London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202112089)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202112089

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

16 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 is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a burst water pipe, and the subsequent repairs.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. On 26 April 2021 the resident reported that her bathroom tap was leaking uncontrollably. The landlord attended to assess the damage and in May 2021, the landlord arranged an appointment to inspect the bathroom and flooring (which had water damage). The appointment was cancelled on the day as the operative fell ill. The landlord rearranged the appointment for 21 June 2021. It is understood that it attended and reassigned the repair to its major works department.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 21 June 2021. She was dissatisfied that the landlord had not booked an appointment to replace her bath. The landlord said it could not give a date for when the major works (to the bath and flooring) would be completed. It said some work had been delayed up to six months due to the impact the COVID-19 pandemic had on its repairs service.
  4. The resident remained dissatisfied and asked to escalate her complaint. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response in September 2021 (following contact from this Service). It offered the resident £250 compensation for her time and trouble, distress and inconvenience, and its delayed stage two complaint response. It said it would arrange an inspection to see whether it could carry out any temporary repairs whilst it awaited the major works.
  5. In the resident’s correspondence with this Service, she said she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s offer of compensation. She confirmed that the landlord had completed work to her bathroom and flooring in January 2022. 

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states it is responsible for the hot water supply in baths and bathroom floor coverings. It says it will complete emergency work (when there is an immediate danger) within 24 hours, and then any follow-on work at the earliest mutually convenient appointment. The policy does not include any target timeframe for completing major works.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out that it will respond to stage one complaints within ten working days, and stage two complaints within 20 working days.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy says it can offer £10 for failing to respond to a formal complaint within its published timescales. It can offer £20 for missed appointments. It can offer a maximum of £100 per defect for failing to complete a repair within its published timescales.
  4. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) sets out our approach to awards of compensation for distress and inconvenience. We suggest offers in the region of £250 to £750 when there has been considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant. Examples include failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs, or when the resident has had to chase the landlord on multiple occasions.
  5. The resident reported an uncontainable leak from her bath tap on 26 April 2021. The landlord’s records show it attended on 28 April 2021, but it is unclear what work it carried out during this visit. Although the landlord’s repairs policy does not specify what it considers as an emergency repair, it is generally accepted that uncontainable leaks meet the threshold for one as it could pose an immediate risk to health and safety or significant property damage. As such, the landlord’s failure to attend within 24 hours of the resident’s repair report was unreasonable as it should have handled the matter with greater urgency.
  6. The landlord arranged for follow on work to be carried out on 21 May 2021 but then cancelled the appointment on the day. The cancelation was unavoidable as it was due to staff sickness but the landlord should still have followed its compensation policy, which sets out that it will offer £20 for missed appointments. It therefore should have taken this into consideration when it subsequently offered the resident compensation in its stage two complaint response.
  7. The landlord’s records show that it rearranged the cancelled appointment for 21 June 2021. It said it would inspect the bath and flooring, as well as the toilet, sink, and damp (issues the resident reported in May 2021). It asked whether she believed any of the issues were emergencies, and if so, it could attend sooner. The landlord’s records indicate that the resident was satisfied with the appointment and there is no evidence to suggest she said it was an emergency issue which needed to be addressed more urgently. This was a reasonable response from the landlord as it demonstrated that it was willing to investigate her concerns and treat them more urgently if necessary. When it attended in June 2021 it referred the bath repair to its major works department and booked an appointment to replace the flooring in July. The landlord did not replace the flooring in July 2021, and again referred the matter to its major works department.
  8. In the landlord’s stage one complaint response, it said the COVID-19 pandemic had impacted its repairs service meaning that some work had been delayed by up to six months. It said it could not provide a date for when the outstanding repairs would be completed. Whilst it is understandable that the pandemic would have greatly impacted the landlord’s service, it would have been good practice to keep the resident updated on a regular basis and let her know an estimated timescale as soon as possible. Nevertheless, in its stage two complaint response the landlord acknowledged that it should have assisted her further whilst awaiting the major work. It said it would arrange an inspection to check what it could do to help.
  9. No evidence has been provided for this investigation to show the landlord inspected as it said it would. As such it failed to manage the resident’s expectations and follow through with what it said it would do. This was a failing by the landlord and resulted in the resident chasing it on numerous occasions. Also, there is no evidence of the landlord inspecting the damp the resident reported in May 2021, or the other issues she raised (relating to her sink and toilet). The landlord should have taken more reasonable steps to address her concerns at the time.
  10. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 27 July 2021. The landlord failed to acknowledge her escalation request. This Service contacted it twice (on 25 August and 13 September 2021) to chase a response. It issued its stage two response on 24 September 2021. The landlord failed to act in accordance with its complaints policy by exceeding its target response timeframe (it took 43 working days, rather than the published timescale of 20). The landlord offered the resident £100 compensation for its delay. This was a reasonable amount as it exceeded what its policy deemed suitable for such delays.
  11. In total, the landlord offered the resident £250 compensation. This was in light of its delayed response, the resident’s time and trouble, and the distress and inconvenience caused. The offer appears reasonable given that it had managed her expectations by advising that the work could take up to six months to be completed. Nevertheless, it took nine months from when the resident first reported the burst pipe for work to be completed, and as there is no evidence to show the landlord carried out any interim repairs during this time to demonstrate that it was actively taking steps to resolve her concerns. It failed initially attend within its emergency timeframe, failed to address the repairs she raised in May 2021, and failed to inspect after its stage two complaint response. These failings would have undoubtedly caused the resident further distress and inconvenience.  As such, we will order the landlord to pay her £200 further compensation to bring the total offer in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (as set out above).

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a burst water pipe, and the subsequent repairs.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a further £200 for the inconvenience and delay experienced as a result of the failings identified in this report.
  2. This is in addition to the £250 previously offered through the landlord’s internal complaints process, which should also now be paid unless it has been paid already. The total compensation for this complaint is £450.
  3. This payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this Service when the payment has been made.