London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202003890)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202003890

London & Quadrant H T

26 July 2021

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

This complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of issues with parking at this property.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request that the windows in his bathroom and kitchen be replaced.
3. The landlord’s response to the recommendations made in an inspection of mould in the resident’s flat, in January 2020, and saying that the mould in the resident’s property was due to the resident’s lifestyle.
4. The landlord advising the resident that he did not have sole use of the garden at his property and that a fence he installed may have to be replaced.
5. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: ‘are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure’.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of issues with parking at this property is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
On 7 July 2020, the landlord emailed the resident regarding a report he had made about a parking issue between him and his neighbour. The resident responded on 9 July 2020 to express his dissatisfaction at the landlord’s handling of this and his previous reports concerning parking at his property. There is also evidence of the resident’s local councillor pursuing this with the landlord. However, there is no evidence of this matter having exhausted the landlord’s formal complaints process.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy commenced on 28 January 2019. The property is a one-bedroom ground floor flat.
The resident has been represented throughout the complaints process by his local councillor.
The landlord has advised that the resident is no longer a tenant of the property.

Summary of Events

On 18 March 2019, the resident contacted the landlord to report that his windows were drafty and not closing properly. The landlord’s repair records note that the works were completed on 8 April 2019. The landlord’s records do not state what works were carried out.
On 10 April 2019, the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord about his windows. The resident said that the seals were rotten and that he could put his finger through the wooden frames.
On 15 April 2019, the resident contacted the landlord again about his windows. The landlord emailed the resident later the same day to advise that it had arranged for its area supervisor to visit his property on 30 April 2019 to inspect his windows. The visit took place on 30 April 2019 and the landlord emailed the resident the same day to confirm that his windows had been referred for renewal to its planning team.
On 24 May 2019, the resident called the landlord for an update on the replacement of his windows. The landlord’s records note that it advised the resident that it would not be replacing the windows at his property at that time.
On 24 June 2019 another job was raised to carry out repairs to the windows. The job record notes that this job did not include the bedroom window as that was being replaced. This job was cancelled. On 26 June 2019, the landlord emailed the resident to advise that its planning team had confirmed that they would not be dealing with his windows.
On 17 July 2019, a property manager visited the resident’s property following a complaint from a neighbour that the resident had erected a fence in the garden.
On 19 July 2019, the landlord emailed the resident to explained that the garden was intended to be communal and was not for his sole use. The landlord said the best compromise would be to reduce the height of the fence to an acceptable level. The landlord explained that this would take into consideration not only the resident’s wishes but those of the whole block, as well as being an acceptable arrangement for the landlord. The resident called the landlord the same day to express his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response and to log a complaint.
The landlord’s invoice from a double glazing company dated 18 September 2019 shows they carried out works at the property including replacing the bedroom window as well as “multiple repairs” referencing a job number. The same job number is included in a quote dated 17 July 2019 from the same double glazing company which proposed replacing the kitchen window gasket and adjusting and setting vertical sliding window. The date given for completion of the works was 17 September 2019.
On 17 October 2019, the resident contacted the landlord to request that the landlord look at all his windows as they were all swelling and were very hard to open. The landlord’s repair records note that a job was raised the same day and completed on 23 October 2019. The landlord’s records do not state what works were carried out.
On 13 November 2019, Environmental Health (EH) inspected the property in response to a concern received from the resident regarding disrepair at the property.
On 15 November 2019, the resident called the landlord to again chase its complaint response. The resident advised the landlord that EH had visited his property on 13 November 2019, that the windows were not acceptable, and they would be sending the landlord a report about this.
On 25 November 2019, EH sent a letter to the landlord recommending the following remedial works:
1. Repair or replace the timber kitchen window as it was “swollen and stick shut”.EH stated the window required a large amount of remedial work to repair and therefore it was likely to be more cost effective to upgrade/replace this.
2. The current extract fan is old and should be tested to ensure it is still working effectively. Test kitchen extract fan and allow for any remedial works necessary.
On 11 December 2019, a job was raised to apply a mould wash to treat the mould at the property. The landlord records note that on 23 January 2020, the mould was treated in the kitchen, bedroom and around the framework of the rear doors.
On 13 December 2019, the landlord raised a job to attend and check the bathroom and kitchen fans. The landlord records note that this work was completed on 18 December 2019. The landlord later said that both fans were in good working order on the day of the visit.
On 2 January 2020, the resident again contacted the landlord to chase its response to his complaint.
On 16 January 2020, a damp and mould specialist inspected the property. The report from the inspections concluded that the dampness in the property was due to condensation’’. The report recommended that that the resident should maintain consistent levels of heat and ventilation to help combat condensation and remove as many sources of water vapor as possible. The report also recommended that the landlord should ensure effective trickle vents are installed to the single glazed windows to the rear of the reception room and kitchen, to provide cross flow ventilation. The report also recommended that the landlord install effective extractor fan in the resident’s kitchen or attend to and repair to good order existing unit.
In an email of 13 February 2020, to Environmental Health the landlord confirmed that all the windows in the property had recently been repaired with new gaskets and hinge adjustments, and that the rear bedroom window had been renewed as it was beyond repair. The landlord also said that its planned works have all been put on hold at present, so no full replacements were taking place for the time being. Environmental Health emailed the landlord the following day to thank the landlord for keeping it informed and for the action it had taken to resolve the issues raised. Environmental Health said that it would contact the resident at the end of February in view of closing the case.
The landlord issued its Stage 1 response on 14 February 2020. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint, stating that it was satisfied that there were no failures in the service the resident had received, and that its staff had adhered to landlord responsibilities. The landlord said that the operative who attended the property on 23 October 2019 and had reported that his windows were in reasonable condition and therefore did not qualify for replacement. The landlord also confirmed that the windows were not scheduled for replacement in the forthcoming planned programme of improvements, but that it would arrange for a further assessment of the windows to identify if any repairs were required.
The landlord confirmed that an operative attended the property on 18 December 2019 to check the kitchen and bathroom extractor fans, which were both confirmed to be in good working order. The landlord also confirmed that on 23 January 2020 an operative attended the resident’s property to treat the mould. The landlord said that mould was treated in the kitchen, bedroom and from around the framework of the rear doors and that the finished result was ‘‘greatly improved’’. The landlord also referred to the specialist inspection on 16 January which recommended that the resident manage condensation by using the heating and ventilating system.
With regards to the garden, the landlord said that it recognised that there was confusion surrounding the garden and that the resident had understood that the garden came with the property and was therefore his. The landlord also confirmed that it had agreed to arrange a consultation exercise with other residents to gain feedback about the garden and what would be the best outcome for all parties. The landlord said that it had written to the resident on 17 January 2020 to provide him with the outcome of the consultation and that the garden would be divided three ways. The landlord said that it had not heard back from the resident following its January letter. The landlord said that the works would take place in the new financial year, post April 2020, but that it was unable to give an installation date at present but would let the resident know when it had more information. The landlord also acknowledged the resident’s concerns about the cost he incurred installing the fence and that it would be willing to review if it could make a contribution towards those costs. The landlord asked that the resident send receipts of the fencing materials he purchased.
On 17 February 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to express his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s Stage 1 response. The resident said that when he was offered the property he was ‘‘mis-informed’’ that the garden was solely his and had he known that the property did not have its own garden he would not have accepted it. The resident said that he also wanted compensation for the garden equipment he had purchased and would provide the landlord with copies of the relevant receipts.
The landlord issued its final response on 3 March 2020.The landlord gave the same response as it had given in its Stage 1 response with respect of the resident’s reports of repair to his windows, confirming that it had arranged for a further assessment to be done and that an appointment date had now been provided.
The landlord also gave the same response as it had given in its Stage 1 response with regards to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in his property, confirming that it had attended the property on 23 January 2020 to treat mould and an operative attended the property on 18 December 2019 to check the kitchen and bathroom extractor fans, which were both confirmed to be in good working order. The landlord also confirmed that a damp and mould specialist had attended the resident’s property on 13 January 2020, had found no structural issues which could cause elevated moisture and recommended that the resident manage condensation by using the heating and ventilating system.
With regards to the garden, the landlord apologised to the resident that the details he was given when he moved in were wrong. The landlord also said that its staff have been reminded of the importance of giving accurate guidance and checking land registry to ensure they are aware of responsibility for gardens and boundaries. The landlord said that it had written to the resident on 17 January 2020 to advise him of the outcome of the consultation it had carried out with the neighbour, which was that the garden would be divided three ways. The landlord confirmed that this would be implemented in the new financial year when funds were available. The landlord said that the fence the resident had installed would stay in place in the short term and that if a new fence was installed the resident could install trellis to prevent his dog from escaping and that the landlord would be ‘‘happy to provide a financial gesture towards the cost closer to the time depending on what the outcome is’’.
The landlord ended by saying that, as all the issues raised had been answered, lessons had been learnt and compensation awarded, it was satisfied that the resident’s complaint had been responded to appropriately and therefore a further review or escalation would not add value. The landlord advise the resident that his complaint was now closed and that, if he wanted to seek a further review of his complaint, he could now approach the Housing Ombudsman Service.

Assessment and findings

Policies, procedures, and agreements

The tenancy agreement sets out the rights and responsibilities for the landlord and the resident. In general terms, the landlord is required to maintain and keep in good repair the structure of the building, this includes windows, external doors, and penetrative and rising damp. The landlord’s tenants’ repairs and maintenance booklet confirms this responsibility. The tenant’s repairs and maintenance booklet also confirms that the landlord has a responsibility to repair extractor fans.
The landlord’s complaints policy provides for a two-stage complaint process. At stage one, the complaint is to be acknowledged within one working day, an action plan agreed within ten working days, and the landlord is to “ensure the resident is kept up to date with progress”. No time limits are provided for when the stage one or final stage resolutions are to be issued.
The landlord’s compensation policy provides for awards of discretionary compensation “in recognition of the time and trouble the customer may have taken” to resolve the issue and confirms it does not pay compensation for any loss of earnings. No limits are specified for this compensation.

Assessment

The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns by adhering to its policies, procedures, and any agreements with the resident, and that the landlord behaved reasonably, taking account of what is fair in all the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request that the windows in his bathroom and kitchen be replaced

The resident complained that the windows in his bathroom and kitchen should be replaced but the landlord had said that it did not intend to do so.
The landlord is obliged to inspect and carry out any repairs to windows, in line with its repairing obligations. If the windows are beyond repair then the landlord is obliged to replace them.
The resident first reported his concerns about his windows being drafty and not closing properly on 18 March 2019. The landlord recognised its obligation to repair the windows and the repairs were completed on 8 April 2019.
Following reports from the resident on 10 and 15 April 2019 that the seals were rotten and that he could put his finger through the wooden frames. it was appropriate for the landlord to carry out an inspection of the windows on 30 April 2019 to confirm the condition of the windows and what further action, if any, might be required.
Following the inspection the landlord advised the resident that his windows had been referred for renewal to its planning team. There is no evidence of the landlord explaining to the resident the reason for the referral. A copy of the inspection report form and the referral to the planning team have not been seen by this service.
In a telephone conversation with the resident on 24 May 2019 and later in writing, on 26 June 2019, the landlord advised the resident that, other than his bedroom window, it would not be replacing the windows at his property.
The landlord arranged for a double glazing company to replace the bedroom window at the property and carry out repairs to the kitchen window including replacing the gasket. It is evident that this work was completed on 17 September 2019.
A further inspection by the landlord took place on 23 October 2019, following reports from the resident that his windows were swelling and were very hard to open. On that occasion the inspection concluded that the windows were in reasonable condition and therefore did not qualify for replacement.
The resident then contacted EH regarding the condition of his windows and an inspection was carried out by EH on 13 November 2019. In its report to the landlord dated 25 November 2019, EH recommended that the landlord repair or replace the timber kitchen window as it was “swollen and stuck shut”.
On 13 February 2020 the landlord emailed EH an update on the actions it had taken regarding the resident’s windows confirming that: it recently replaced the bedroom window as it was beyond repair and; all the windows in the property had recently been repaired with new gaskets and hinge adjustment. The evidence provided to this service confirms the bedroom window was replaced therefore showing that the landlord acted in accordance with its repairing obligation in this instance. However, the evidence indicates that the gasket and repair work to the kitchen window was completed on 17 September 2019 which was prior to the EH inspection on 13 November 2019. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to have to have completed further remedial works or replaced the kitchen window, in accordance with EH recommendation due to the kitchen window not functioning as it should. There is no evidence to establish the landlord did this work.

The landlord’s response to the recommendations made in an inspection of mould in the resident’s flat, in January 2020, and saying that the mould was due to the resident’s lifestyle

The resident has complained that the landlord failed to carry out the works recommended following an inspection of his property by a damp and mould specialist on 16 January 2020. The resident has also complained that the landlord said that the mould was due to his lifestyle.
The inspection report recommended that the landlord should either replace or repair the extractor fan in the resident’s kitchen. There is no evidence that these works were carried out nor did the landlord provide the resident with an explanation as to why it did not do so.
The report recommended that the landlord install trickle vents to the windows in the resident’s reception room and kitchen. There is no evidence that these works were carried out nor did the landlord provide the resident with an explanation as to why it did not do so.
Having carried out their inspection the damp and mould specialist concluded that the dampness in the property was due to condensation. The landlord was entitled to rely on the opinion of the specialist, who it employed to provide it with specialist advice. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it was fair and reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident that the mould in his property was due to the resident’s lifestyle.
The landlord referred to the inspection its final response, but this was only in relation to the recommendation that had been made regarding the resident managing condensation in his property. The landlord failed to refer to the works recommended in the report nor did it take the opportunity to explain what action it had taken or intended to take regarding the extractor fans and the trickle vents to the windows.

The advice the landlord gave the resident about his having sole use of the garden at his property and that a fence he installed may have to be replaced

The resident has complained that the landlord had originally told him he was the sole user of the garden but was subsequently advised the garden was communal. The resident is seeking a financial contribution from the landlord for the works he carried out to the garden.
Having reviewed the evidence, I am satisfied that the landlord took a fair and reasonable approach to resolving resident’s complaint.
The rights and obligations of the resident, and the landlord, are primarily derived from the terms of the tenancy agreement. The resident’s tenancy terms and conditions describe the obligation on the resident to maintain ‘‘any garden let to you as part of your tenancy’’. However, the resident’s tenancy agreement makes no reference to a garden, sole or otherwise, forming part of his tenancy agreement with the landlord.
In its final response the landlord recognised that the resident was given incorrect advice about the garden and acknowledged that its lettings and housing management teams had told the resident that the garden formed part of his tenancy and was solely his to use. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident that the details he was given when he moved in were wrong. It was also appropriate for the landlord to ensure that its staff were reminded of the importance of giving accurate guidance and checking land registry.
In addition to acknowledging and apologising for the confusion surrounding the garden, the landlord also agreed to carry out a consultation with all the resident regarding garden arrangements and the creation of fully private gardens to the rear of the block.
Following the consultation, the landlord confirmed that the garden would be divided into three private gardens and that the works would commence in the following financial year.
The landlord also responded appropriately with regards to the fence the resident had installed by asking the resident to provide it with receipts for the fencing material he purchased and agreeing to review whether it could make a contribution to the costs he had incurred.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The resident has complained about a failure by the landlord to response to his complaints within a reasonable period of time.
The resident initially logged a formal complaint with the landlord about his windows on 10 April 2019. Having had no response to his complaint, the resident chased the landlord on 20 and 23 September 2019.
On 2 January 2020, the resident again contacted the landlord to chase its response to his complaint again.
The resident emailed the landlord to express his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s Stage 1 response on 17 February 2020 and the landlord issued its final response on 3 March 2020.
Both of the Stage 1 and Stage 2 responses were issued in accordance with the landlord landlord’s complaints policy which states that there are no time limits for when the stage one or final stage resolutions are to be issued.
However, the landlord’s failure to acknowledge the resident’s complaint and keep him up to date with that complaint was not appropriate. This is because landlord’s complaints policy states that complaints are to be acknowledged within one working day, an action plan agreed within ten working days, and that the landlord is to ensure the resident is kept up to date with progress.
Whilst there is evidence of the landlord communicating with the resident regarding the substantive issues, there is no evidence of the landlord acknowledging the resident’s complaint until it issued its Stage 1 response on 14 February 2020, causing understandable distress and frustration to the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request that the windows in his bathroom and kitchen be replaced.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the recommendations made in an inspection of mould in the resident’s flat.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no service failure by the landlord in respect of it advising the resident that he did not have sole use of the garden at his property and that a fence he installed may have to be replaced.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord appropriately responded to the resident’s report of repair to his windows in March 2019. Following further reports of repair to the resident’s windows the landlord carried out an inspection of the windows, following which his windows were referred to the planning team. The planning team agreed to replace the resident’s bedroom window but not the other windows in his property. A further inspection on 23 October 2019 reported that the resident’s other windows were in a reasonable condition and did not qualify for replacement. The other windows were also inspected by EH on 13 November 2019 who recommended that the landlord repair or replace the kitchen window as it was not functioning as it should. There is no evidence that the landlord provided any further repair of the kitchen window or of it providing a replacement.
The landlord failed to either: carry out the works to the trickle vents to the windows in the resident’s reception room and kitchen and replace or repair the extractor fan in the resident’s kitchen, recommended following the damp and mould specialist’s inspection of the resident’s property; or to provide the resident with an explanation as to why it did not do so.
The resident’s tenancy agreement makes no reference to a garden, sole or otherwise, forming part of his tenancy agreement with the landlord. Nevertheless, the landlord acknowledged and apologised to the resident for the incorrect advice he had been given at the start of his tenancy about the garden being for his sole use. To resolve this, the landlord carried out a consultation with the other resident’s in the block, following which it was agreed that the communal garden would be split into three private gardens. The landlord also asked the resident to provide receipts for the fencing material he purchased and agreed to review whether it could make a contribution to the costs he had incurred.
The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s initial complaint in line with its Complaints Policy, failing to acknowledge the resident’s complaint on 10 April 2019 or his subsequent emails on 20 and 23 September 2019. Once the landlord had issued its Stage 1 response there were no further complaint handling failures.

Orders

That within 6 weeks of this order, the landlord is to pay the resident £200, made up as follows:
1. £75 for its failure to either carry out the recommended works to the trickle vents to the windows in the resident’s reception room and kitchen or to provide the resident with an explanation as to why it did not do so.
2. £75 for its failure to either carry out the recommended works replace or repair the extractor fan in the resident’s kitchen or to provide the resident with an explanation as to why it did not do so.
3. £75 for its failure to repair or replace the kitchen window in accordance with EH’s recommendation.
4. £50 for its complaint handling failures.
The landlord shall contact this Service within 6 weeks of the date of this determination to confirm that it has complied with the above orders.