London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202014685)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014685

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

30 September 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 the landlords handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of overgrown trees depositing debris in his garden.
2. Reports of boiler repairs in October 2020.
3. Request for assistance with the costs of home improvements/disability adaptations.
4. Subsequent formal complaint.
5. Reports of the effects the boiler and tree issues had on his health.

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.

The effect of the boiler and tree issues on the resident’s health

In accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.
The resident explained in his complaint to the landlord how the landlord’s failure to repair the boiler resulted in him needing to restart the boiler whenever he needed heating, which impacted his recovery from an operation, and had other health consequences. He also complained that he was injured by debris from a neighbour’s trees (not one of the landlord’s tenants). Unfortunately, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more usually dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. The courts can call on medical experts and make legally binding judgements. Nonetheless, while this investigation will not make determinations on any damage to the resident’s health, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the substance of his complaints may have caused him.

Background and summary of events

On 25 September 2020 the resident reported to the landlord that his neighbour had several overgrown trees in their garden and the debris would cover the resident’s garden and blow into his home. The resident said that the debris made his garden slippery and impacted his use of it. He explained that he has a disability and had recently had surgery, which would result in six months of slow recovery. He said his neighbour had promised for three to four years to cut down all the trees but had only cut one down, and the local authority told him the landlord was responsible for his safety in his garden and home. He also said he had received a grant from the local authority for disability adaptations to his home; however, this left him with an application fee and £745 to pay himself. The resident asked the landlord to cover these costs, noting that the landlord had not replaced his bathroom or kitchen for 21 years.
The landlord responded on 29 September 2020 that it would not be able to assist with the neighbour’s trees unless they caused structural damage to the property. It encouraged the resident to liaise with the neighbour and come to a mutual resolution. Regarding the adaption, it said the resident would need to submit a tenant improvement form.
On 2 October 2020 the resident reported an error code on his boiler and said he had no hot water or heating. The landlord attended on 6 October 2020 and identified that the pump was “slightly weak” so needed replacing. The pressure sensor also needed replacing to avoid a reoccurring fault. The resident called the landlord on 16 October 2020 for an update. The landlord noted that the resident was on hold while it contacted the contractor, but the call cut off and it was unable to call the resident back.
The landlord updated the resident on 19 October 2020, and the landlord’s contractor returned on 20 October 2020 and completed the repair.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 27 October 2020 regarding:
1. The landlord’s handling of the boiler repair. He said that the engineer who attended on 6 October 2020 advised him that he should get an appointment in three days as the parts were easy to obtain. However, he said that for two weeks he had to physically “get the boiler started” himself so he could have hot water and heating, which created issues with his surgery recovery. The resident contacted the landlord and explained the situation, but was cut off.
2. The ongoing issue with his neighbour’s trees. He said he had spoken with both the landlord and local authority but “each party said the other side is responsible”. The resident also said he had previously informed the landlord of a crack to the rear of the property due to the roots of his neighbour’s tree.
3. “L&Q have never fitted any kitchen or bathroom in our home & I have now had 4 kitchens & 3 bathrooms (last one…council paid for as L&Q don’t help [with disability adaptations])…Because of the awful service L&Q provide I have repaired our home – just so I don’t get aggro from L&Q. The only bits I report is boiler or fuse board upgrade – as L&Q have to have gas safe & electrician to get to code. I have had pipes burst / leaking stop cocks etc etc I can go on & on.”
On 4 November 2020 the resident said he was yet to receive a reply or acknowledgement. The landlord replied on 5 November 2020 that it would respond to the complaint by 18 November 2020. It summarised its understanding of his complaint as:
1. Delays restoring heating which the resident initially reported on 2 October 2020.
2. Overgrown trees in neighbour’s garden causing a personal injury from falling debris.
3. Costs the resident had personally spent in his home with no help from L&Q.
The landlord corresponded with the resident between 8 and 11 November 2021. It asked for further details and a costs for the disability adaptations. The resident provided a schedule of works and confirmation of the grant approval and said the local authority’s occupational therapist had already written to the landlord. The landlord agreed to pay for extra costs not covered by the grant and asked for a copy of the receipt of payment made by the resident, which the resident confirmed he had asked for. This Service has not seen evidence of the landlord receiving the information.
In the landlord’s stage one complaint response, dated 17 November 2020, it confirmed that its contractor identified that the resident’s boiler pump and pressure sensor needed to be replaced to avoid a recurring fault, but the heating and hot water was left working. It acknowledged there was a delay in the repair being completed, but said residents without heating or hot water were prioritised during the busy period, and the resident’s heating system was working.
The landlord explained that, because it did not own the neighbouring property, it could not cut back, instruct, or enforce the neighbour to take action about their trees. It said that the local authority did not consider the trees to be a health and safety concern; however, the resident could refer to his occupational therapist for assistance with mobility in the garden should he need help. The landlord explained that it was only offering emergency/critical repairs at the time due to Covid-19, and would arrange an inspection of the tree roots and cracks to the resident’s property when its normal repairs service resumed.
The landlord confirmed it would be happy to pay the costs, which the local authority’s grant did not cover, for his disability adaptations but would require a receipt. It asked that the resident send it when he could. The landlord explained that it offered a repairs service and not a renewals service; therefore, if the resident chose to upgrade/decorate his home, then that would be at his own expense.
On 19 November 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord. He explained that he did not agree with the landlord prioritizing other residents’ heating repairs over his, because the error on his boiler shut it down. He explained that he only had use of his boiler because he would restart it every day. The resident confirmed that he was recovering from a spinal operation (and was not supposed to be raising his arms, twisting, or bending) and said it was not his responsibility to restart and check the boiler pressure every time he needed hot water and heating.
The resident reiterated that the landlord and local authority said that each other were responsible for his safety in his garden and said he reported the cracks from the tree roots prior to the coronavirus restrictions.
Finally, the resident reiterated that an occupational therapist wrote to the landlord regarding the grant not covering the whole bill for the disability adaptations. He also said he had receipts for the money he had spent on the property, including for new kitchens and bathrooms which he said were the landlord’s responsibility.
On 26 November 2020 the landlord advised the resident that it had escalated his complaint and he would receive a response shortly.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 4 December 2020 that, once it had completed its investigation, it would respond to the complaint within 20 working days.
On 11 December 2020, following a call with the landlord, the resident forwarded it a letter in relation to his operation, detailing the movements he should not be making during his recovery.
The landlord updated the resident on 18 December 2020 that it would respond to the complaint within ten working days.
In its next update to the resident, dated 3 February 2021, the landlord said it would update the resident on his complaint the next day. The landlord wrote to the resident again, on 19 February 2021, that it would respond to the complaint within ten working days.
On 10 March 2021 the landlord advised the resident that it was seeking an update on his complaint from its complaint team.
Following contact from the resident, this Service contacted the landlord on 13 March 2021. We asked it to consider the complaint under its complaints procedure and update the resident within ten working days. On 11 May 2021 we contacted the landlord again.
On 13 May 2021 the landlord sent the resident its final response to his complaint. It reiterated that it was not responsible for cutting or conducting works to the neighbour’s trees. It said it had referred the tree issue to the local authority, who had reported they did not consider the trees a health or safety concern. It also reiterated that it would not cover the costs of home improvements
The landlord acknowledged that there was a delay in its completion of the boiler repair. However, because the heating system was working, it had to prioritise residents who did not have any heating or hot water. It apologised for the inconvenience the resident had resetting his boiler with his health concerns.
The landlord offered the resident £175 compensation (£50 for inconvenience, £50 for distress, £50 for time and effort, and £25 for its delay in providing its stage two response). The landlord advised the resident that he may refer his complaint to this Service if he remained dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s obligations.

In line with the landlord’s repairs policy, it is responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior of the property, including all types of heating system so as to ensure that residents have ready access to space heating and hot water. The policy says that tenants are responsible: for keeping gardens in a tidy and cultivated condition and free of rubbish, their own DIY work, and repairs to their own appliances and fittings.
The repairs policy says that, when repairs are reported by vulnerable residents, it will consider whether the defect is putting the resident at risk because of their physical or mental health and treat repairs with an escalated priority in cases where a delay in completing the repair would cause an increased health and safety risk.
The policy confirms the landlord is responsible for walls, brickwork and concrete external walls, wall tiles, and rendering (when cracked 5+mm or severely crumbled); structural weakness; and trees (on its own property) where they are dangerous, diseased, dead or dying, or likely to damage a property or a neighbouring property. The policy explains that subsidence, where suspected, must be inspected by a surveyor and any emergency work, to rectify immediate hazards, carried out without the landlord’s insurer’s approval.
The landlord’s resident’s home improvement policy confirms that the replacement of kitchens and bathrooms are considered an improvement. At the end of the tenancy, compensation for tenants’ improvements will be paid to secure and assured tenants in accordance with government regulation. Aids and adaptations are considered under a separate policy.
The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will respond to stage one complaints within ten working days, and stage two complaints within 20 working days. If the landlord is unable to meet this timeframe, it will explain why and write again within a further ten working days.

Reports of overgrown trees depositing debris in the garden

Because the landlord does not own the neighbour’s property (in which the trees are located), the landlord was not obligated to take action in relation to the neighbour’s trees unless they were affecting the structure of the resident’s property. Therefore, the landlord’s response to the resident’s report i.e. that he could approach his neighbour or the local authority, which has authority to act if trees pose a health and safety issue or nuisance, was reasonable. The landlord also confirmed that the local authority did not consider the tree a health and safety issue. No evidence has been seen in this investigation indicating that the landlord was in any way responsible for resolving this issue, as presented in the complaint.
The landlord would be expected to take some form of action if there was evidence of the trees affecting the structure of the property. The resident did report that there were cracks to the rear of the property, which he believed were caused by the tree roots. The landlord responded that it would complete an inspection once its normal repairs service resumed, because it was only completing urgent/emergency repairs due to the coronavirus pandemic. In the absence of any evidence that the cracks were considered an urgent or emergency repair, and considering that there likely would be a backlog of works outside of the landlord’s control, this response was reasonable.

Request for assistance with the costs of home improvements/disability adaptations.

Social landlords will usually seek to repair instead of completely replace a housing asset (such as a kitchen or bathroom), where possible, to utilise their limited funds. If a resident believes that their kitchen or bathroom are not in an acceptable condition, they should report it to the landlord. In this case, the resident has indicated that he chose to replace the kitchen and bathroom himself, and did not contact the landlord. If the landlord is not given an opportunity to complete a repair or replacement it would not be reasonable to expect the landlord to cover the costs of replacements arranged by the resident. Additionally, any reimbursement for improvements to a property is usually provided to residents once their tenancy has ended, in line with the landlord’s home improvement policy.
Usually, requests for disability adaptations are approved by the local authority via an occupational therapist. In this case, the local authority gave the resident a grant for the completion of the adaptations in his home. In the absence of any evidence that the landlord was responsible for any difference between the grant and the cost of the works, it is not clear why the landlord agreed to cover the remaining costs. Nonetheless it did, providing that a receipt was given. It is common practice for a landlord to request receipts before it will consider reimbursing residents for costs they incurred, and therefore that was not an unreasonable request.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of boiler repairs in October 2020.

Given that the resident reported in early October 2020 that he had no hot water or heating due to a fault with the boiler, the repair should have been treated as a priority. The right to repair scheme, for example, gives a response time of three working days. The evidence indicates that the landlord attended to complete an inspection within three working days and identified that further parts were required. The landlord has said that the resident was still able to use his space and water heating, and therefore it considered the follow-on repairs to be of a lower priority than repairs where other residents had no heating. The landlord completed the follow–on repairs two weeks later.
However, the evidence demonstrates that the resident informed the landlord that he was only able to use his boiler when he reset it and checked the pressure, which he struggled to do due to a recent operation. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord considered the resident’s recent surgery when prioritizing the repair, in line with its repairs policy, despite the resident informing the landlord of the surgery on 25 September 2020. While, as previously mentioned, this Service cannot comment on the liability for any injury or health issues, the resident has reported the impact that having to reset the boiler for two weeks had on his recovery from surgery.
Considering the service failure identified in the landlord’s assessment of the priority of the repair, and the impact that the delay in the repair had on the resident, it would be reasonable for the landlord to offer some form of redress to the resident. In this case, the landlord offered £150 towards this aspect of the complaint. This amount was proportionate to the extent of the delays as a result of the failings, and was in line with this Service’s remedies guidance for complaints of a similar nature.

The landlord’s handling of the formal complaint.

There were extensive and inexplicable delays in the landlord sending its final response to the complaint, which took 120 working days following the resident’s escalation of 19 November 2020. This was clearly outside of its complaints policy, and also this Service’s complaints handling code, which says a landlord should aim to respond at stage two within 20 working days. If this is not possible an explanation and a date when the stage two response will be received should be provided, and it should not exceed a further ten working days without good reason.
The landlord did acknowledge, apologise, and compensate the resident for its delay in responding at stage two. However, it did not provide a reasonable explanation for the delays. Additionally the compensation offered (£25) for the delay was not proportionate to the extent of the delay, the lack of updates, and the time and trouble the resident went to in pursuing his complaint with the landlord and this Service.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of overgrown trees resulting in debris in the resident’s garden.
2. Request for assistance with the costs of home improvements/disability adaptations.
In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of the resident’s reports of boiler repairs in October 2020.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord has responded reasonably to the resident’s reports of debris in his garden, and request for assistance with the costs of home improvements/disability adaptations, in line with its obligations and good practice.
The landlord failed to consider the resident’s full circumstances when prioritizing the follow-on works for the boiler repairs, but has reasonably remedied the distress and inconvenience caused.
There were unreasonable delays in the landlord providing a stage two complaint response, and the compensation offered did not reflect the extent of the delay and poor communication around it.

Order

In light of the findings of this investigation, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £75 for the time and trouble he has went to in pursuing his complaint with the landlord and this Service. This is in addition to the £175 already offered by the landlord, which it should now pay if it has not already done so. This payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this report.