London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202015026)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015026

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

17 December 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 is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of an ongoing leak in her property.
2. Its decision to disconnect her smoke detector.
3. The resident’s reports of issues with her central heating system.
4. The resident’s complaint.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the 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 paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
This Service cannot consider the resident’s complaint about the way in which the landlord handled her report of issues with her central heating system, or in relation to its decision to remove the smoke detector in her kitchen. These issues were not part of the complaint formally raised with the landlord and they cannot, therefore, be confirmed as having completed the landlord’s internal complaints handling procedure. These aspects of the complaint have therefore, not been considered by this Service. Our position here is in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme which 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.”

Background and summary of events

Scope of Investigation

The resident occupies a ground floor flat let to her by the landlord under a secure tenancy. Whilst the property is situated at the base of a building containing a larger complex of flats, her property has its own separate (and direct) entrance, and a different postal address. The landlord is also landlord of the complex above.
The resident reports that she experienced leaks to her property in 2013 and again in 2017/18. Further leakage has now occurred. The leaks primarily involve her kitchen and her windows, and the water causes problems with her electrics. In her view, the cause of these leaks is linked and has not been properly resolved. She states the overall building that her property is situated in, is relatively new and considers it has not been constructed properly and/or with appropriate quality building materials.
The resident is dissatisfied with the way the landlord has handled the leaks, in terms of investigating the cause and handling the associated damage.
The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still fresh and whilst evidence is available to reach an informed decision on the events which have occurred. As the issues become historic it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as this Service, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
In view of the time periods involved in this case, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment does not consider any specific events prior to September 2020 when the resident experienced further water penetration to her property.
However, the historical issues provide contextual background to the current complaint and have been referred to below on that basis.

Summary of Events

The landlord’s internal repairs summary shows reports of leaks in April/May 2013, and in December 2017/January 2018.
On 1 September 2020 the resident telephoned the landlord to report that two large damp patches were developing on the kitchen ceiling at her property. She explained she had had previous problems with leaks into the kitchen. The landlord noted it needed to investigate the property above hers.
Water ingress to the property was then noted by the landlord in early October 2020. It was recorded as affecting the electrics and also that water was entering the property through the living room window. The kitchen ceiling was referred to as damaged.
On 5 October 2020 the landlord’s records show that the “heat alarm” in the property had been disconnected due to water ingress. The resident had been spoken to that day and had pointed out that a few flats were affected by a water leak. She requested the “smoke alarm” be refitted.
On 6 October 2020 the caretaker for the building reported to the landlord that they were unaware of where the leak was coming from and the residents in the two properties above both denied any leaks coming from their premises. One of them had had the water isolated whilst they were away, caring for somebody, in any event.
On 8 October 2020 the landlord raised an order to replace an extractor fan at the property “following a leak”. Its records showed the leak was being resolved on 13 October. The landlord’s notes also refer to a “critical” repair listed for 9 October 2020 to replace the “smoke alarm” disconnected due to the leak.
By 14 October 2020 the landlord’s records confirm the resident had reported water coming through her ceiling and that it had sent its plumber to try to trace the source of the leaks. It was to reinvestigate the two properties above the resident’s home.
On 3 November 2020 the landlord’s internal records note that the resident had made a complaint about the situation by telephone. In her view the current problems she was experiencing were a continuation of leaks in her property since 2013 and which had been ongoing since 2017/18. She stated the property smelt of damp and she was using a dehumidifier to try to help dry it out. The resident expressed dissatisfaction at the way the landlord was handling the situation. She was unhappy that it had not offered to help pay for the use of the dehumidifier or to the cost of repairing/replacing her damaged carpet. She was worried about the electrics in the kitchen.
In the meantime, also on 3 November 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and requested a survey take place to identify what the problem was.
On 4 November 2020 the landlord’s records confirm it had reinstated the smoke alarm and that it spoke to the resident that day. She was advised an attendance was scheduled for 17 November 2020 to investigate the situation. The landlord also wrote to the resident on that day to formally acknowledge the complaint and giving a timescale for a response by 16 November 2020.
On 13 November 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident with its initial response to her complaint in accordance with stage one of its complaints procedure. It confirmed that an appointment had been made for its plumber to attend a neighbouring property on 17 November 2020 to investigate the leak and that it would contact her afterwards with the outcome.
By 21 December 2020 the landlord had satisfied itself that the leak was not coming from one of the above properties and was still investigating whether it was coming from the other. Its records noted there were no “active leaks” going on in the property at that point.
By mid-January 2021 the landlord had arranged to go to the other property in early March but was trying to get the occupant to agree to an earlier visit, which it did for 3 February. The resident was advised of this by the landlord on 28 January 2021.
On 29 January 2021 the landlord’s internal records noted that there were no electrics to the property and water was coming in through the lights – the resident having reported this on that day. The landlord’s records show it arranged a same day attendance to deal with the situation.
On 3 February 2021 the landlord attended the property to make the electrics safe to the “heat detector” in the kitchen following water penetration.
On 3 March 2021 the resident contacted this Service, stating she had heard nothing further following this contact. She explained that the leak was sending water into her smoke alarm and affects the lighting and electrics. The last significant water ingress had been in January 2021. This Service contacted the landlord the same day, asking that it respond to the resident by 18 March 2021 at the latest.
On 6 April 2021 this Service contacted the landlord again on the resident’s behalf, reminding it that a response was required to the resident’s complaint.
On 7 April 2021 the landlord’s records show that its staff were aware that at least five flats in the block above the property were having problems with water ingress and dampness and they were planning to go through the repairs history for the building to see what the main issues were.
That day, the landlord sent to the resident’s property a standard letter it was sending to residents as an “update” on works it was carrying out at the building. It explained that following investigations in 2020, a defect to the brickwork had been identified and it had expected to receive a “remedial proposal” from the original developer in December 2020. Unfortunately, that developer had requested more time to carry out further inspections and it was now expecting to be able to provide a further update in two months’ time (that is in June 2021).
Also on 7 April 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident direct, about her complaint by way of an “update”. It stated as follows:
1. It confirmed that the external envelope of the building was allowing rainwater to get in and most of the internal rainwater downpipes were leaking. It stated that over the last five to six years an increasing number of the resident’s neighbours had been affected. Inspections were ongoing to resolve the issues. In the meantime, the landlord would be visiting the resident’s property to assess any internal damage.
2. It explained that the decision to disable the smoke detector had been taken because it was considered this would be safer than leaving it with the water ingress.
3. In terms of compensation, the landlord confirmed that its policy was to refer such claims to its insurers.
4. It stated that it would keep the complaint on hold until the repairs were completed, and the resident was satisfied with them.
5. It advised the resident what steps she could take if she remained dissatisfied, in terms of escalation or referral of her complaint to this Service.
This Service contacted the landlord on 9 June 2021 to explain that complaints should not be placed “on hold”. The landlord was asked to escalate the complaint to stage two of its complaints procedure with a response in the next 20 working days.
On 23 June 2021 the landlord’s staff member confirmed in an internal email that they had completed a “latent defect form” and sent it to the “special projects team” for their consideration relating to the issue with the building.
On 24 June 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident with the outcome of its review according to the second stage of its complaints process. It understood the complaint was about an ongoing leak, lack of financial help with the cost of a dehumidifier and damage to carpeting. It stated as follows: –
1. Its repairs history confirmed that several repair orders had been raised to various properties above the resident’s home without any leaks being found. A surveying inspection had taken place followed by a specialist inspection which determined there was water ingress due to a building fault in the overall property. The landlord was arranging for the original builder to rectify it.
2. It agreed to refund the resident for the cost of running the dehumidifier and invited her to confirm when she had started using it so that a calculation could be made.
3. With regard to the damaged carpeting, it invited the resident to make a claim against its insurance.
4. It would be monitoring the progress of the “defect process” and let the resident know when the builder had taken over responsibility for the repair.
In October 2021 a number of the residents in the block of flats above the property wrote to the landlord raising their concerns about the level of damp in the building, both in their individual flats and in communal areas. They reported that water was leaking from the roof, through the ceilings and internal walls. They were concerned that this may affect the structural integrity of the building. They noted the landlord had been aware of the situation for at least twelve months and asked for the landlord’s urgent proposals for the issue to be addressed.
On 22 October 2021 the landlord responded to this communication, confirming it was aware of the issues with the building. It explained it had been conducting trace surveys since September 2021 and that “this had involved detailed investigations to the external elements of the building such as the roof, facades and terraces as these areas may be the source of water ingress”. Once this process was complete, the landlord was expecting to receive a report giving recommendations for remedial action to resolve the situation. No timescale was given by the landlord for these matters to be completed.

Assessment

Agreements, policies and procedures

The landlord’s Repairs Policy sets out service standards for its response to repairs. It states that for emergency works it aims to attend within 24 hours; for routine repairs it aimed to complete them at the “earliest mutually convenient appointment”.
The landlord operates a Complaints Policy. It states it operates a two stage approach to complaints. The first stage consists of an investigation of the issue(s) raised with an attempt to find a resolution. The landlord aims to offer a written response in ten working days (or an alternative timescale if this is not possible). It also commits to monitoring progress of any agreed actions until they are complete.
If the resident remains dissatisfied, the complaint can be escalated to the second stage which consists of a review, again with the aim of finding a resolution to the issue(s) complained of. The landlord aims to provide its response within 20 working days of the request to escalate, and again commits to monitoring any agreed actions.
The landlord also operates a Compensation Policy which sets out its approach to compensation claims. This states that it will consider offering compensation where there have been service failures; where it has failed to follow its own policies (including inadequacies in the complaints process); and where the resident has been negatively impacted by the situation.
The policy provides that compensation should not be seen as a replacement for home contents insurance. It states that “customers are responsible for arranging their own home contents insurance for accidental damage to their belongings/property that is not our responsibility”.
The policy provides for a fixed award of £10 where the landlord has failed to respond to a formal complaint within it published timescales. Otherwise, the level of compensation for other service failings is not prescribed in the policy.

The water leak

This Service is unable to offer an expert opinion as to the cause of the water ingress to the resident’s property or whether it is related to the previous historic problems in 2013 and 2018/19. The landlord has not disputed that it is responsible for identifying and rectifying the cause of the water ingress.
The evidence shows that at some point in 2020 the landlord became aware that there was a latent problem with the building and that over the course of at least the last twelve months an increasing number of residents in the flats complex (as well as the resident) have reported problems with water ingress.
In April 2021 the landlord confirmed to the resident that it considered a latent defect in the overall building was to blame. It was consulting with the developer to identify the full nature of the problem and to devise a plan for rectification. It expected to provide an update in June 2021. There is no evidence that this was done. In October 2021 the landlord responded to other residents confirming the situation was continuing to be investigated.
As far as the landlord’s handling of the leak reports to this property are concerned, the initial report of damp patches appearing was treated in a routine way until water broke through at the beginning of October 2020. The evidence confirms the landlord acted quickly at that point to attend the property and to secure the electrics. It started carrying out investigations from the property(s) above. Whilst this was an appropriate response, the evidence shows that in the absence of the landlord being able to identify an immediate cause, and with the initial urgency dealt with, the impetus waned.
Once the resident had complained in early November 2020, the landlord made further enquiries, but there is no evidence of any progress until a further leak occurred at the property at the end of January 2021. The landlord arranged an urgent attendance as the electrics were again affected and this was appropriate. It was not then, until April 2021, as set out above, that the landlord confirmed it had been aware of an underlying problem with the building since the previous year and which was probably responsible for ongoing problems, such as the ones being experienced by the resident.
In the Ombudsman’s view, given the landlord was already linking general water leakage/dampness at the building with problems in 2020, it might reasonably have joined up the clues and offered the resident some explanation, much earlier than the following April 2021, at which stage, two specific leaks had occurred and the general atmosphere persisted.
The fact a group of residents in the flats complex felt it necessary to ‘petition’ the landlord in October 2021, demonstrates a lack of communication on the landlord’s behalf to those concerned with this issue, not least the resident. It also reflects a lack of progress. There is no evidence of the landlord keeping this resident particularly updated about the situation and, going into winter, it is reasonable to conclude the problems she has already experienced are likely to be repeated at some point.
The landlord has referred the resident to making an insurance claim for the damage to her belongings (carpeting) which was appropriate given its policy requires residents to be insured. It is noted, in any event, that it has referred the resident to its own insurers, suggesting it understands there is an argument that it may be responsible. Of course, the landlord will assert the developer should take responsibility and whilst there may be liability issues to be settled between them, that should not affect the resident who is entitled to hold the landlord responsible for the situation.
In the Ombudsman’s view, whilst the landlord’s reactive response to the leaks was appropriate at the time, it has not demonstrated, with evidence, a proactive approach to engaging with the resident, explaining what the problem is, what will be done about it and what will happen if there are further issues in the intervening period. This represents a service failing on the landlord’s behalf and it might reasonably have been expected to acknowledge this in its complaint response to the resident.
The landlord has agreed to fund the cost of the resident’s running of a dehumidifier in her property and that was an appropriate response. However, it would have been appropriate to offer the resident some compensation to reflect the impact upon her of living in a property prone to further issues without her expectations being managed, moving forward from September 2020, as to what was happening and what was likely to happen (and when). Over a timespan in excess of twelve months, the evidence only demonstrates one communication in April 2021 as being supplied to the resident, and the fact she is not technically part of the flats complex appears to have compounded this problem.
An order for compensation will be made below, but it is also recommended that the landlord provide the resident with a full update of what she can expect to happen moving forward. The landlord is also recommended to review what information it has provided to the residents of the flats complex and how it might ensure their expectations are managed moving forward.

The resident’s complaint

The resident’s initial complaint was made by telephone and a written response given within ten working days which was appropriate to its policy. However, that response was, in the Ombudsman’s view, a ‘holding response’ pending further enquiries – the landlord stated it would be back in touch with the resident to “confirm our next steps”. An “update” was not supplied for a further five months and in fact, it is this Service’s approach that complaints should not be held open in this way until issues are resolved but rather a definitive response should be given.
When this Service made it clear to the landlord, on 9 June 2021, that it should escalate the complaint, the landlord did provide a written response within 20 working days, as set out in its policy. However, the resident was left unclear as to what was happening with her complaint when the confirmation of ‘next steps’ did not happen between the first response (13 November 2020) and the “update” in April 2021. This represented an unacceptable delay and a service failing on the landlord’s behalf.
The landlord might reasonably have been expected to recognise this in its stage two review response, but it failed to do so. Its Compensation Policy provides for compensation of £10 to be paid in such circumstances, but it did not offer this sum, which was also inappropriate. In any event, in the Ombudsman’s view, such a sum does not properly reflect the impact on the resident and the sum of £50 would have been more realistic.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of a water leak at the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s decision to disconnect her smoke detector is outside the jurisdiction of this Service to consider.
In accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of her reports of issues with her central heating system is outside the jurisdiction of this Service to consider.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

Whilst the landlord dealt with two separate leaks in the resident’s property, it was aware from a point in 2020 that there may be an underlying reason for the problems as a result of a defect in the construction of the building. It initially failed to link the resident’s problems to this issue and when it did so, it failed to adequately communicate with the resident what the consequences were for her.
The landlord’s complaint’s handling left the resident in the dark for over five months.

Orders and/or Recommendations

Orders

The landlord to pay to the resident compensation of £300 to reflect the impact upon her of its service failings, as identified above. This is calculated as £250 for its handling of the leaks to her property and £50 for its complaints handling.
The landlord to confirm compliance with the above orders within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord to provide to the resident an update of what she can expect to happen moving forward with the remedial scheme for the building her property is situated in.
The landlord to review what information it has provided to the residents of the flats complex itself, and how it might ensure their expectations are managed moving forward.