London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202004153)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004153

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

3 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of window disrepair.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord’s property. The property is a two-bedroom, ground floor flat.
3. In August 2020, the resident contacted the Ombudsman as she was unhappy with her landlord’s response to her reports that her kitchen window would not open. Following our involvement, the landlord subsequently informed the resident on 24 August that it had booked in the repair with the maintenance team. The landlord also issued further complaint correspondence on the same day in response to the resident’s comments that the repair had been outstanding since 2014. Within this, it said:
   1. It had checked the historic jobs raised and could see that the repair was last reported in 2017. As this was over one year ago, it would not raise a complaint unless the resident could show that the issue was ongoing.
   2. The notes for the repair that was raised in September 2017 detail that the resident had cancelled an appointment for 21 September 2017.
   3. It would keep the complaint open until the repair had been booked in and completed.
4. On 21 September 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to enquire what was happening as she had not heard anything further in relation to the repair. As the resident did not receive a response, she contacted the Ombudsman again on 29 September for assistance. Within her email, the resident expressed concern that the landlord had failed to provide her with updates, and that she had been unable to open her kitchen window since 2014.
5. On 9 October, the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that the repair remained on the maintenance spreadsheet as “part of the Covid-19 recovery project”. It said that it was only able to carry out emergency and critical repairs, and was working through the spreadsheet. It added that all complaints with repairs waiting to be allocated had been placed on hold, and once an appointment for the repair was scheduled, the complaint would be progressed. The member of staff who issued the letter informed the resident that she would remain her point of contact, and that she would liaise with her until the repair was complete.
6. The resident subsequently contacted the Ombudsman on 31 March 2021. She said that she had not received any further updates from the landlord, and felt that she was being ignored. She added that the member of staff who had sent the letter of 9 October 2020, had not responded to any further correspondence. The resident said that she was further concerned as when she contacted the landlord on 22 March by telephone, she was informed that there was no record of her complaint.
7. We contacted the landlord and asked it to provide the resident with a formal response to her complaint. In response, the landlord issued a stage two complaint response on 19 April 2021. Within this, it said:
   1. Following its initial correspondence on 13 August 2020, it had written to the resident to advise that the last time a repair had been logged in reference to the kitchen window was September 2017. It said that its records show that the resident had called to cancel this appointment.
   2. It could confirm that its repair services had returned to normal, and it had raised the repair accordingly. The resident could expect contact from its contractor to schedule an appointment.
   3. As the resident’s request to escalate her complaint had not been met, it wished to apologise and offer £25 for the inconvenience caused by the delay. In addition, as a normal repairs service had recommenced on 6 April 2021, it wished to offer £25 for a delay in raising the repair.
8. The resident made further contact with the Ombudsman; and on 9 June, she confirmed that she wished for us to investigate her concerns about the landlord’s handling of the repair. In her correspondence, the resident said:
   1. The window repair remained outstanding.
   2. The assigned member of staff had ignored her correspondence.
   3. The issue with the window had been reported since 2014, and she had never cancelled any appointments that had been scheduled for its repair.
9. The landlord has advised that a job to repair the window was raised in May 2021; however, this was not completed, and a new job was subsequently raised in June 2021. The repair was completed on 26 October 2021.

The landlord’s obligations

10. Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for keeping in good repair the exterior of the unit and property – including walls, roofs, windows, external doors, drains and gutters. The landlord’s responsibility in relation to window repairs includes fixing hinges, locks, stays, handles and other fittings.
11. In relation to timescales, the landlord’s repair policy states that for routine repairs, it will aim to complete the repair “at the earliest mutually convenient appointment”.

Assessment and findings

12. The landlord has provided a copy of its records for the property dating back to 2013. There are a number of entries in relation to the kitchen window, as follows:
    1. The first entry is dated 4 December 2013, and is an email from the resident to the landlord in relation to repairs within the property. Within her email, the resident asked if the side kitchen window could be made such that it was able to open.
    2. The next entry is in April 2017. Within an email dated 12 April, the resident said that she wished to raise a number of repairs. In relation to the kitchen window, she said that she had complained about not having an opening kitchen window for approximately four years, and every other flat within her block had an opening kitchen window. In July 2017, the resident contacted the landlord to raise concerns about a lack of response to her request to have an opening kitchen window installed. The resident added that she had made this request since moving into the property.
    3. On 11 September 2017, the resident emailed the landlord to query why it had refused to provide an opening kitchen window. The resident said other properties within the block had an opening kitchen window, and she wanted to know why hers did not. The resident added that she had queried this with the contractor, but that it had directed her to the landlord. She had since only received an appointment to measure up for a wood framed window on 9 October 2017. She had cancelled the appointment as the measurements had been taken previously, and the window was metal framed.
    4. The landlord and resident continued to exchange correspondence about other repairs through November, and on 29 November 2017 the landlord advised that a surveyor’s inspection had been booked for 10 October, and it had requested an update from the attendance. It asked that the resident wait up to five working days for a response. There is no further reference to the window within the records following this.
13. Given the passage of time, and the lack of evidence available, it is not possible for the Ombudsman to establish what transpired between 2013 and 2017. However, the evidence which is available does not demonstrate that the landlord responded to the resident’s reports appropriately, or in line with its repairs policy as detailed above. The resident had reported that the kitchen window did not open, and there is nothing within the records which shows that the landlord responded to the reports by either investigating the matter further, or completing a repair.
14. When the landlord initially responded to the complaint in 2020, it said that its records show that the repair was last reported in 2017. It added that given the time that had passed, it would not raise a complaint unless the resident could show that the issue was ongoing. The landlord’s response was not entirely appropriate.
15. The landlord’s Complaints Policy states that the policy does not cover “issues which are over six months old unless there are exceptional circumstances”. While it is acknowledged that the resident had raised historic issues, given that the she had alleged that the repair had been outstanding since 2014, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider investigating the matter in full with a view to trying to establish what had happened, and why the repair had not been completed sooner. In addition, given that the landlord’s records for 2017 did not show that the repair had been completed at any time, it was not appropriate to inform the resident that she would be required to show that the issue had been ongoing.
16. In August 2020, following the resident’s contact with the Ombudsman, the landlord appropriately logged the repair for the resident. However, when the resident subsequently queried what was happening towards the end of September, the landlord informed her that the works were on a list of jobs to take place once Covid-19 restrictions had been lifted. While it is noted that the landlord was dealing with emergency repairs only at the time; it would have been appropriate for it to have advised the resident as such in August 2020, in order to manage her expectations. That the landlord did not provide such an explanation was a failing in the service that it provided.
17. In April 2021, following further involvement from this Service, the landlord informed the resident that its repairs service had returned to normal and that the job would be raised accordingly. The landlord appropriately acknowledged that it had failed to notify the resident of this, and that it had not been proactive in raising the repair. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident and to offer compensation for the inconvenience that she was caused.  
18. However, the evidence provided to the Ombudsman shows that the repair remained outstanding for a further six months. It is not clear why, and the landlord has not provided any explanation for the delay or demonstrated that the delay was unavoidable. In the circumstances, it would be reasonable for the landlord to offer the resident further compensation for the inconvenience she has been caused.
19. As detailed above, the evidence provided to the Ombudsman does not demonstrate that the landlord acted appropriately in response to the resident’s reports of window disrepair. However, the evidence also shows that no reports in relation to the window were made by the resident between 2013 and 2017. In addition, there is no evidence of any reports between the end of 2017 and when the resident referred the issue to the Ombudsman in 2020. Although it would not be reasonable to expect a resident to continually chase a repair; the Ombudsman does expect that it would be reasonable for a resident to try to mitigate the inconvenience that was being caused to them.
20. As such, while the landlord’s response to the repair was not in line with its policy, it is not clear why the resident had not raised a formal complaint about the matter sooner. Raising a complaint prior to 2020, would reasonably have alerted the landlord to the fact that the repair was still outstanding, and may have resulted in the repair taking place prior to October 2021. The Ombudsman has therefore taken this into consideration when deciding on the sum of compensation that should be payable in the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

21. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of window disrepair.

Reasons

22. The evidence provided to the Ombudsman does not demonstrate that the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s reports of window disrepair between 2013 and 2017. It is not clear why the resident did not raise a formal complaint about the matter until 2020; however, the landlord should now take steps to put right the inconvenience that was caused to the resident during this time.
23. After the resident contacted the Ombudsman, the landlord appropriately raised a repair for the window. However, the landlord failed to advise that the repair would take place after Covid-19 restrictions had been lifted. When the landlord issued its final response, it acknowledged that it had failed to raise the repair after normal services had resumed, and offered the resident compensation for its handling of the matter, and for the inconvenience caused by the delay. While this was appropriate, the repair was further delayed between April and October 2021, and the Ombudsman has not been provided with any evidence which shows that this delay was unavoidable, or that the landlord appropriately acknowledged this at the time.

Orders and recommendations

24. Within four weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord should:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified by this investigation. 
    2. Pay the resident a total of £325 comprised of:
       1. £300 for the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the repair between 2014 and August 2020.
       2. £25 for the inconvenience caused by the delay in completing the repair between April 2021 and October 2021.
25. Reoffer the £50 which was offered during the complaints procedure, if this has not been previously accepted.