London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202009045)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009045

London & Quadrant H T

21 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

The complaint refers to:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs following a leak from the roof of the resident’s building.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for distress and inconvenience and costs incurred as a result of the leak.
3. The resident’s request for his rent to be reimbursed and concerns about service charge increases.
4. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

The resident’s request for his rent to be reimbursed and concerns about service charge increases

Paragraph 39(g) of the Scheme states:
1. The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase.
As part of his communication with the landlord and this Service, the resident expressed concern about his liability to pay rent and the increased service charges. Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent or service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and the resident may wish to seek free and independent legal advice from the Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE) (https://www.lease-advice.org/) in relation to how to proceed with a case.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a shared-ownership leaseholder of the property, maintained by the landlord. The property is a flat within a block of flats and was considered a new build property when the resident signed the lease. A leak occurred from the roof in April 2020 and affected several flats in the building.
The resident emailed the landlord on 30 April 2020 and explained that there had been considerable water damage to his property caused by an ongoing problem with the faulty roof. He asked the landlord to explain its course of action as the water was currently coming through his light fittings and he was concerned about his family’s safety.
The landlord called the resident the following day to establish the exact location of the leak into his property. It said that it had raised this matter internally to be referred to the property developer which built the block of flats. In addition, it arranged for an electrician to attend the resident’s property on 4 May 2020.
The resident emailed the landlord on 7 May 2020 for an update. He asked what plans the landlord had if there was heavy rain and the property became unsafe. The landlord responded the same day and advised that the developers were aware of the issues and were waiting for materials to be delivered for the roof repair.
The resident asked the landlord for a further update on 12 May 2020. He expressed concern that he had young children in the property and that the property could become uninhabitable. The landlord responded the following day and again explained that the roof leaks had been reported to the developers and said it had been working with its managing agent to follow-up on all roof repairs.
The landlord called the resident on 22 June 2020 to advise that the developers had attended on 19 June 2020, and it was waiting for a report regarding the follow-on works needed.
On 10 August 2020, the resident raised a formal complaint and explained the following:
1. He had notified the landlord of the ‘catastrophic’ water damage to his property in April 2020. However, he was unsure whether the repairs had been carried out and the considerable internal damage remained.
2. He had withheld his rent for two months because he needed a cash reserve to be able to pay for a hotel at short notice, should the property become uninhabitable. He had asked the landlord to discuss a contingency plan should his family need rehousing but this had not been answered.
3. He had needed to stay at home when the leaks occurred to empty buckets and prevent further damage, which meant that he had suffered a loss of earnings. In addition, he and his partner were both key workers, and the stress of potentially needing to move during the Covid-19 lockdown was affecting his health.
4. He explained that the staff member he had discussed this with had failed to keep him updated on the progress of the works despite saying they would do so. He asked for the repairs to be rectified in a timely fashion.
The resident raised the same complaint through an online complaint form on 17 August 2020. He asked the landlord to fix the roof to the required standard to prevent further leaks. He also asked for his rent payments to be reimbursed from April 2020 until the issue was resolved. He added that he wanted compensation for his loss of earnings and other additional costs.
The resident completed a further complaint form on 17 September 2020 and explained that he had raised several complaints about the lack of communication but had not received a response. He asked the landlord to address his complaint.
The landlord’s records show that it emailed the resident on 17 September 2020 and apologised that it had not been in touch sooner. It confirmed that the developer had now fixed the roof and had been in touch with the resident regarding the internal works needed to his property. The developer had asked its contractors to contact the resident to arrange an appointment. The landlord had asked the developer for a report of the works completed, but this had not yet been provided. The landlord explained that any compensation claim would need to be raised directly through the developer, as the defects and repairs were not within the landlord’s control. For this reason, it encouraged the resident not to withhold rent. It acknowledged that the resident had not been regularly updated since the works to the roof began and confirmed that it would regularly update him moving forward.
The resident completed a further complaint form on 28 September 2020. He explained that the repair works were not complete and that the landlord had not followed its complaints procedure or communicated effectively. The landlord’s records show that a telephone call took place on the same day and the landlord sent its initial response again. It confirmed that it would speak to its complaints team about his request for compensation and update him by close of business on 2 October 2020.
On 30 September 2020, the resident reported that despite the repair work, the leak had returned to his bedroom after heavy rain that day. He expressed concern that the problem had not been resolved after seven months and asked the landlord to arrange temporary accommodation for him and his family.
The landlord responded on 1 October 2020 and apologised that he was still experiencing roof leaks. It confirmed that it had passed this information on to the developer for an urgent response. It explained that it had raised the roof repair works to a senior level and had asked the developer to carry out a full roof replacement. It was not able to arrange for temporary accommodation as the resident was a leaseholder. It explained that if he felt the property was uninhabitable, he would need to contact his insurance company, who should provide cover for circumstances such as these. It confirmed that to consider his claim for compensation, it would need a quantifiable breakdown of the amount he was seeking.
The resident responded on 5 October 2020 and explained the following:
1. He confirmed that the developer had said that the remedial works would begin on 2 November 2020 and take four days. However, he was concerned that the roof would need a complete replacement in the longer term, and that he may have been mis-sold the property.
2. He expressed dissatisfaction that his service charge had increased despite the issues he and other residents had endured. He said that he would investigate the fairness of these increases.
3. He explained that he had endured a ‘catastrophically’ leaking roof from 28 April 2020 until September 2020 with lesser instances of water entering the property before and after these dates. He added that additional stress was caused by the Covid-19 lockdown and fear of becoming homeless for much of this time.
4. He asked the landlord to reimburse him for the rent he had paid between May and September 2020, which amounted to £4780. He also asked to be compensated for loss of earnings for the time he had off work in relation to the roof leaks, this amounted to £932.58. He added that he had also purchased a dehumidifier at a cost of £149.99. Therefore he requested a total of £5862.57 compensation.
The resident emailed the landlord for an update on the progress of his compensation request on 8 October 2020. The landlord then explained the following:
1. It attached its compensation policy and explained that, because of Covid-19, it would only make statutory compensation payments in line with its legal obligations and no discretionary payments would be made.
2. It confirmed that a payment of £250 would be given to residents who needed to source temporary accommodation or were forced to leave their properties, but this did not apply to the resident as he had continued to live in the property during this period.
3. It also explained that it would not cover the resident’s request for compensation for loss of earnings during this period as this was not a statutory payment. It said that it was able to refund the cost of the dehumidifier if the resident provided a receipt for this.
The resident responded on 12 October 2020 and said that he would pursue this matter further as the landlord was not prepared to offer any realistic compensation. He added that he had asked for emergency accommodation in April 2020 but the landlord had ignored this. He noted that the landlord had told him to approach the developer for compensation but felt the landlord should be responsible for ensuring that the work carried out was of a suitable standard as he paid rent to the landlord.
The landlord emailed the resident on several occasions between 27 November 2020 and 12 January 2021 to ask about the progress of the repairs to his property and to check that the developers had maintained communication with him. The resident later confirmed that the repair works were completed in mid-December 2020. He explained that he still wished to pursue compensation.
On 21 January 2021, the landlord emailed the resident and explained the following:
1. It acknowledged that the resident had raised a complaint in August 2020 and it was writing to formally close his complaint. It noted that the repair works were now completed but this was eight months after the issue was first reported. It apologised for the length of time it had taken. It confirmed that the developer had accepted full responsibility for the roof defects and it was working to find a permanent solution following the patch repairs completed. It confirmed that it was pursuing a full roof replacement with the developer.
2. It confirmed that the resident should make any claims for compensation relating to damage, loss of earnings or additional costs directly to the developer. It hoped that the developer had worked with the resident to source like-for-like replacements of his fixtures and fittings, but if this was not the case, it asked the resident to get in touch.
3. It acknowledged that the resident was dissatisfied with its communication during this period and apologised for the distress and frustration caused. It accepted that its initial communication should have been better, but it had since put processes in place to improve its communication with all affected residents. It said that it would continue to keep in contact to ensure all issues were dealt with in a timely manner.
The Ombudsman emailed the landlord on 10 February 2021 and asked it to provide a formal response to the resident by 17 February 2021.
The landlord emailed the resident on 12 February 2021 and explained that following contact from this Service, it would now aim to provide a stage two complaint response within 20 working days.
The landlord issued its stage two complaint response to the resident on 12 March 2021 and explained the following:
1. It apologised that the resident had not received any communication or acknowledgement following his initial complaint in August 2020. It said that the case owner should have made contact. Since they did not, all further communication had been dealt with by a manager.
2. It detailed the history of the resident’s complaint and confirmed that the level of service provided was not reflective of the high standards it aimed to provide. It said it should have managed the roof repairs, communication and the resident’s complaint more effectively.
3. It explained that it was unable to consider compensation for the resident’s loss of earnings or annual leave as it had to be fair and consistent to all residents. It added that it could not reimburse the resident’s rent for this period as this did not form part of its policy.
4. It acknowledged that the developer had reimbursed the resident for belongings which were damaged by the leak and offered £320 compensation. It said that this figure recognised the repair delays, poor communication and the time and effort he had spent seeking a resolution.
The resident emailed the landlord on 19 March 2021 and explained that he did not accept the landlord’s offer of compensation. This amount would not cover the cost of purchasing dehumidifiers and the electricity used to run them. He explained that the circumstances had caused a large amount of stress for his family, and he had needed to withhold rent to create a contingency fund in case of emergency. Overall, he did not feel that the landlord’s offer of compensation was reasonable or representative of the costs and stress he had incurred.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

The resident has said he considers that the issues affecting his property have impacted his health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to decide on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s handling of the roof leak and the resident’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident and his family experienced because of any errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about his health.

The landlord’s handling of repairs following a leak from the roof of the resident’s building.

The landlord’s homeowner repairs policy states that the landlord would be responsible for repairs needed to the structure and exterior of the property, including the roof. The roof leak was due to a defect in the build of the property and it was therefore reasonable for the landlord to refer any repairs to the developer in the first instance, as it would be the developer’s responsibility to put right any build defects.
If the landlord did not approach the developer and carried out the repairs itself then it would likely cost a lot of money which would affect residents’ service charges and the landlord’s overall budget in the future, meaning other major works might need to be put on hold due to lack of funds. Usually for new build properties there is a warranty and the landlord may have also invalidated the warranty (if there was one) by carrying out this work itself rather than arranging for the developer to do it. In view of this, it was appropriate for the landlord to ask the developer to carry out the roof repairs.
It is not disputed that the time taken to complete the roof patch repair and internal repairs to the resident’s property between April 2020 and December 2020 was significant. The landlord acted appropriately following the resident’s report of damage caused by the leak by referring the repair issues to the developers on 1 May 2020. The landlord was limited in the steps it could take to resolve the situation more quickly as it was the developer’s responsibility to arrange contractors to attend the property and the landlord did not have direct control over this. There were additional delays over the course of 2020 due to restrictions in place because of the Covid-19 pandemic. Any further delays attributed to Covid-19 also fell outside of the landlord or the developer’s control.
The landlord referred the repairs to the developers in a timely manner; and it took reasonable steps to follow up with the developer to monitor progress. However, it has not taken proactive steps to communicate any delays to the resident, explain the reasons behind any delays or answer his concerns about what would happen if the property became uninhabitable. The lack of clear communication was likely to cause the resident inconvenience and uncertainty in relation to when the work would be completed, and it is noted that the resident spent time chasing this information from the landlord.
Whilst it is noted that the landlord told the resident that the developer would be in touch regarding repairs, the landlord should have provided greater clarity to the resident regarding who had ownership over the repairs in May 2020. This was not fully explained to the resident which is likely to have caused further uncertainty. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its processes for communicating with residents about repairs involving a third-party developer to ensure that it adequately explains its obligations and manages residents’ expectations effectively.
The landlord should have addressed the resident’s questions about what would happen if the property became uninhabitable from the outset, but its advice that he should speak to his insurance provider was correct. Leaseholders are expected to have their own insurance for their property and in general, it would be the resident’s insurer rather than the landlord’s responsibility to rehouse the resident should the internal parts of the property become inhabitable.
It is noted that the resident is unhappy about the patch repairs to the roof and is concerned about what would happen in the future if the roof were not fully replaced. It is understandable that the resident may find this concerning but ultimately, we cannot comment on what will happen in the future. If there are further leaks the landlord would be responsible for arranging repairs in a timely manner and communicating effectively with the residents affected.
The resident has also raised concerns that he had been mis-sold the property. this would be a legal matter and the resident would be advised to seek independent legal advice regarding his options if he feels this is the case. The Ombudsman is unable to give legal advice and therefore we cannot comment on this matter further.
The Ombudsman’s ‘Remedies Guidance’ ( published on our website) explains that where there have been service failures by the landlord, if the landlord has recognised the failures itself and has taken appropriate action to put this right, including offering reasonable compensation, then the Ombudsman will not necessarily require that the landlord do anything more. In this case, the landlord has acknowledged its failures in communication and the delays to the repairs. Its offer of £320 compensation is proportionate to the inconvenience caused because of the repair delays and its communication. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which states that compensation in this range is suitable in cases of considerable service failure.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation.

As stated above, the Ombudsman cannot consider the resident’s concerns about his liability to pay rent or the level of service charges. Therefore, we would not order the landlord to reimburse the resident for these costs. We can, however, look at the resident’s claim to be reimbursed his loss of earnings and cost of a dehumidifier. The resident had requested compensation of £932.58 for his loss of earnings and £149.99 for the cost of a dehumidifier used during the period of the roof leak.
At the time of the complaint, the landlord had an interim compensation policy in place in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. This policy states that discretionary payments would be paused for all complaints received after 1 April 2020, this included fixed payments for service failures, goodwill gestures and compensation for loss of facilities. The policy includes several exceptions where compensation would be paid; for example, where costs are incurred by the resident because of the landlord’s errors, including out of pocket expenses such as increased bills for running heaters or dehumidifiers. It should be noted that the Ombudsman would always expect a landlord to consider offering compensation for overall distress and inconvenience caused by service failures in line with our Remedies Guidance. This approach has not changed as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, although we would take into account that there may be delays outside the landlord’s control when considering whether compensation should be awarded and if so, how much.
There has been no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for compensation. Prior to the interim policy, the landlord’s compensation policy stated that it would not pay compensation for loss of earnings but it might offer a goodwill gesture in recognition of the time and trouble the resident may have taken to get the issue resolved. In general, the Ombudsman would not order landlords to reimburse residents for their time off work, loss of wages or loss of employment whilst repairs are carried out, unless the landlord’s own policies say it would do so. The landlord has offered compensation to the resident in recognition of its service failures related to the repair delays and its communication. It was reasonable for the landlord not to compensate the resident for his reported loss of earnings during this period in line with its interim and previous compensation policies.
In his email on 19 March 2021, the resident commented that the landlord’s offer of £320 compensation would not cover the cost of the dehumidifiers or his increased energy usage to run them. The landlord had confirmed that it reimburse the resident for the cost of the dehumidifier if receipts were provided in its response on 8 October 2020. It is unclear from the information received whether the resident had provided receipts to the landlord. Therefore, it is recommended that the landlord compensates the resident as agreed when such evidence is provided.
The landlord should also consider the resident’s request for compensation in view of his increased electricity bills during this period in line with its compensation policy. The resident would be expected to supply the landlord with his electricity statements for the period when the repairs were ongoing and for the same period the year before for comparison, so the landlord can consider this request.

The landlords handling of the associated complaint.

The landlord’s complaint policy states that it has a two-stage procedure for handing complaints. At stage one, the landlord should respond within ten working days. It the resident remains dissatisfied; they can escalate their complaint to stage two. At stage two the landlord should provide a written response within 20 working days. Complaints can be raised by phone, email, an online complaint form, via social media and in writing. At each stage, the resident should receive an acknowledgement.
There has been service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint. The evidence shows that the resident initially asked to raise a complaint about the handling of the repairs to the roof on 10 August 2020, the same complaint was raised via an online complaint form on 17 August 2020. He then completed a further online complaint form on 17 September 2020 and 28 September 2020. Whilst there was some communication during October 2020 regarding the resident’s request for compensation, the landlord did not provide a formal complaint response to the resident until 21 January 2021, which was significantly outside of its published timescales.
In some cases, it may be reasonable for a complaint to be dealt with outside of the formal complaints procedure; for example, where the complaint is an initial request for a service or report of a repair issue, but this was not the case here. There is no evidence that the resident was informed of the complaints process at any stage during this period and the landlord did not provide any explanation for not handling his complaint in line with its policies sooner. This significantly increased the timeframe of the complaint and prevented the resident from approaching the Ombudsman for independent review sooner.
In this case, the time and trouble incurred by the resident in seeking to resolve his complaint was significantly more than would be reasonably expected due to a landlord’s poor complaint handling. The landlord has acknowledged the time and effort the resident had spent seeking a resolution in its stage two response and the overall offer of £320 compensation is proportionate, taking into account the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling and the other issues as detailed above. It is, however, recommended that the landlord carries out staff training for complaint handlers to ensure that complaints are dealt with in line with its policies.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in respect of its handling of repairs following a leak from the roof of the resident’s building, prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for compensation.
In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in respect of its handling of the associated complaint prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

The landlord has taken steps to acknowledge its service failures related to the delay in repairs being carried out and its communication with the resident during this period. It has offered compensation which is proportionate to the inconvenience caused by these failings.
The landlord would not be obliged to compensate the resident for his loss of earnings during this period, in line with its compensation policy. It was reasonable for the landlord to agree to compensate the resident for the additional cost of purchasing a dehumidifier following the leak and it was entitled to ask for evidence of this cost before arranging the payment. The landlord should also consider compensating the resident for his additional electricity usage during this period on the provision of evidence.
It is not disputed that the landlord has failed to handle the resident’s complaint in line with its policy or timescales, however the landlord has taken reasonable steps to acknowledge these service failures and the overall offer of compensation is proportionate in this case, taking into account the poor complaint handling.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, it is recommended that the landlord pays the resident £320 as previously agreed within the next four weeks, as the finding of reasonable redress is based on the understanding that this offer will be honoured.
It is recommended that the landlord reimburses the resident for the cost of a dehumidifier as agreed upon provision of a receipt for this item.
The landlord should also consider the resident’s request for compensation in view of his increased electricity bills during this period in line with its compensation policy. The resident should supply the landlord with his electricity statements for the period when the repairs were ongoing and for the same period the year before for comparison so the landlord can consider this request.
It is recommended that the landlord reviews its processes for communicating with residents about repairs concerning a third-party developer, to ensure that it adequately explains its obligations in this regard.
It is recommended that the landlord carries out staff training for complaint handlers to ensure that complaints are dealt with in line with its complaints policy.