London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202101154)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101154

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

15 April 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 concerns the level of compensation offered by the landlord following delays to fence repairs.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a house.
  2. The resident has had an ongoing dispute with the landlord over who is responsible for undertaking repairs to a fence between the resident’s property and a neighbouring property. The resident first notified the landlord of the issue on 20 August 2020.
  3. On 8 April 2021, the resident called the landlord and requested to raise a formal complaint. The landlord’s notes of the call described the elements of the complaint as:
    1. The resident had been informed by the landlord that it was her responsibility to repair the fence. She disputed this decision.
    2. She had requested a copy of the repairs handbook but had yet to receive it.
    3. Both she and her neighbour were elderly and vulnerable.
  4. The landlord sent a stage one complaint response on 9 April 2021. It informed the resident that it was unable to raise a repair as the upkeep of dividing fences between two gardens was the resident’s responsibility to arrange.
  5. The resident wrote to the landlord on 21 May 2021 and requested an escalation of the complaint in the grounds that:
    1. The landlord had not properly responded to her complaint.
    2. Damage to the fence had worsened over the previous 24 hours due to high winds.
    3. The garden was not safe to use as a result of the damage to the fence and the landlord had a duty of care to resolve the matter as the resident is a vulnerable tenant.
  6. The landlord sent a stage two response to the resident on 11 June 2021. It informed her that in light of the resident’s circumstances, it had agreed to repair the fence and its contractor would be in touch to arrange an appointment.
  7. The resident wrote to the landlord on 21 June 2021. She disputed the landlord’s decision on the tenancy agreement and enquired if the landlord had a record of her vulnerability on her tenancy file.
  8. The landlord provided information to the resident regarding how she could register a vulnerability so it would be flagged on its system and explained that the contractor had 20 working days to arrange an appointment, but due to the costs involved for the work, there may be a delay.
  9. Following further correspondence between the landlord and resident relating to the tenancy agreement, the landlord wrote to the resident on 28 June 2021 and confirmed that due to the tenancy type originally signed by the resident in 1973, that the landlord was obligated to carry out all repairs to the fencing.
  10. The resident sent several emails in July and August 2021 to the landlord to state her dissatisfaction with how long it was taking the contractor to arrange an appointment to repair the fence.
  11. The landlord’s repair logs state that the work to the fence was completed on 18 August 2021. The landlord then confirmed that the work had been completed and in light of the delays in completing the work and the confusion surrounding the clauses in the resident’s tenancy agreement relating to repair responsibilities, it offered her £160 compensation.
  12. In an email sent to this Service on 11 November 2021, the resident described the level of compensation offered by the landlord as inadequate. As a resolution to the complaint, resident requested that the level of compensation was increased to £200.

 

 

 

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies & procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours and that it will arrange a mutually convenient appointment to attend all other repairs. Emergency repairs are defined as a repair where there is “an immediate danger to the occupant or members of the public”.
  2. The policy also states that “for vulnerable residents in general needs and supported housing, we can provide help with minor health and safety repairs that would normally be their responsibility. We are also able to adjust our service standards where a delay would put them at risk because of their condition”.
  3. During the period of the complaint, the landlord was operating a restricted service due to the Covid-19 pandemic. This resulted in repairs that were deemed non-urgent being postponed. The landlord continued to respond to repairs deemed critical during this period. It defined a critical repair as “an emergency or very urgent works that should be completed ‘in days’ and that cannot be safely left for any longer than that”.
  4. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy. When a complaint is raised, the landlord will provide a complaint response within ten working days. If the complainant remains dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation to the next stage. The landlord will then undertake a review of the complaint and send a stage two response to the complainant within 20 working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.
  5. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider compensation when it has failed to follow its policies, procedures or guidelines; for loss of facilities or amenities in the home; failure to respond to a complaint within its target time; or failure to complete repairs within its agreed response time. The policy also states that the landlord will consider discretionary payments that recognise individual household circumstances.

the level of compensation offered by the landlord following delays to fence repairs.

  1. In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged that it was responsible for the repair to the fence and that the length of time it took to complete the repair was not acceptable. The landlord apologised and offered £160 compensation for its service failures.
  2. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  3. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistakes and explaining what it did wrong. It put things right by apologising to the resident and awarding appropriate compensation. It looked to learn from its errors by improving its knowledge of historical tenancy agreements and their terms and conditions.
  4. The resident first signed a tenancy agreement with the landlord in 1973. The landlord’s records had copies of tenancy agreements signed by the resident in 1978, 1982 and 1992, but these documents did not include the full terms and conditions of her tenancy. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to complete an internal investigation to determine what type of tenancy was originally signed by the resident and how it described the landlord’s repair responsibilities. Following this investigation, the landlord was able to identify that it was responsible for the fencing repairs.
  5. It would have understandably been frustrating for the resident to have to contact the landlord several times to query the terms of her tenancy agreement before this was confirmed. This has been taken into account by the Ombudsman when assessing the landlord’s overall offer of compensation. However, we also need to take into account the fact that the landlord had already agreed to repair the fence at this point due to the resident’s personal circumstances, although it incorrectly stated the fence was the resident’s responsibility to maintain. Therefore, the repair itself was not affected by the dispute concerning the tenancy terms and conditions and the delay in carrying out the repair was instead due to the effect of the covid19 pandemic.
  6. The compensation offered by the landlord was made in line with its compensation policy. However, its compensation policy does not provide any guidance for what level of payment should be offered. The Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (which is available on our website) suggests a payment of £250 to £750 in cases of considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant. As examples for when this level of payment should be considered, the guidance suggests:
    1. A complainant repeatedly having to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes, necessitating unreasonable level of involvement by that complainant
    2. Failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs; to respond to antisocial behaviour; to make adequate adjustments
  7. In this case, the level of redress offered by the landlord was reasonable for the time period it considered (a delay in completing repair from when it was raised on 12 June 2021 and clarification given on the tenancy agreement following the resident’s email sent on 21 June 2021).

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to our investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about delays to complete repairs to a fence.