London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202015780)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015780

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

31 March 2022


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1.     The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:

  1. The resident’s request for compensation after a burglary at his property.
  2. The removal of the resident’s security grille.
  3. associated complaint handling.

Background

2.     The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord in a second floor flat.

3.     According to the landlord’s repair records, the resident’s security grille was removed as a fire safety precaution on 9 November 2020. On 4 March 2021, the communual door latch on the resident’s building was reported as damaged and it could be opened without a key. The resident’s property was then broken into on 5 March 2021.

4.     The resident raised a complaint on 7 March 2021. He said that he thought his security grille had been illegally removed, and that he had reported the front entrance was not secure on several occasions. He said he thought the landlord was liable for the burglary and requested £4,200 compensation for his losses.  The landlord discussed the complaint with the resident on 23 March 2021, in which he elaborated on why he felt the landlord was responsible for the burglary. The landlord then emailed him and said it had escalated the complaint. The landlord’s liability insurer emailed the resident on 5 May 2021 and stated that it had found the landlord to not be liable as a contractor had made a temporary repair to the door on 4 March 2021 and a full repair was completed on 10 March 2021. It also said the security grille was removed due to fire safety guidance. Following correspondence from this Service, the landlord sent its stage two complaint response on 27 May 2021, reiterating that its insurer had denied liability and advised the resident to contact his own home insurance provider to make a claim for his losses as a result of the burglary.

5.     In his complaint to this Service, the resident said he felt the landlord was responsible for the burglary, as it had removed his security grille and the property was not secure.

Assessment and findings

Compensation request

6.     The Ombudsman acknowledges that the burglary would have caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident. However, it is our role to assess the landlord’s actions and whether it acted in line with its own policies and procedures, its legal obligations and industry best practice in its handling of this matter.

7.     The Ombudsman is unable to comment on the outcome of the claim to the landlord’s liability insurer as this Service can only consider the actions of the landlord and the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over the landlord’s insurer Nevertheless, under the terms of the landlord’s compensation policy, it states that the resident is responsible for ensuring he has home contents insurance, and it will not award compensation for loss of belongings, when it is not deemed to be liable for the loss. The landlord acted in accordance with its policies by referring the compensation request to its insurer and then signposting the resident to his own home insurance when it was determined the landlord was not liable. The landlord would not be expected to pay compensation outside the insurance process after its insurer determined it was not liable. Therefore, the landlord is not required to do anything further regarding the resident’s compensation request.

Security grille

8.     In the resident’s complaint to the landlord, he said he was unaware that the security grille was going to be removed and he felt this was done illegally. According to the landlord’s records, it contacted the resident on 16 September 2020 and informed him that the security grille would be taken down due to fire safety works. The resident said he had purchased the security grille, so the landlord asked for proof of purchase and conformation that he had received permission to install it. It advised that if he provided proof of purchase the grille would be returned to him, but it could not be reinstated without the landlord’s permission. An internal note on the landlord’s records dated 8 October 2020, said that the resident did not permit the contractor to remove the safety grille, and the landlord had attempted to contact him to discuss the issue. The repair records state the grille was then removed on 9 November 2020.

9.     In accordance with the landlord’s repair policy, residents must get permission before completing improvements to the property. As there is no evidence that the resident requested permission prior to installing the security grille, it was not unreasonable for the landlord to remove it, as it had given prior notice, advised him of its improvements policy and explained the reason the grille was being removed. It also gave him the opportunity to provide proof of purchase and confirmation of permission, before it removed the grille. Its explanations were logical and pragmatic, and reasonable grounds on which to base its decision that the resident’s security grille would need to be removed.

10. While it is entirely understandable that the resident had increased safety concerns due to the security grille being removed, there is no evidence that the resident expressed these concerns to the landlord prior to the complaint.

Complaint Handling

11. The landlord’s complaint policy states the landlord must issue a written response within ten working days of receiving a stage one complaint, and within 20 working days for a stage two complaint. The resident complained to the landlord on 7 March 2021 and the landlord emailed the resident on 23 March 2021, stating it had escalated the complaint, following a phone call in which it discussed the complaint issues. The landlord therefore did not act in accordance with its policy, as it exceeded its timeframe, and did not issue a written response. The landlord’s insurer sent a letter to the resident on 5 May 2021. This Service then contacted the landlord on 26 May 2021, asking it to send written confirmation to the resident on its final position, as the resident had informed us he was unsure how to escalate his complaint. The landlord sent its stage two complaint response on 27 May 2021, informing the resident it was unable to investigate loss and its insurer had denied liability, so it signposted him to this Service. Again, the landlord exceeded its complaint timeframe, as it took over two months to issue its stage two response.

12. Although the landlord’s complaint handling procedure states that it cannot handle cases that involve insurance claims, this was not made clear to the resident until its stage two response, thus causing him additional time and effort in pursuing the complaint. The landlord’s complaint policy also states it will provide a detailed explanation to the resident, if it does not accept a complaint, which it did not.

13. The landlord failed to address other issues the resident had raised in his complaint, including the removal of his security grille, and that he had reported the front entrance was not secure, on several occasions. Under this Service’s complaint handling code, the landlord “must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions”. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord investigated these issues and the only explanation the resident received regarding his complaint was from the landlord’s insurer, when it confirmed the reasons it had denied liability. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to assess its records, to confirm to the resident why the security grille was removed, and whether it had acted on reports that the front entrance was unsecure.

14. As the landlord failed to acknowledge its complaint handling failures, this element of the complaint remains unresolved and it would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation, in view of these failings. In accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance, awards between £50 to £250 are appropriate in cases where there has been service failure by the landlord, resulting in some impact on the complainant. Compensation in this range includes failure to meet service standards for actions and responses, but where the failure had no significant impact on the outcome of the complaint. In this case, the resident would have been inconvenienced by the landlord’s delayed response times and its failure to address all the complaint points, but this has not impacted the substantive issue of the complaint.

Determination

15. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for compensation after a burglary at his property.

16. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the removal of the resident’s security grille.

17. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.  

Orders

18. In light of the additional time and effort caused to the resident in pursuing the complaint, as a result of the landlord’s failings, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £200.

19. The landlord should provide evidence of the payment to this Service within four weeks of this report.