London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202005641)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005641

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

11 November 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

1. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for repairs.
   2. Associated complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident lives in a four-bedroom house where she has held an assured tenancy since 1994, with doors to the garden from the kitchen. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.

The tenancy agreement

3. The tenancy agreement sets out the rights and responsibilities of both the resident and the landlord. This includes that the landlord is responsible for doors and window frames.

The repairs policy

4. The landlord’s Repairs Responsibilities Policy shows, at section 3.0, the landlord as responsible for the structure of the building, including walls and windows. Appendix 1 section D says the landlord is responsible for ‘insecure’ external doors, door handles and closers and door frames or panels when rotten or insecure.

 

 

The complaints policy

5. The landlord’s Complaints Policy 2020 says that complaints will be responded to within 10 working days at stage one, and 20 working days at stage two.

The compensation policy

6. The Compensation Policy 2021 shows at 4.1 that a service failure includes failure to complete repairs to agreed response times.

Summary of events

7. An entry on the landlord’s ‘unit history’ log for the property, dated 2 October 2019, indicates issues with the ‘back door, wooden, gaps around the door and difficult to open and close and handle is moving’. There are no further contemporaneous entries in the log or evidence provided to this Service to indicate any action on this repair before 13 February 2020, when a message was sent to the resident to confirm an appointment for 12 May 2020. However further information from both parties to this Service indicates that there was some communication on the issues. These are detailed below.
8. The landlord’s log shows that calls were attempted on 16 April, 22 April and 7 May 2020 to the telephone number held but that number was not available. The log shows that an appointment made for 12 May 2020 had been suspended by the planners and would be rebooked when normal working resumed.
9. An entry on 15 July 2020 shows the repair was being handled under the landlord’s Covid-19 recovery project. There is no further information until 11 September 2020, when the resident contacted this Service, and said the door had not been repaired since it was reported in October 2019. An appointment on 27 November 2019 was to inspect the work needed, measurements were taken, and the resident was advised a new door was required. The resident waited in all day for an appointment in January 2020, she was then told by the landlord that the letter was in error, and it should have said February 2020.
10. The resident said she had a call from a contractor on 13 February 2020, who said that when he went to collect the door it had not been made, and she was promised it would be ready in March 2020. She was then advised by text of the 12 May 2020 appointment, and again waited in, but nobody came. She was unable to open the back door throughout the summer. The garden was now overgrown, and the resident felt the door was a fire hazard.
11. On 2 October 2020, the complaint was raised with the landlord by this Service.
12. A first stage complaint response was issued on 19 October 2020. The landlord apologised that a review had been required to answer the resident’s concerns. It gave the terms of the complaint to be the resident’s request for repairs to her back door:
    1. A work order was raised on 2 October 2019 in relation to repairs to the back door with an initial inspection on 27 November 2019.
    2. The operative reported back that the doors required renewal, and these were ordered.
    3. An appointment was made to fit the doors on 13 February 2020 but due to a problem with the suppliers, this had to be rearranged to 12 May 2020.
    4. Due to the Covid lockdown, this appointment was cancelled.
    5. The planning team had been asked to confirm a new date and the resident would be advised once this was known.
    6. The landlord had tried to call the resident, but the number was not valid, a new contact number was requested, or email contact offered.
    7. The landlord had learned from the complaint and managers had been briefed, staff interviewed, and this would reflect on their performance.
    8. The resident was offered to contact the landlord again if matters were not fully resolved.
13. The same day, an internal email shows the landlord chasing the appointment for the repair, and an entry on 21 October 2020              shows that a survey to check for asbestos was needed as work to be carried out were a full renewal of the back door and frame. The landlord chased the repair internally on 22 and 29 October 2020.
14. On 4 November 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord and said that the Covid lockdown was no excuse as this issue was initially raised in October 2019. The door was unusable and sealed closed with tape and was a health and safety risk.
15. The resident said that it was wrong to say her mobile number was incorrect, as she gets SMS message on that number. She asked when she was going to get a new appointment for the door.
16. The landlord chased the repair internally on 5 November 2020. A SMS message was sent to the resident to confirm an appointment for 3 December 2020 and a message to arrange an asbestos survey prior to the door appointment was confirmed by the resident for 20 November 2020. The survey found no action was required in respect of asbestos.
17. However, on 7 December 2020, the resident advised the landlord that the doors were not replaced as advised, the operatives only came and measured the doors, which had been done over a year ago. She had heard nothing about the delay and expected the doors to be replaced by Christmas.
18. An email from the landlord on 8 December 2020 explained that when the operative went to the warehouse, the doors meant for the resident had been taken by someone else in error. The operatives then had to take new measurements to install UPVC doors instead. The landlord could not offer an appointment until the doors had been made, which would take a minimum of eight weeks. Apologies were made and the landlord advised that reasonable redress would be provided once the work was completed.
19. The resident responded the next day that she had been advised by the operatives who attended that the doors would be ready in two weeks’ time, the landlord now advised eight weeks and the situation was unacceptable.
20. On the 21 December 2020 this Service contacted the landlord and advised that the resident had no final response to her complaint about repairs to her door. On 18 January 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord chasing the complaint and copying her email of 9 December 2020.
21. The landlord logged a call from the resident on 19 February 2021 chasing the new door as eight weeks had passed, and on 3 March 2021 confirmed that the door would be fitted on 18 March 2021 if that was suitable. The landlord apologised for the further delays as due to the Covid lockdown there had been further delays obtaining the doors.  
22. A stage two complaint response was sent on 16 May 2021. It said that the appointment on 18 March 2021 had been successful and new doors had been fitted. The landlord offered compensation, which it said was outside of the current compensation policy, as all discretionary compensation had been paused from 1 April 2020, due to the Covid lockdown: 
    1.  Inconvenience – 17 months x £10 = £170
    2.  Distress – 17 months x £10 = £170
    3. Time and effort = £100
    4. Missed appointment for 3 Dec 2020 = £20         total £460
23. The landlord said it considered the time the resident had spent chasing the repair. The landlord apologised for the experience and gave contact details to escalate the matter to this Service

Assessment and findings

In relation to the repair

24. The landlord does not dispute liability for compensation. It says the normal compensation policy was suspended due to the Covid lockdown, but it had made an exception and used its standard guidance regarding discretionary compensation. No figures are quoted by way of guidance, but sums are decided by the investigating officer on a case-by-case basis.
25. This is appropriate as the delay in the repair being resolved started prior to the Covid lockdown. There is a lack of contemporaneous records regarding the repair from 2 October 2019 when the problem was reported, to 13 February 2020 when the resident was advised of the May 2020 appointment. The landlord’s first stage complaint response refers to the November 2019 inspection, and the resident also confirmed this, but there is no evidence of the inspection at the time. It may be there are records which were not seen by this Service, or no written record was made of this inspection. This suggests poor record keeping by the landlord.
26. There were errors by the landlord and its contractors in terms of the replacement door being allocated to another resident, and its failure to keep appointments made. There was a mistake in the date given for an appointment in February 2020, and repeated calls made to a number which was seemingly unavailable. There is no evidence of a letter being sent, for example, as an alternative. The resident has said she was able to get text messages to her number from the landlord, so it may be that the wrong phone number was recorded elsewhere.
27. When assessing compensation, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case. While the repair has taken an excessive length of time to address, and there was evidence of the landlord failing to communicate effectively during this time, the Ombudsman accepts that landlords will have experienced difficulties delivering services during the Covid lockdown.
28. However, a landlord would still be expected to maintain communication with residents to manage their expectations of the level of service which they could expect. This repair was brought to the landlord’s attention in October 2019, before the impact of the pandemic in 2020 and was not completed until March 2021.  
29. The compensation offered is in line with what the Ombudsman would expect to see in such cases. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available to view at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Remedies-Guidance.pdf  provides for compensation of between £250 and £700 to be awarded where there has been considerable service failure. This may involve “a complainant repeatedly having to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes, necessitating unreasonable level of involvement by that complainant” and “failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs”.
30. The Ombudsman therefore agrees with the landlord’s offer to pay compensation of £460 to the resident in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its delay in addressing the repair and the inconsistent communication.
31. The resident has indicated no grounds as to why the compensation should be increased from the sum offered, in respect of the delay in the repair.
32. The resident has a separate complaint about the replacement door not having an opening window. This is under HOS reference, 202113296, and has not been assessed here.

In relation to the complaint handling

33. The landlord was advised by this Service, on 21 December 2020, that the resident remained dissatisfied after the first complaint response, but the final response letter was not sent until 16 May 2021. The email from the resident on 7 December 2020 could also have been considered a request to escalate the complaint.
34. There is no reference to this particular delay in the landlord’s stage two complaint letter of 16 May 2021, although apologies were made to the resident for the time spent chasing the repairs.
35. By delaying in its response in this way, the landlord did not allow the resident to proceed through its internal complaints procedure as it should. As a result, it should have acknowledged these failings within its stage two complaint response and made an offer of redress to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its sub-standard complaints handling.
36. Further compensation is warranted in respect of the four month’s delay in the complaint response, in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance for instances of service failure having some impact, but given that the delay in the substantive issue being resolved has been recognised in the offer already made.  

Determination (decision)

The landlord’s handling of the repair

37. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has offered the resident redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the concerns regarding its handling of the repair delay satisfactorily.

The associated complaint

38. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme there has been service failure in respect of the complaint handling. 

 

Reasons

The landlord’s handling of the repair

39. The landlord has accepted the delays and made an offer of compensation in line with the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance.

The associated complaint

40. The landlord’s stage two complaint response was four months late, and this was not acknowledged by the landlord as being outside of its timescales, contrary to its Complaints Policy.

Orders

41. Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should pay the resident an additional £100 in respect of the four months delay in the complaint response being issued.

Recommendation

42. That the landlord reminds all relevant staff of the importance of complete record keeping in respect of appointments planned, confirmed and undertaken; and of holding accurate contact details. 
43. That the landlord pay the resident the £460 compensation it previously offered in respect of the delayed repairs, as the finding of reasonable redress is based on the adequacy of the amount offered by the landlord.