London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202118374)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202118374

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

14 November 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 reports of a leak in his property.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
  2. The resident had previously reported a suspected leak in the airing cupboard of the property in October 2018. Following operatives attending the property, no leak could be found. The landlord continued to investigate the leak and remedial works were completed on 11 July 2019, which included a mould wash, and the cupboard being painted. In February 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to advise the leak was still ongoing. The landlord’s contractors investigated the issue and after gaining access to the neighbouring properties, discovered the cause of the leak. The landlord has stated the remedial works to the leak were completed on 25 July 2021, however, the resident disputes this and has stated the repairs are still outstanding.
  3. The resident’s complaint is about the duration of the ongoing leak, as he believed the initial remedial work had not been completed properly, and was unhappy that this had resulted in mould and damp in the property. He believed the landlord had breached its health and safety obligations.
  4. In the landlord’s responses, it apologised for the delays in its complaint handling, and advised it was trying to strengthen its recruitment to improve this. It apologised for the delays in repairs and stated it was due to a backlog of remedial works needed since the Covid-19 pandemic, as well as having to wait for access to neighbouring properties in order to fully assess the cause of the leak. It advised the resident to claim for any damage to his belongings on his contents insurance, and provided its insurance details if the resident wished to claim for claim for injury or damage to health as a result of the mould. It offered compensation of £230, which was made up of £50 for delays in repairs, £80 for acknowledging the stage two complaint was late, and £100 for time, effort and inconvenience. The landlord advised this would go towards arrears on the resident’s account.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint to this Service on 9 November 2021 due to the damp caused by the ongoing leak, and continued delays in the service provided by the landlord. The resident has stated that the repairs were outstanding and that he seeking for them to be completed, and for further compensation in view of this.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. It is acknowledged that the resident has raised concerns about health and safety and the impact of the required repairs on his health. However, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriate for it to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim. The courts can call on medical experts and make legally binding judgements. This is an accordance with paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure
  2. Therefore, this case will focus on the landlord’s handling of the repairs and its complaint handling, and whether this was in line with its policies, and the expectations of this Service. Consideration has also been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

Policies and Procedures

  1. Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord must keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling house.
  2. The repairs policy states that routine ‘day to day’ repairs will be completed at the earliest mutually convenient appointment and that the landlord is responsible for any pipework, when it is leaking.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy states that a stage one response will be responded to within ten working days, and a stage two complaint will be responded to within twenty working days. In both cases, if the landlord is unable to provide a response, it will explain why and respond within a further ten working days.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in the property which had resulted in damp and mould.

  1. The resident initially reported the suspected leak in October 2018, and the landlord’s notes show that the remedial works in relation to this report were ultimately completed on 30 July 2019, which was a total of nine months. The works consisted of a mould and damp wash being applied, and a cupboard being repainted. Due to no further reports following the remedial work, it was understandable that the landlord considered the issue to be resolved.
  2. Whilst the resident’s initial report and the landlord’s response to that report have been included to provide context, due to the length of time that has passed since the remedial works were completed in July 2019,the focus of this investigation has been on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s more recent report in February 2021 that the leak had been ongoing since it was first reported.
  3. Following the resident’s report in February 2021, it took the landlord five months to locate the leak and carry out the necessary remedial work. It is not disputed by either party that there were delays throughout the remedial work needed. The landlord acknowledged that this had been inconvenient for the resident, and that he had spent time and effort pursuing the works needed. Whilst the resident has not disputed these specific works taking place, the resident was unhappy with the condition of the property following these works, and believe further remedial works are needed.
  4. When failings have been identified, it is the Ombudsman’s role to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord has put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles (DRP): to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  5. In this case, the landlord acted appropriately by acknowledging the delays in its service, and apologising to the resident for the impact this had on him. It also put things right by locating the leak, and carrying out remedial work to resolve this. In addition, it attempted to be fair by offering the resident £50 for delays in repairs and £100 for his time, effort and inconvenience.
  6.  Whilst in its complaint responses the landlord provided an explanation to the resident of its delays, which consisted of a backlog of outstanding repairs following the Covid-19 pandemic as well as delays in being granted access to neighbouring properties to investigate the leak fully, both of which were somewhat outside of the landlord’s control, it failed to communicate these reasons appropriately during the repairs process. During that time it would have been appropriate for the landlord to explain the reason for the delays, and to have kept the resident updated in order to appropriately set the resident’s expectations in relation to any outstanding remedial work.
  7.  Internal communication from the landlord throughout July 2021 shows that the landlord had been unable to locate the leak, and needed different contractors to attend in order to investigate further. It had also identified works that had previously been completed in the resident’s property, but needed to be completed in neighbouring properties in order to help remediate the ongoing issues. It should be noted that it can take more than one attempt to resolve issues such as leaks as it can be difficult to identify the cause of issue at the outset and in some case different repairs may need to be attempted before the matter is resolved. This would not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord. However, the landlord failed to communicate this with the resident and to appropriately set his expectations which is a failing on the landlord’s behalf.
  8. The resident has also said that he was dissatisfied with his belongings being damaged, and believed the landlord was liable for this. The landlord acted appropriately by advising the resident to make a claim for any damaged belongings on his contents insurance, who would then establish negligence or liability to pay. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy which states that residents are responsible for arranging their own home contents insurance for accidental damage to their belongings and property. The landlord also acted appropriately by providing the resident with its own insurance details if he wished to claim for any health issues or personal injuries in relation to the ongoing issues.
  9.  Furthermore, the landlord advised that the contractors had informed it that the work was completed, and the landlord then confirmed this with the resident on 26 July 2021. It was reasonable that the landlord believed the issue had been resolved again as, whilst the resident was dissatisfied with being told to claim for damages on his content’s insurance, in his response, he did not dispute that the repairs were completed. In the resident’s communication on 20 September 2021, he did not specifically state what repairs remain to be outstanding, but stated that the damage from the leak was not fixed. The resident also said that he was living in conditions which breached his human rights and therefore it is unclear to this Service what was outstanding.
  10. However, follow-on works appear to have been raised and were supposed to take place in February 2022, but were postponed due to the resident being unavailable on the day. From the evidence provided it is not wholly clear what these works were in relation to, nor whether they went ahead as the records provided to this Service only covered until March 2022. This is evidence of poor record-keeping by the landlord, as a landlord is expected to maintain clear and detailed records of any repairs, follow-on works and contact from the resident in case of a dispute in events. It would be appropriate for the landlord to communicate with the resident regarding any remaining outstanding repairs; and following this, create an action plan for works to be completed, if this had not already been done.
  11. Overall, it is the opinion of this Service that the landlord provided adequate redress for the delays and the inconvenience for the resident by apologising, and offering the resident £150 compensation. However, the landlord’s poor record-keeping with regards to the repairs constitutes a service failure, and compensation is due in view of this. This Service recommends compensation of £100 to £600 in cases where there was failure which adversely affected the resident but there was no permanent impact and the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. The landlord has therefore been order to pay the resident an additional £100 in respect of its record keeping failures, bringing the total payable to the resident for this element of his complaint to £250.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The resident raised his stage one complaint on 24 February 2021, and the landlord provided the stage one response on the same day. This was within the appropriate timeframe listed in the landlord’s complaints policy which states that a stage one response should be sent within ten working days.
  2. The resident requested that his complaint to be escalated on 3 March 2021. The landlord provided a holding response on 16 June 2021 and acknowledged the complaint on 12 July 2021. It then provided the stage two response on 22 July 2021. The landlord took a total of 98 working days to provide the stage two response following the resident’s request to escalate his complaint, which was not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord’s complaints policy states that a stage two response should be provided within twenty working days, with an extension of a further ten working days if an explanation is given to the resident.
  3. In this case, whilst the landlord did provide a holding response on 16 June 2021, the overall timeframe in which the landlord handled the stage two complaint still exceeded the timescale as per its own policy, and the Complaint Handling Code provided by this Service. The landlord acknowledged the complaint after a total of 72 working days, following communication from this Service. The Complaint Handling Code provided by this Service states that a complaint should be acknowledged within five working days. The holding response was not in line with the Complaint Handling Code provided by this Service as it did not contain a date by which the landlord would provide the final response. The landlord therefore failed to appropriately handle the complaint for the duration in which it was at stage two, and as a result, failed to appropriately set the resident’s expectations.
  4. Furthermore, when the resident initially raised the complaint, he stated that the issue had not been properly resolved previously, and as a result this had led to constant damage, mould and damp within the property. The landlord failed to address this issue within the stage one complaint. Similarly, in his complaint escalation, the resident raised concerns about the remedial work breaching health and safety requirements. Whilst the landlord did not specifically address this concern during the stage two response, it did provide its insurance details in case the resident wished to make a claim in relation to his health or personal injury due to the repair. The landlord failed, however, to act in line with the Complaint Handling Code provided by this Service which states that landlords should address all points raised in the complaint.
  5. Ultimately, the landlord attempted to put things right by apologising for the delays in its handling of the complaint, and providing the resident with £80 compensation for the delay in providing the stage two response. However, the landlord failed to consider that it had not adequately address all of the concerns raised by the resident, and this constitutes a failing.
  6. This Service recommends compensation of £100 to £600 in cases where there was failure which adversely affected the resident but there was no permanent impact and the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. Therefore, the landlord has been ordered to pay an additional £70 for its failure adequately address all of the concerns raised by the resident, bringing the total compensation for the landlord’s complaint handling failures to £150.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in way the landlord handled the resident’s reports of a leak in the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in way the landlord handled the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident the resident a total of £400, made up as follows:
    1. The £230 compensation it had previously offered, if this has not already been paid.
    2. An additional £100 for its poor record-keeping,
    3. An additional £70 for its failure to address all of the resident’s concerns within the complaint responses.
    4. It is the Ombudsman’s position that any compensation awarded by this Service should be treated separately from any financial arrangements between the landlord and the resident and should not be offset against any arrears.
  2. The landlord is also ordered to:
    1. Investigate whether any remedial work remains to be outstanding, and if so, to create an action plan for any necessary works, and provide a copy to both the resident and this Service for our records.
    2. Carry out a review of its record keeping and consider additional training around the way in which repairs and contact from residents are recorded and managed in order to reduce the likelihood of a similar situation occurring in the future.
    3. Review its complaint handling and consider providing further staff training on its complaint policies, and the expectations of this Service, in order to ensure similar delays do not happen in the future and that its complaint responses are fully addressing the concerns raised by the resident.
  3. The landlord is to confirm to this service that it has complied with all of the above orders within four weeks of the date of this determination.