London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202103687)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202103687

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

17 January 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of repair works to the resident’s property, including the conduct of members of the landlord’s staff, and the resident’s concerns that the landlord has not taken her vulnerability into consideration.
2. The level of compensation offered by the landlord to the resident.

Background and summary of events

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s Vulnerable Residents Policy identifies vulnerability as someone with a condition that places them at risk in their home, puts them at risk of being unable to comply with their tenancy requirements or affects their ability to access services.
Under the Vulnerable Residents Policy, for vulnerable residents in general needs and supported housing, the landlord can provide help with minor health and safety repairs that would normally be their responsibility and can provide minor and major adaptations to support the resident to live safely and independently in their homes.
The landlord’s Repairs Policy, summarised in its Repairs Responsibility Booklet, confirms the landlord’s repair obligations:
1. “To keep the structure and exterior of your home safe, secure and weatherproof.
2. To make sure all fixtures and fittings for the supply of water, gas, electricity, heating and sanitation are in working order.”
With regards to the kitchen, the booklet confirms that the landlord will repair:
1. Water leaks.
2. Trip hazards in kitchen flooring we provided.
3. Kitchen sinks and taps.
4. Extractor fans and pull cords.
With regards to the bathroom, the booklet confirms that the landlord will repair:
1. Water leaks.
2. Basin and bath taps.
3. Trip hazards in bathroom flooring we provided.
4. Toilet flushing mechanisms.
5. Extractor fans and pull cords.

The Repairs Policy states that the landlord is responsible for repairs to kitchen and bathroom floor coverings.

With regards to timeframes, “for routine day to day repairs, we [the landlord] will aim to complete the repair at the earliest mutually convenient appointment…For emergency works, where there is an immediate danger to the occupant or members of the public, we [the landlord] will attend within 24 hours.”
The landlord’s Compensation Policy states that “discretionary payments can be made to recognise individual household circumstances, for example, larger sized households, or specific vulnerabilities… The offer of discretionary compensation is a goodwill gesture and staff will decide the value and form based on internal guidance.”
The Compensation Policy states that:
1. With regards to a “routine defect e.g. an internal decorative issue”, the policy allows “£2 per day with a maximum of £100 per defect … if not completed within 20 days.”
2. “Failure to respond – we will make a payment of £10 for the following service failures:
  1. failure to respond to a formal complaint within the timescales published in our Complaints Policy.”
From April 2020, the landlord amended its Compensation Policy in light of the coronavirus pandemic stating “apart from a small number exceptions, no discretionary or proactive payment compensation payments would be made until further notice.” Payment may be made “where there is a clear reputational risk to the business as a result of our service failure.”
The landlord also has a Compensation Guidance document which provides guidance on making discretionary awards. The document states that where the impact is “High”, £60 can be awarded for Inconvenience, £60 can be awarded for Distress and £200 for Time/Effort.
The landlord has a two stage Complaints Procedure. The procedure states that at Stage 1, it should provide a written response within 10 working days. If this is not possible, it should inform the complainant and respond within a further 10 working days. At Stage 2, the landlord should provide a written response with the outcome within 20 working days. Again, if this is not possible, it should inform the complainant and provide the response within a further 10 working days.

Summary of Events

On 15 January 2020 the resident raised a repair order. The repair was described as: “no hot water coming through kitchen mixer tap which leaked when it was off, loose bathroom taps; broken toilet cistern handle with deterioration of the fitting around.”
The landlord’s repair records indicate that the landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property on 31 January 2021. The resident has stated that as a result of the works carried out, she reported an uncontainable leak from the cistern which looked like it was coming off the wall. When attending the leak, the landlord identified follow on works, an additional screw and hole, to be completed on 5 February 2020, although the landlord’s repair records do not confirm that this appointment was met. The tap repairs were not carried out on either 31 January 2020 or 5 February 2020.
The resident complained that only the cistern had been repaired and a follow-on appointment for the taps was needed. She also stated that the operative had left the cistern coming away from the wall which caused a leak and required the landlord to raise an emergency repair. The operative was interviewed on 10 February 2020, according to the landlord’s records.
The resident has stated that the operative who attended on 31 January 2020 re–attended her property in February 2020 to complete outstanding works but in her view did so unsatisfactorily, causing a flood in the kitchen when renewing the taps which damaged her flooring and leaving a mess. Although the landlord’s repair records indicate that the works raised on 15 January 2020 were completed on 26 February 2020, there is no evidence to confirm a leak in the kitchen in February 2020. However, the landlord’s repair records confirm that on 5 March 2020 it attended an uncontainable leak from the kitchen sink.
On 9 March 2020, the resident advised the landlord she still had a leak behind her toilet and that she wanted compensation. The landlord attended an order to “trace and remedy leak from toilet” that day. In response to a complaint from the resident about the operative who had originally attended her property, the landlord also advised that a supervisor was investigating his actions and he was being monitored for his performance. It stated it would consider compensation after the leak had been repaired.
On 10 March 2020, the landlord raised repair orders to renew the resident’s toilet and renew the non-slip polysafe flooring for the bathroom.
On 27 March 2020, the resident called for an update on her complaint. There is no evidence that the landlord provided a substantive response.
On 7 April 2020, the landlord advised the resident that an appointment to renew her toilet had been cancelled as it was only carrying out emergency repairs due to Covid-19 lockdown restrictions. On 27 April 2020, the landlord’s records note that the resident had indicated she was self-isolating for 12 weeks and would call when she could provide access for repairs. The landlord’s records also note that it had advised the resident that the works to the toilet was considered “critical” but not the flooring works.
On 24 June 2020 the resident phoned pursuing her compensation claim and stating that she wished to discuss the damage that the operative had caused with a surveyor. The resident made a further call on 3 July 2020 about her complaint. She has advised that she made a further call on 17 July 2020 although the landlord’s records do not show this.
On 25 August 2020 the resident advised that the flooring contractor had measured the bathroom flooring. She asked if the new toilet would be installed before the new bathroom flooring, which was scheduled for 28 August 2020. The landlord’s internal records confirm that the flooring works should come after and that the flooring works on 28 August 2020 were cancelled as the toilet had not been installed. The resident also stated on 25 August 2020 that following the leak to her kitchen, her non-slip mat, which she needed for safety due to her visual impairment, was stuck to the kitchen flooring. The landlord raised an order for the flooring contractor to inspect.
The landlord subsequently advised the resident that the flooring contractor would install new kitchen flooring on 30 September 2020 and that she should raise a complaint if she wanted to claim for damage to her mat. The landlord’s repair records confirm that the flooring contractor installed the kitchen flooring on this date.
On 5 October 2020 the landlord spoke to the resident and acknowledged a formal complaint. It noted her concerns about the same operative flooding her bathroom then kitchen; the replacement flooring in the kitchen not being the same quality as the original and a gap on the join; damage to her non–slip mat; water damage to a kitchen cupboard; the bathroom flooring not yet being replaced and the need to install a new toilet first because of the different sizes; and a lack of communication from the landlord. The landlord raised a new repair for the kitchen cupboard and subsequently agreed to provide £20 vouchers as reimbursement for a new mat.
On 19 October 2020 the resident again reported a gap in the flooring and stated that the sealant was coming off. On the same day, the landlord recalled the flooring contractor.
On 5 November 2020, the resident reported a leak through the ceiling into her bathroom light from the flat above which was void. On the same day, she complained about the general quality of works to her property, making reference to the leak in her bathroom light. She advised that her property needed to be inspected as there were cracks and her disabilities needed to be taken into account, for instance she could not use regular taps. She also stated that in August/September she had found out that her complaint had been closed in May/June without her knowledge.
The landlord’s records indicate that its flooring contractor re-attended on 6 November 2020 and noted that the vinyl flooring was in a satisfactory condition as there was no trip hazard. However, it replaced the weld and confirmed that the flooring needed a join as it could not be installed as one whole. The landlord advised the resident of this finding on 17 November 2020, also stating the bathroom tiles would be fitted after lockdown was lifted. The resident in response argued that she would have refused the flooring had she been informed that it would not be flush, in one piece, and that the flooring contractor agreed the flooring should be like for like. She also provided a photo of damage to her bathroom ceiling following the leak from the void flat above, which she understood to have occurred because the Voids Team did not turn off/cap the water.
The landlord’s repair records confirm that on 12 November 2020, it installed a new toilet. On the same day, it re-raised the order for non-slip polysafe flooring to be installed in the bathroom and the works were completed on 16 November 2020.
On 18 November 2020, the landlord raised repair jobs to clip the bathroom inlet pipe to the wall, renew the broken tiles in the bathroom behind the toilet and make good the bathroom ceiling after the leak. On 24 November 2020, it completed the repair to the kitchen cupboard.
The landlord again spoke to the flooring company on 3 December 2020 who advised that the kitchen flooring roll came in 2m size and could not be a single piece, and that the heat joint did not constitute a trip hazard.
On 3 December 2020 the resident’s MP wrote to the landlord noting that the resident had not received a response to her complaint about the operative who attended on 31 January 2020 and in February 2020. The MP also noted that there was a leak to the resident’s flat from the flat above, which was void, and that the leak had damaged her new flooring. However, the landlord had not responded to her request for a replacement. The MP stated that the resident wanted her property to be inspected.
In an email to the resident on 9 December 2020 and an update to the MP on 14 December 2020, the landlord confirmed it had carried out the following:
1. Kitchen flooring has been replaced.
2. £20 voucher supplied to replace damaged rug.
3. Kitchen unit replaced.
4. Bathroom flooring replaced.
5. Inlet pipe in bathroom – job scheduled for 11 December 2020 10-12pm.
6. Toilet flush repaired.
7. Bathroom tiles – scheduled for 14 January 2021. 5hr job.
8. Bathroom Ceiling – Scheduled for 17 December 20 10-2pm.

The landlord also advised that the further damaged bathroom flooring would be inspected on the 11 December 2020 at the same time the operative attended to repair the inlet pipe. There is no evidence that the inspection or works scheduled for 11 December 2020 subsequently took place.

On 16 December 2020 the landlord escalated the resident’s complaint for review by its Customer Relations Team, which advised it would send the written response by 13 January 2021.
On 7 January 2021, the landlord advised the resident that it would be arranging an inspection of her flooring. It also wrote to the MP on 11 January 2021 stating:
1. Kitchen flooring – will be inspected by a surveyor.
2. Bathroom Flooring – will be inspected by a surveyor.
3. Bathroom Tiling – Booked for 5 hours on the 14 January 2021 AM slot.
4. Bathroom Ceiling Plastering – booked for the 18 January 2021 PM slot.
5. Bathroom in-let pipe – will be inspected by a surveyor.
The landlord’s repair records confirm that the repair to the inlet pipe was completed on 11 January 2021 and the bathroom tiling works were completed on 14 January 2021.
On 13 January 2021 the resident’s advocate listed issues that the resident was unhappy with:
1. New flooring had been installed in the bathroom on the existing floor which the resident thought was damp due to previous flooding. She wanted new flooring installed.
2. The toilet installed in the bathroom was two inches lower than the previous one.
3. Contaminated water had come through the bathroom ceiling causing damage and damp smell.
4. When the toilet was replaced, tiles that were removed from the wall were not replaced.
5. The replacement flooring in the kitchen was not like for like and did not cover the area under her cooker. She wanted new flooring in one piece without a join.
6. The new threshold guard for the kitchen flooring was not installed correctly causing problems opening and shutting the door.
7. It was difficult to reach the cord for the new extractor fan due to the way it was installed.
8. The resident understood she would have quarter turn taps installed in the bathroom and kitchen; however, they were only fitted on the bath.
9. The floor in the bedroom was “crumbling” and the resident was unable to move furniture out to facilitate an inspection due to her disabilities and health condition.
The inspection of the resident’s property was initially arranged for 12 January 2021, then re-arranged for 22 January 2021, then re-scheduled again for 12 February 2021 due to the resident needing to shield because of her vulnerabilities. She also raised concerns that the operatives had not adhered to PPE guidelines, stating “L&Q operatives were coming here to carry out work, a majority of them, disrespected my health vulnerability. Putting both, my health and home at risk!”
The landlord’s records confirm that its surveyor made the following findings from the inspection of 12 February 2021:
1. The screed had possibly gone behind the toilet so the bathroom floor would need to come out; however, the floor was satisfactory so the works would have to wait until lockdown restrictions had been eased.
2. A job to replace the toilet with a 450mm disabled pan could be booked in.
3. The ceiling just had a stain and was fine, an electrician would need to inspect the fan.
4. Tiles missing behind the toilet could be installed after the easing of lockdown restrictions
5. New polysafe flooring could be installed in the kitchen when lockdown eased.
6. A floor fitter would have to assess if a different threshold strip could be installed but this would be done at the same time when new bathroom and kitchen flooring was fitted; it could not immediately install a different strip that would be better.
7. An electrician would have to look at the positioning of the cord for the extractor fan.
8. A plumber could install lever taps once the reason for the resident’s request was established.
9. The latex had possibly blown under the carpet. A new carpet would be needed but this would have to wait until after lockdown. Furniture may have to go into storage.
The resident pursued the response to her complaint on 26 February 2021. On 3 March 2021, the landlord advised the resident that it was in the process of finalising the response to her complaint. However, it could advise that the repairs identified at the inspection were routine repairs, but it could only carry out emergency and critical repairs at that time.
On 18 March 2021 the landlord sent the final response to the resident’s complaint. It apologised for the resident’s experience and confirmed that the operative in question was currently under a performance review and was being monitored internally. It also apologised for the operative not wearing the correct PPE. It noted that it had advised the resident of the further repairs that were raised. It advised the works would be scheduled after Covid-19 guidelines allowed works other than emergency works and critical repairs to be carried out.
The landlord noted that it had then agreed for a surveyor to attend the resident’s property and relayed the finding of the inspection of 12 February 2020. It summarised the outstanding repairs to be completed and advised that they had been added onto its Recovery Covid project, when it was able to resume routine repairs:
1. “Bathroom – Tiling behind the toilet, take up floor relay screed, replace threshold, replace taps.
2. Kitchen – Renew polysafe flooring to kitchen, replace taps.
3. Bedroom – Further assessment for the bedroom floor required, items may need to be removed. Which we will explain on arrival.”

The landlord also noted that there was evidence that it had provided £20 vouchers to cover the cost a non-slip mat.

In conclusion, the landlord accepted that the level of service received by the resident did not meet the standards it aimed to provide, as repairs and enquiries should have been managed more effectively and addressed more swiftly. It offered compensation of £395 which comprised:
1. Inconvenience – £150.
2. Length of Time – £100.
3. Time and Effort – £100.
4. No Stage 1 response – £25.
5. Delay in Stage 2 response – £20.
On 25 March 2021 the landlord raised a new repair order for the toilet. Its repair records indicate that the works were completed on 15 April 2021.
On 14 May 2021, the resident referred her complaint to this Service.
As of 7 July 2021, the works still outstanding from this complaint were not completed due to the landlord not gaining access to complete the repairs. It is understood that there are separate electrical works, to be carried out by the distribution network operator for electricity, required also at the resident’s property. It is also understood that the parties have disagreed whether the resident should be decanted for the duration of the works, with the landlord refusing her decant request, and that the landlord at the time was dealing with these matters as a separate formal complaint.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repair works to the resident’s property, including the conduct of members of the landlord’s staff, and the resident’s concerns that the landlord has not taken her vulnerability into consideration

The landlord’s initial response after raising repairs on 15 January 2020 was in line with its timeframe for routine repairs. It transpired that a further appointment was needed to install new taps. It is not unreasonable that a follow-on appointment was needed for the taps as it is appropriate that a landlord first seek to inspect a repair item when necessary and seek to affect a repair.
It is not disputed that the leak from the toilet occurred after the initial visit, and it is in line with the Repairs Procedure that the landlord attended on an emergency basis. It is also not disputed that there was another leak in the kitchen that occurred when the contractor attended to complete outstanding works and the landlord’s records indicate there were leaks reported in the kitchen on 5 March 2020 and the bathroom on 9 March 2020. It was appropriate that the landlord subsequently raised orders to renew the resident’s toilet and the flooring in the bathroom as this was in line with its repair obligation. It was also appropriate that the landlord raised with the operative in question the concerns about his workmanship and undertook to monitor his performance so as to ensure he could perform his duties satisfactorily.
Nonetheless, the resident had a reasonable expectation that there would not be further issues with her toilet/cistern and the kitchen sink after the works carried out. The leaks to her property and need to raise emergency repairs caused inconvenience.
Thereafter, it was reasonable that works identified for the bathroom were delayed until after July 2020 given the Covid-19 lockdown restrictions and the resident advising she was self-isolating/shielding. owv However, the toilet needed to be installed before the flooring but there is no evidence that the toilet repair was expedited once the landlord was able to gain access to the resident’s property. Indeed, the flooring was measured and due to be installed before the toilet repair indicating a lack of communication and joined up thinking on the part of the landlord.
The resident also raised concerns about the condition of the kitchen flooring and her non-slip mat. The landlord’s response was reasonable insofar as it arranged for its flooring contractor to inspect, thereby taking action to make an informed decision on the issue. It also renewed the kitchen flooring and reimbursed the cost of a new mat thereby seeking to put the resident in the position she would have been in had the damage not occurred.
Thereafter, the resident raised concerns with the new flooring that was installed, stating that it had a join and was not like for like. The landlord repair obligation to provide flooring did not extend to providing flooring in one piece. It did have a responsibility to ensure the flooring was safely installed and, in this regard, it acted appropriately by asking the flooring contractor to inspect the join. However, the fact that the resident also queried the quality of the flooring indicates that the landlord and/or the contractor did not take adequate steps to manage her expectations about the kitchen flooring works.
With regards to the bathroom works, it was unreasonable that the landlord delayed until November 2020 to install a new toilet, given the resident’s vulnerability and the fact that it considered the works “critical”. Correspondingly, the related bathroom flooring works were also delayed. Moreover, there is no evidence that the landlord considered the size of toilet that should be installed indicating that it did not have sufficient regards to the resident’s needs and vulnerabilities. It should be noted whilst recommendations for aids and adaptations usually come from Occupational Therapists, the Vulnerability Policy places a responsibility on the landlord to also consider independently whether it can provide minor and major adaptations to support residents living in their homes.
The resident also on 5 November 2020 reported a new leak to her bathroom from the flat above and requested an inspection of her property. She pursued this request with the assistance of her MP, also stating that the new bathroom flooring that had been installed was not in a satisfactory condition because of the leak. There was a delay on the part of the landlord in investigating this issue insofar as it did not attend the appointment on 16 December 2020.
By the time it was able to carry out the inspection, on 16 February 2021, there was further correspondence from the MP and the resident’s advocate who listed further repair and maintenance items. It was in line with its need to meet its repair obligation that the landlord extended the scope of the inspection to inspect all items. At the inspection on 16 February 2021 the landlord identified the action it should take to resolve the outstanding repair matters, and then communicated the outcome to the resident thereby managing her expectations. With regards to the main issues complained about, the landlord agreed to install a new, higher toilet and replace the kitchen flooring demonstrating an intention to resolve these issues. However, there was a delay again in the installation of the new toilet insofar as this did not occur until 15 April 2021, the repair order being made on 24 March 2021. This was two months after the inspection which was outside the timeframe for routine repairs.
Taken altogether, the landlord has responded to the resident’s reports of leaks, completed works in her bathroom and kitchen and assessed what further works are required in her property after she requested an inspection. However, there have been significant service failures. In particular, the quality of the initial works was accepted to be poor, leading to leaks; there was a significant delay in the installation of a new toilet and bathroom flooring notwithstanding the delay caused by Covid-19 lockdown restrictions, exacerbated by the initial failure to co-ordinate these works; and a delay in installing the new, higher toilet after this was identified. The landlord also did not manage the resident’s expectations regarding the type of kitchen flooring it intended to install and it delayed in inspecting the resident’s property after she reported a leak from the flat above.
This Service notes that as of 7 July 2021, most of the works identified at the inspection of 12 February 2021 have not been completed. In line with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states “the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale”, this investigation has focussed on those issues that were considered within the complaints procedure that completed on 18 March 2021. Essentially, a landlord should have an opportunity to respond to a complaint before this Service assesses its response to that complaint. Taken together with the fact that the outstanding repairs have been incorporated within a new complaint that has not been referred to this Service, or indeed shown to have completed the landlord’s complaints procedure, the Ombudsman has not assessed the landlord’s handling of those repairs.
With regards to the landlord’s complaint handling, the resident initially complained in February 2020 about the quality of works carried out by the operative who attended her property. Whilst the landlord verbally advised of internal disciplinary and performance management actions being taken, it did not consider offering compensation for the accepted service failure after the leak had been repaired, as it stated it would on 9 March 2021. It also did not provide a written response, even after the resident pursued her complaint on 27 March 2020 and 24 June 2020 and 3 July 2020, thereby not meeting the requirements of the complaints procedure and leaving the resident uncertain as to the outcome of the complaint she made at this time. This aspect of its complaint handling was not explicitly addressed by the landlord.
After the landlord logged a new complaint in October 2020, it again did not send a written Stage 1 response in line with the timeframe in the Complaints Procedure. In the final complaint response of 18 March 2021, it offered compensation for the lack of response. However, over and above the lack of response, there is no evidence that the landlord confirmed its understanding of the complaint to the resident, advised of timeframes or generally demonstrated clarity in its complaints handling. The Complaints Procedure in effect at the time of the complaint states the landlord should “fully understand the issues and what outcome the customer seeks, identify what actions may be needed to resolve it, agree with the customer the frequency and method of contact during the handling of their complaint.” The policy also states “if matters cannot be resolved immediately an action plan may be needed”; however, it is not evident that these steps were taken. The lack of control and clarity in the landlord’s complaint’s handling exacerbated the time and trouble the resident spent in pursuing her complaint, and she sought assistance from her MP. These issues too were not acknowledged by the landlord.
After the landlord escalated the complaint, the landlord acknowledged the delay in the Stage 2 response and offered compensation exceeding the amount stated in the Compensation Policy for a late complaint response. The Stage 2 response apologised for the operative who initially attended the resident’s property not wearing PPE. However, the resident had indicated that several operatives had “disrespected her health vulnerability”. There is no evidence that the landlord sought details of all the instances where operatives had allegedly not followed Covid-19 guidelines when attending the resident’s property. Nor did it reassure the resident that it had taken action to prevent a possible recurrence. As such it did not take sufficient action to address this aspect of the resident’s complaint which was particularly unreasonable given that she was vulnerable.

The level of compensation offered by the landlord to the resident.

In identifying whether there has been maladministration the Ombudsman considers both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
In this case, the landlord offered redress of £350 for the inconvenience, length of time, time and effort experienced by the resident as a result of its failings in the handling of repairs. This was an offer in line with the discretion allowed for within its Compensation Policy and consistent with its guidance on making awards in cases of high impact. The landlord’s offer is also within the range of compensation outlined in this Service’s Guidance on Remedies, in cases where the Ombudsman has found considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant – “Examples could include… failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs”. However, the landlord’s compensation offer did not take into account the delay in installing the new, higher toilet, the works order for which was only raised after the final complaint response. As such while the landlord has sought to offer redress to resolve the complaint, its offer was not fully proportionate to the circumstances of the case.
The landlord offered redress for some aspect of its complaints handling insofar as it offered compensation for the lack of a Stage 1 response and the delay in the Stage 2 response. However, this offer was not proportionate to the circumstances of the case as the landlord did not consider or offer redress for its handling of the resident’s initial complaint of February 2020; the inconvenience caused by the failings in the handling of the resident’s complaint acknowledged in October 2020; and the resident’s concerns that several operatives had not followed Covid-19 guidelines and generally respected her vulnerability.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of repair works to the resident’s property, including the conduct of members of the landlord’s staff, and the resident’s concerns that the landlord had not taken her vulnerability into consideration.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the level of compensation offered by the landlord to the resident.

Reasons

The landlord has responded to the resident’s reports of leaks, completed works in her bathroom and kitchen and assessed what further works are required in her property after she requested an inspection. However, there have been significant service failures. In particular, the quality of the initial works was accepted to be poor, leading to leaks; there was a significant delay in the installation of a new toilet and bathroom flooring, exacerbated by the landlord’s initial failure to co-ordinate these works; and a delay in installing the new, higher toilet after this was identified. The landlord also did not manage the resident’s expectations regarding the type of kitchen flooring it intended to install and it delayed in inspecting the resident’s property after she reported a leak from the flat above.
While the landlord has sought to offer redress to resolve the complaint, its offer was not fully proportionate to the circumstances of the case, as it did not take into account the delay in installing the new, higher toilet, the works order for which was only raised after the final complaint response. Furthermore, while the landlord’s offer incorporated an award for complaints handling, it did not consider or offer redress for its handling of the resident’s initial complaint of February 2020, the inconvenience caused by the failings in the handling of the resident’s complaint acknowledged in October 2020 and its failure to consider the resident’s concerns that several operatives had not followed Covid-19 guidelines and generally respected her vulnerability.

Orders

The landlord pays the resident the £395 offered within the complaints procedure.
The landlord pays the resident a further £50 in respect of the delay in installing the new, 450mm toilet.
The landlord pays the resident an additional £100 in respect of the failings in its complaints handling identified in this report.
The landlord confirms to the resident its current policy and procedure regarding staff and operatives wearing PPE.