for an update on the inspection, saying that she had been referred for a new kitchen and asked if the officer had uploaded his report yet. The landlord’s note of this call states no report could be found, but the resident was advised that any works orders from this would be raised. The resident called again on 6 August 2019 asking for an update, and on 20 August 2019 the landlord emailed the officer, copying in the Team Maintenance Manager (the manager) to ask him to update on any works that were required as there was no record of these on the system, advising that the resident kept calling in and was upset by the situation.
  7. A further email was sent to the officer and manager on 28 August 2019 again explaining that the resident kept calling in and was frustrated that no action had been taken since the inspection. The officer was asked to contact the resident urgently to update on works following his inspection, or if he was unable to, for the managers to assign the matter to a supervisor that could pick up the work.
  8. This shows that the landlord was attempting to resolve the matter for the resident, although it would have been better had it proactively updated her rather than the resident having to keeping calling herself to try and determine what was happening.
  9. An internal email from the manager on 28 August 2019 noted that, as the officer was on long term leave, if no information from his inspection could be found they would have to start the process again and re-inspect the kitchen. 
  10. In the circumstances, this was a reasonable course of action to take. However, there is no indication that the landlord took this forward or updated the resident, as she continued to call in to try and find out what was happening with the expected kitchen replacement. Although initially unhappy when the landlord did then explain that the process would have to start again due to the lack of any record of the July inspection, she later agreed (on 9 September 2019) to another inspection being carried out. However, again it does not appear that the landlord took this forward or arranged the inspection.
  11. As she had heard nothing from the landlord, the resident chased it again on 23 September 2019, at which point the landlord raised an inspection for early October 2019. The resident later cancelled this, and asked that it be rebooked. There is no record of a rebooked appointment, but the landlord makes reference in its complaint correspondence to this occurring on 11 October 2019. However, there is no contemporaneous record of an 11 October 2019 inspection of the kitchen in any of the documents that the landlord has provided to this Service.
  12. This is a failing on the part of the landlord. Given that the issues in this case arose due to a lack of records from the July 2019 visit, it would have been especially pertinent for the landlord to ensure a record was made of this inspection.
  13. The resident called the landlord again on 19 December 2019 asking for an update on the kitchen replacement that the officer had agreed to in July 2019, stating that the landlord needed to re-inspect for this. The landlord made internal enquiries asking if a new inspection could be carried out as no referral for a replacement kitchen could be found. There is no evidence that this request for a re-inspection was followed up. It is somewhat confusing that the resident was still expecting a re-inspection at this point, as this suggests that, in her view, none had been carried out at out this point.
  14. On 9 January 2020, in response to a letter sent by the resident asking for a re-inspection of the kitchen (the Ombudsman has not seen a copy of this) the landlord noted that there was an appointment in October 2019 but this had been cancelled. In light of this, a request to reschedule was made that day.
  15. Had a record been made of the October 2019 inspection then this would presumably not have been deemed necessary. But it seems that, as well as the resident being under the impression that an inspection was still outstanding, so was the landlord.  However, once again there is no evidence that this was followed up or any appointment was rescheduled.
  16. After contact from this Service in February 2020, the landlord’s internal emails show that it checked its records and found that an officer had attended the property on 11 October 2019 and had noted in the records “fit new bath panel and frame . fit new shower screen take out #6 raw plugs and grout. A new kitchen was promised by [the previous officer]”.
  17. The Ombudsman does not consider this note is sufficient evidence that a full inspection of the kitchen was carried out or that any decision was made on its replacement. As above, given the nature of this case it would have been especially important to have made a clear record of this.
  18. A request was made on 24 February 2020 for feedback from the officer that attended in October 2019 to determine whether the kitchen required renewal.  It does not appear that this was followed up, as the resident again called for an update on 4 March 2020. It seems she was told that she would be called back, but there is no record that happened. The resident called again on 6 March 2020 and was informed that the kitchen would not be replaced. An internal email from this same date shows the landlord again trying to ascertain .”…the condition of the kitchen in terms of what it’s like and whether it needs renewing or not…I couldn’t locate any useful info on arena about the inspection…I need to answers if we’re definitely not going to replace the kitchen and if it doesn’t warrant it.’
  19. It is concerning that although the landlord could not locate any information about the inspection it nevertheless provided its formal complaint response on 4 March 2020 stating that the kitchen did not require replacement. The evidence shows that it was not until 10 March 2020 that the officer that attended on 11 October 2019 said “…I told the tenant that there was nothing wrong with the kitchen units and that all was needed was a shower screen, a bath panel and 6 holes to be fill where a curtain rail had been.”
  20. In relation to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of the staff member she spoke to on 6 March 2020, as the Ombudsman was not a party to this conversation it is not possible to come to any conclusions about what was stated or the manner in which it was said. However, the landlord’s complaint policy states that “If the complaint in any way relates to staff conduct i.e. their professionalism and/or treatment of the customer, the investigation of this should always be handled by the line manager.” Given that the staff member themselves provided the response (albeit having spoken with their manager) this policy was not correctly followed.

Conclusion

  1. Given the lack of any record of the July 2019 inspection, and in the absence of any request made by the officer that carried this out to replace the kitchen, it was reasonable for the landlord to require a further inspection. While this Service can understand that this was frustrating for the resident, the landlord did not act inappropriately here.
  2. However, following on from this there were a number of failures to follow up and progress the case, which resulted in the resident having to contact the landlord on many occasions to chase, which no doubt was frustrating and time consuming. There is no record of the inspection that the landlord refers to having been carried out on 11 October 2019: Given the nature of this complaint, the landlord should have ensured that this and any decisions made on the kitchen were clearly recorded. Had this been done the further back-and-forth with the resident in December 2019 and early 2020 may have been avoided.
  3. Finally, the landlord responded to the complaint without sufficient information on which to base its response, and the complaint about the staff member was not dealt with by their line manager as per policy.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure on the part of the landlord.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to:

  1. Pay the resident £150 for the time and trouble she has experienced pursuing this matter.
  2. Send a surveyor to inspect the kitchen to determine whether it requires replacement: they must produce a clear record detailing what criteria was used in determining this, and the outcome, and send a copy of this to the resident and this Service.
    1.                   If it is found that the kitchen requires replacement, the landlord should confirm to the resident the timescale in which this work will be done.

Recommendations

  1. The resident has raised concerns about holes in the kitchen wall. Although this is not a matter that formed part of her formal complaint, it would be reasonable for the landlord to assess these as part of the surveyor’s inspection of the kitchen.
  2. The landlord should consider reviewing its maintenance record keeping practices.
  3. The landlord should ensure staff are reminded of the policy for dealing with complaints about staff members.