London & Quadrant Housing Trust (201910665)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201910665

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

31 March 2022

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 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

The complaint is regarding:
1. The landlord’s handling of a leak in the resident’s property.
2. The resident being left without heating and hot water for a period.
3. The level of compensation offered by the landlord.
This Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling in this case.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an Assured Tenant of the landlord, a Housing Association. She has resided at her property, a four-bedroom house, since 2012.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints procedure, which it is noted was amended in November 2020, during the period covered by this complaint. The current policy advises the landlord will respond to complaints at Stage One within 10 working days and, if a complaint is escalated, it will provide a response at a Manager Review (Stage Two) stage. The updated policy has added a timeframe for this response, advising it should be sent within 20 working days.

Summary of Events

On 22 October 2019, a leak occurred at the resident’s property. After receiving the report, records show the landlord raised an emergency repair and sent a gas contractor and electrician the same day to make the tank safe and stop the leak and make safe and isolate the electrics respectively. Records indicate that an electrician also attended the following day for an emergency repair after the resident reported the electricity being out in her whole property. This was reinstated on 25 October 2019 and, after an electrician identified a further fault within the boiler the previous day, three ‘zone valves’ were fitted to the boiler on 28 October 2019, after which the resident’s hot water was restored.
However, as above, the resident had remained without hot water in her property until 28 October 2019 and records show that her family therefore booked hotel accommodation for 26 and 27 October 2019.
On 25 November 2019, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. She advised that the landlord had not repaired the leak until 28 October 2019 and the property had been without electricity and hot water for that length of time, which she inferred had caused her children to develop stomach upsets. She also requested compensation for goods and household items that were damaged by the leak, along with additional heating costs she had incurred and her family’s hotel bill. In total, the resident requested £3500 in compensation. The landlord responded to the resident on 12 December 2019 and advised that she should claim on her household insurance, if she had a policy, or she could otherwise contact its own Insurance Team and lodge a public liability claim. It did not address her comments about the length of time taken to complete the repair or her concerns about being left without electricity of hot water for around six days.
The resident submitted a further complaint to the landlord, addressed to its Insurance Team, on 23 December 2019, although this was a typed-up version of the same complaint she submitted in November. The landlord’s Insurance Team wrote back the following day to acknowledge her claim and advise that her claim regarding ‘damage to property and potential illness to your children’ had been passed to its insurers for consideration. However, regarding her claim for ‘alleged service standards lapses, extra electricity costs and hotel room expense, it referred her back to its Complaints and Feedback Team and advised that they would address these issues and ‘will contact you separately’. This Service has not seen any evidence of the landlord providing a further response to her complaint at this stage.
While it is not clear from the information provided exactly when the landlord’s insurers decided the resident’s claim, on 18 May 2020 the responded to an email from the resident and clarified that the claim had been declined. The insurers noted that the landlord was ‘not on notice of any leak issue in our property (which they failed to address) prior to the escape of water, and therefore it is clear that this was an unforeseeable event, over which they had no control’. They concluded that the landlord had not been negligent and were not liable for any damage caused to the resident’s goods. However, the insurers confirmed that their ‘without prejudice offer of £500’ remained available.
The resident forwarded the insurer’s email on to this Service, believing it was evidence of the landlord having exhausted its complaint process. This Service contacted the resident to clarify it was not a complaint response and she should contact the landlord and seek to progress her concerns via its procedures. Following further contact from the resident, this Service wrote to the landlord on 15 June 2020 and requested it engage its complaint process and provide a response regarding the concerns the resident raised about the leak and damage caused to her belongings, the loss of hot water and heating in the property and the amount of compensation that had been offered.
The landlord advised this Service on 22 June 2020 that it believed the issues raised by the resident were new and that it had responded to her complaint in 2019 when it referred her to its insurer. However, it offered to log a new complaint and provide a response.
The insurer wrote to the resident again on 27 June 2020 to clarify its position, noting that she had written to the landlord’s Complaints Team regarding the insurers decision on her claim. It clarified the difference between itself and the landlord and reiterated that it was ‘instructed by (the landlord) to maintain their goodwill gesture offer of settlement…in the sum of £500’ in an attempt to ‘reach an amicable resolution of this matter’.
On 30 June 2020, this Service replied to the landlord and requested that it engage its complaint procedure and provide a response. Despite further contact from this Service to chase, there is no evidence that it did so.
On 4 March 2021, the resident contacted this Service again and provided a copy of an undated letter she had addressed to the landlord’s Chief Executive. She advised that she had received an acknowledgement and been advised she would receive a response by 15 March 2021. In her letter, the resident:
1. Recounted the circumstances of the leak and alleged that it had been caused by a pipe in the boiler ‘eroding away’ and causing an explosion. She stated that the response she had received to her original complaint was ‘disrespectful’ and indicated that the landlord ‘did not take what happened seriously’.
2. Referred to the ‘Building and Fire Safety’ section of the landlord’s website and queried whether an engineer had completed a ‘risk assessment’ every year and why ‘the corrosion within the boiler’ had not been found.
3. Noted that she had advised the landlord she was seeking £3500 in compensation, but she had provided this figure ‘hastily’ and it did not take into account all the damage inside her property. She clarified that she had refused compensation offers of £500 from the insurer, and £1000 and finally £1264.44 from the landlord as they were not reasonable following the ‘damage and turmoil’ her family had experienced.
This Service wrote to the landlord again on 16 April 2021 following contact from the resident and requested that it provide a further response at Stage Two. The landlord finally issued the resident with a Stage Two response on 14 May 2021. In its response, the landlord advised that it understood the resident had complaint in December 2019 about the leak, damage to her possessions and the loss of heating and hot water in her property. It stated that it understood she remained unhappy with the level of compensation that had been offered and was seeking an increased offer. In its response, the landlord made the following findings:
1. It had received a report of a burst water tank in the resident’s property on 22 October 2019 and its gas contractor attended the same day to make the tank safe and shut off the water. An electrician also attended the same day as the property had no electricity, to ‘make safe and isolate the electrics’. The gas engineer reattended the following day to fit parts and ‘left the tank in working order and the hot water was restored’.
2. A further emergency repair was raised on 23 October 2019 as there were no electrics in the rest of the property, except for the resident’s hallway. An electrician attended and reported that there was also no hot water. An engineer attended the following day and reported that ‘the heating controls were tripping due to the water damage’ and some electrical components needed to be changed. They reattended on 28 October 2019 to install three ‘zone valves’ and its records indicated that the hot water was left working.
3. An electrician had also returned to the property on 25 October 2019 and reinstated the electrics.
4. A further emergency repair was raised on 28 October 2019 as its operative had identified that ‘the immersion heater stat needed replacing’, although an electrician attended the same day and found them in working order, instead identifying a different fault which was referred to the landlord’s contractors. An order was raised on 31 October 2019, although this was raised to the wrong trade and cancelled, being re-raised on 5 November 2019 although the outcome of this is not recorded in the repair records seen by this Service.
5. Regarding the compensation offered, the landlord noted that it had offered £1500 ‘for the service failures’ but noted the resident had refused this ‘because it did not include compensation for the cost to run temporary heaters in every room’, or for the ‘cost for your personal items that were damaged’. The landlord clarified that the offer only related to the loss of amenities in the property and that any claim for goods fell outside of the complaint process and lay with its insurers, who had denied the claim. It noted that the insurer had, separate to the complaint processes, offered a £500 goodwill gesture but this had now been withdrawn due to ‘double recovery’ and overlapping with the offer made by the landlord through its complaints procedure.
6. It apologised for ‘the poor level of service (the resident) received’ and for ‘poor record keeping on our side and for our failure to decant you which led to you decanting yourself…while the property dried out’. It noted it had identified learning from the case and its maintenance team had been briefed on its findings and training had been given to its staff and its contractors.
7. It clarified its final offer of compensation amounted to £1575, consisting of:
  1. £300 (£100 for inconvenience caused x 3 months).
  2. £300 (£100 for distress caused x 3 months).
  3. £100 goodwill gesture ‘to cover the electrical costs to run…temporary heaters’.
  4. £100 to cover the loss of hot water in the property.
  5. £500 for the failure to decant her into temporary accommodation.
  6. £100 to cover ‘time and effort chasing’.
  7. £100 for its poor complaint handling.
  8. £75 (£25 for the delay in providing a Stage Two response x 3 months).

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of a leak in the resident’s property

Landlord records show that, after it received a report of a leak at the resident’s property on 22 October 2019, it raised an emergency repair order and attended the same day, sending an engineer to attend to the boiler and shut off the water and an electrician to make safe and isolate the unit. It responded to the report appropriately and attended to the repair in line with its repair procedures. It does not appear to be in dispute that the landlord attended promptly and that its initial response was reasonable.
Following its initial attendance, records show that the resident suffered a loss of electricity through the property, after the electrics were caused to trip by water damage following the leak. However, the landlord again appears to have responded appropriately when notified of the issue, sending an electrician back to the property on an emergency repair order on 23 and 24 October 2019 to investigate and resolve the issue, which was identified as being a separate issue with the immersion heater, after which time replacement parts were fitted on 29 October 2019. Although there is some confusion regarding this, as the landlord’s Stage Two response refers to an electrician stating that the immersion heater was in working order and a separate fault was found which was referred to the landlord’s contractors, overall, the landlord’s response was appropriate and it sought to resolve the issues raised promptly.
While the resident has, in later complaint correspondence with the landlord, referred to Fire Safety issues, there is no evidence that the landlord was in any way negligent through not servicing the boiler. While its repair records indicate that the annual gas safety checks are carried out by a contractor (an entry made in October 2018 notes that the resident was seeking to book a missed annual inspection and the landlord referred the matter to its contractor) there is no indication that the landlord did not carry out any annual checks. From the Ombudsman’s knowledge of similar cases, it is not always possible for engineers to identify faults in non-moving parts, such as pipes, during safety inspections and there is therefore no evidence to suggest that the landlord, or its contractors, were negligent in regards to any checks carried out. There is also no evidence that they could have reasonably been expected to identify that a pipe might burst in the future.

The resident being left without heating and hot water for a period

Information seen by this investigation indicates that the landlord’s records do not make clear exactly how long the resident was left without hot water and heating in her property following the leak. While its repair records indicate that engineers attended and left the property with hot water on 28 October 2019, further repair orders indicate that the issues may have continued for longer, although in her complaint correspondence the resident does appear to concur that the issue was resolved on this date. The landlord has acknowledged in its complaint response to the resident that its repair records are unclear and internal communication seen by this Service also indicates that this lack of clarity made it difficult to calculate how much compensation it should offer the resident.
It was appropriate that the landlord, in its complaint response, acknowledged that the resident was without hot water in her property for at least six days and that it should have considered moving her family to temporary accommodation until this issue was resolved. It apologised for this, which was appropriate, and part of its final offer of compensation reflected the fact that she had been left without hot water (£100) and that she should have been decanted (£500). In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s offer of an apology and £600 in compensation does amount to reasonable redress in the circumstances.
However, it is noted that the landlord originally agreed to also reimburse the resident’s costs for two nights’ hotel accommodation (£164.44) during the period she was left without hot water, but this sum appears to have been left out of its final compensation offer. This matter will be addressed in our findings regarding the landlord’s complaint handling.

The level of compensation offered by the landlord

It is noted that, from the time the resident first contacted the landlord to make a complaint and request compensation for damaged goods, there has been some confusion between the roles carried out by the landlord’s insurers, with whom the resident was appropriately directed to make a claim, and the landlord’s complaints procedure and any offer of compensation they made. Landlord records note that it explained this separation to the resident at one point, but she advised she still wanted one overall offer from both parties. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it was appropriate that the landlord kept the issues separate, as per its policies and procedures and it made reasonable attempts to explain this to the resident.
Once the landlord’s insurers had determined that the landlord was not liable and rejected the resident’s claim for compensation for damaged good, it was positive that the landlord directed the insurer to make a without prejudice ‘goodwill’ offer of £500. At this stage, while this was significantly short of the amount the resident had requested, this was a reasonable step for the landlord to take to try and resolve the complaint, noting that it was not at fault for the leak and not liable for any damage caused.
However, after the resident rejected the goodwill offer and continued to request an increased amount of compensation, the landlord appropriately considered her request in line with its complaints procedure and compensation policy and carried out further investigations. While the length of time it took to make the resident a further offer of compensation was not ideal, records show the landlord communicated with the resident regularly, liaised with appropriate teams behind the scenes to gather more information, and explained how it had come to the amounts it offered at each stage (initially £1000, then £1264.44 before finally offering £1575 in its Stage Two response).
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord acted reasonably and sought to treat the resident fairly by giving her request for compensation due consideration. It also acted fairly by awarding appropriate compensation for service failures it identified during its investigation of the case and the Ombudsman considers that its offer was reasonable and in line with both its stated compensation policy and what this Service would expect to see in similar circumstances.

The landlord’s complaint handling

On receiving the resident’s initial complaint in November 2019, the landlord initially responded promptly, providing a response within its stated target of 10 working days. While it acted reasonably in directing the resident to its Insurance Team after correctly identifying that the main crux of the complaint was related to a request for compensation, it did not appear to consider the other issues raised by the resident, including the fact that she had been left without hot water and heating for a period and that the situation had allegedly made her children ill. This was not appropriate and meant that the landlord did not address the resident’s complaint in full and it did not treat her fairly by considering the concerns she raised. Its response also did not advise the resident of her right to escalate her complaint and did not provide her with any complaint reference number. This was not appropriate.
Thereafter, while there was confusion between the insurance claim process and the complaint procedures, as referred to above, there were further significant delays by the landlord in progressing the resident’s complaint. While the landlord did keep in contact with the resident with regards to its compensation offer, it did not provide any further formal complaint response. Following several further contacts from the resident and this Service, the landlord opened a new complaint in June 2020, advising that the issues the resident had raised to this Service (regarding the lack of hot water and the amount of compensation offered) were new and did not form part of the original complaint. This was only partly true, as the resident’s concerns over being left without hot water had indeed formed part of her original complaint and is another indication that her original complaint was not addressed properly by the landlord.
However, following this, the landlord did not appear to provide a further complaint response until May 2021, when it provided its final response at Stage Two (its Manager Review stage). This was a significant and avoidable delay and caused the resident time and trouble in chasing its response directly, and via this Service.
While it was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged it had delayed in sending a Stage Two response and, in its final response it was appropriate that it offered compensation for this, in the Ombudsman’s opinion its offer fell short of what this Service would expect to see. Its final offer of compensation in respect of its complaint handling of £175 (£100 and £25 per month of a three-month delay in providing the Stage Two response) did not fully reflect the significant length of time – over a year – from the resident’s original complaint to its final response. It also did not fully reflect the inconvenience caused to the resident through her having to contact this Service and chase the landlord for further responses.
Therefore, this Service has made an Order at the end of this report for the landlord to pay a revised sum to better reflect its complaint handling failure. This Service has also made an Order to reflect the fact that compensation it originally awarded the resident during its complaint response to reimburse her hotel stay appears to have been missed from its final award, without any explanation being provided. While the overall amount of compensation awarded to the resident regarding the repair related issues was reasonable, if this was not a simple error, in terms of its complaint handling, then the landlord should have provided an explanation for why this was not included in its final award.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration regarding:
1. The landlord’s handling of a leak in the resident’s property.
2. The level of compensation offered by the landlord.
In accordance with Paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress regarding the resident being left without heating and hot water for a period.
In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure regarding the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Reasons

The landlord responded to the resident’s report of a leak appropriately by treated it as an emergency repair, attended the same day and identified and resolved the problem promptly. There is no evidence that it could have reasonably been expected to predict the pipe would burst and there is no evidence of negligence on its part.
The landlord also acted reasonably when the resident contacted it to make a claim for damaged possessions, appropriately referring her to its insurer, while simultaneously considering whether it should make any offer of compensation for service failures via its complaints procedure.
The landlord acted reasonably when considering the resident’s further request for compensation and it made revised offers after its original offers were declined and it was good practice that it provided explanations for what the overall offer consisted of. It showed that it sought to take into consideration the effect the issue had had on the resident, while maintaining that it was not liable for the original leak and acknowledged that it should have offered temporary accommodation while the property was without hot water and heating. It also acted reasonably in acknowledging issues with its record keeping.
Its initial complaint response was prompt but was did not comply with its complaint procedures as it did not address all the issue the resident raised or advise her of escalation rights. While it continued regular contact with the resident as it tried to reach an agreed compensation settlement, and it acted appropriately when trying to clarify the difference between the response from its insurer and its complaint processes, ultimately there was an unacceptable delay, of over a year, between the resident’s original complaint and it’s final response. This was despite the resident chasing it for further response, and contact from this Service. While it was reasonable that it acknowledged delays in its final complaint response and offered an apology and compensation, the amount offered did not fully reflect the overall delay and failings in its complaint handling

Orders

The landlord should, within four weeks of the date of this letter, pay the resident compensation consisting of:
1. The £1575 originally awarded in its final response.
2. An additional £125 to reflect the delays with its complaint handling (revising the overall award to £300, taking into consideration the £125 award included in the offer above).
3. The £164.44 it originally advised it would pay to cover the resident’s hotel bill.