London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202121043)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121043

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

27 July 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 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs to his shower.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord of a flat.
  2. On 9 August 2021, the resident reported an issue with his shower not working to the landlord. He was advised by it that there were no appointments available at that time, and that he would be contacted by it with an appointment date. One of the reasons why the landlord later noted that there were no appointments available at that time was because its contractor had safety concerns based upon the resident’s previous behaviour requiring two operatives to attend. He was subsequently contacted by it on 12 August 2021 with an appointment date for it to fix his shower, but he was unhappy that he would have to wait until 17 September 2021 for it to do so, and he made a stage one complaint to it about this on 12 August 2021.
  3. The landlord then initially closed the complaint on the same day, on the basis of its backlog of works from the Covid-19 pandemic meaning that there were no earlier appointments available at the time. The resident nevertheless spoke to it again, for which it subsequently arranged for the appointment to be brought forward to 1 September 2021, as it recorded that it had learnt that he had no other means of bathing after previously believing that his shower was working but was not powerful enough. The landlord’s contractor then attended on 1 September 2021, and they advised him that a new shower was needed and that the parts were on order for this so that a follow up appointment would be needed.
  4. The resident was advised on the next day that the follow up appointment was booked for 13 October 2021. However, the landlord’s contractor’s sub-contractor subsequently attempted to attend to test and reconnect a shower following installation by its accompanying plumber on 2 September 2021, but he declined this as he required a more powerful shower. There was then conflicting information in its logs about either the resident’s stage one complaint being reopened on 7 September 2021 and escalated, or a new stage one complaint from him being logged and escalated on that date.
  5. Subsequently, the resident was advised by the landlord that its actions were “right first time”, as there were no earlier appointments, and that it was closing his stage one complaint. Its contractor’s sub-contractor then attended his property on 13 October 2021 and fitted the new shower, however he was dissatisfied with the time taken for the repair and he advised the landlord of this on 21 September 2021, for which it apologised. As a result, the resident’s complaint was re-opened and escalated by him on 27 September 2021. The landlord then issued its final stage complaint response on 22 December 2021. It acknowledged that it could have managed the resident’s complaint better, and it also advised that delays in its response were due to a backlog that had been caused by its new approach to complaints.
  6. The landlord also advised that the shower repair delay was partly caused be the need for both a plumber and electrician to attend the electric shower together, as staffing issues meant that this was more difficult to book. It acknowledged, however, that it should have considered that the resident had no other means of bathing. The landlord therefore awarded him £150 total compensation, which consisted of £100 for the loss of his shower at the rate of £10 per week for ten weeks, £20 for the delay in its response, and £30 for his inconvenience. It additionally confirmed that it had briefed its senior managers about the resident’s case and associated issues, interviewed the staff involved, and provided them with training to reflect on their performance and improve its future customer service.
  7. On 25 January 2022, the landlord increased its compensation offer to the resident to £250 in total, which was compromised of £100 for the loss of his shower, £100 for its delay in responding to him, and £50 for his inconvenience. It explained that this was because, while he was still able to use his toilet and wash basin when he was without his shower, miscommunication between it and its contractor had caused more confusion and delay that it was increasing his compensation for.
  8. The resident nevertheless contacted this Service, as he was not happy with how the landlord had handled the repairs to his shower, and his associated complaint about this. He also advised us that he wanted compensation equivalent to one month’s rent from it. The resident then advised this Service that he wanted £635 compensation from the landlord, covering fifty per cent of the rent that he had paid during the two months delay to the repairs, as he believed that this would be appropriate recognition for the loss of his bathroom.
  9. Subsequently, this Service approached both the resident and the landlord to ask if they would consider mediation. Both parties agreed and, on 5 April 2022, the landlord made a counter offer of £550 total compensation. This was made up of £250 under the right to repair, £100 for the delay in its response, £140 for the days rounded up to 70 that the resident lost the use of his shower at the rate of £2 per day, and £60 for his distress and inconvenience. The resident then rejected the offer, as he believed that he had lost the use of his shower for longer, and he wanted this Service to investigate the landlord’s handling of his shower repair, and its complaint handling.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs to his shower

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement and the landlord’s repairs policy made it responsible for repairing the partial loss of the water supply from the shower that it had installed at his property as an urgent repair within five days. As he reported this to it on 9 August 2021 and it did not complete his shower repair until 13 October 2021, it exceeded this timescale by approximately two months, which meant that he was without a shower or any other bathing facilities at the property throughout this period.
  2. It was nevertheless reasonable that the landlord waited for an appointment to become available for two operatives to attend to repair the resident’s shower. This is because of both its contractor’s safety concerns about his previous behaviour requiring this, and its explanation that the need for both a plumber and electrician to attend the electric shower together was made more difficult by staffing issues. The fact that the landlord also had a backlog of works from the Covid-19 pandemic preventing it from arranging earlier appointments, and its 1 September 2021 appointment finding that a new shower was needed with parts on order, additionally meant that it was understandable that this took longer than five days to repair.
  3. To try and reduce this delay in repairing the shower, the landlord’s contractor did assign the work to a sub-contractor to test and reconnect a shower following installation by its accompanying plumber on 2 September 2021, but the resident declined this as he required a more powerful shower. Due to this, the landlord offered him the next available date that it had for the work, which was completed on 13 October 2021. The resident was considerably affected by this delay, however, as he was left for over two months without a shower or any other bathing facilities, which was very excessive and would have caused him much distress and inconvenience.
  4. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord did find failures on its part in response to the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs to his shower due to the length of the repair delays, the loss of this facility, and his resulting distress and inconvenience. This also meant that it was suitable that it apologised to him for the delay and sought to offer him a reasonable level of compensation in recognition of this. The landlord did so by exercising the discretion available to it under its compensation policy for the resident appropriately. This is because it tried to put things right and remedy the situation by considering the resident’s request for £650 compensation and offering him £550 in response.
  5. The landlord tried reasonably to meet the resident’s compensation request but it correctly pointed out that, although he had lost the use of the shower that it acknowledged and apologised for, he did not lose the use of his bathroom overall. This was because he still had the use of his toilet and wash basin, and so this limited the amount of compensation that it could consider awarding him.
  6. Under the landlord’s compensation policy, compensation under the right to repair is capped at up to £50, but it is permitted to make the additional discretionary payment for this that it did in this case, raising this to £250. Since the statutory cap for compensation under the right to repair is £50, its offer to the resident of £250 was a significant increase. The landlord also offered him the £100 maximum available under its compensation policy for urgent defects that were not made good within five days for the delay in repairing his shower, as required by his tenancy agreement and its repairs policy, and so this was appropriate.
  7. The loss of the resident’s shower was also classed as a property defect under the landlord’s compensation policy with up to a maximum of £100 compensation available per defect. However, it offered him compensation for this that exceeded this maximum by awarding him £2 per day for being without the shower for over two months that it rounded up to 70 days, totalling £140 compensation for this. This meant that the landlord deemed this case to be one where it was suitable to apply its discretion in order to increase the resident’s total compensation to beyond the maximum recommended by its policy to £550.
  8. Therefore, the landlord acted reasonably in doing so, for which it has been recommended to re-offer the £550 compensation that it previously awarded to the resident, if he has not received this already. It also showed that it learnt from the outcome of his case appropriately by seeking to improve its future customer service. This is because the landlord briefed its senior managers about the resident’s case and associated issues, interviewed the staff involved, and provided them with training to reflect on their performance, which was suitable.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The resident made a stage one complaint to the landlord on 12 August 2021 that it responded to and closed on the same day because there were no earlier shower repair appointments available. While this was within its complaints policy’s ten-working-day response timescale for stage one complaints, and it gave him the resolution timescale required by the policy of the initial shower repair appointment of 17 September 2021, it is of concern that it did not consider offering him any other remedy for this delay at that time.
  2. The resident’s stage one complaint was then either reopened and escalated by it on 7 September 2021, or a new complaint was raised by him and escalated on that date. He was subsequently informed by it that its actions had been “right first time”, as there had been no earlier repair appointment dates available, and so it advised him that the reopened or new escalated complaint would also be closed, again without a remedy for the shower repair delay that was still outstanding and was also concerning.
  3. The landlord’s later complaint response to the resident increasing its subsequent compensation offer to him on 25 January 2022 indicated, however, that a stage one complaint was additionally reopened on 28 September 2021 and escalated, which led to the final stage complaint response of 22 December 2021. This was due within 20 working days under the complaints policy, and so was issued 19 working days later than that timescale. The final stage response acknowledged the landlord’s delays, apologised and offered the resident compensation that was finally increased to £550 in total, and so this also resolved its complaint handling satisfactorily under its compensation policy, which recommended £10 compensation for such delays.
  4. Although the resident was impacted in terms of time and trouble, there was no significant impact on the outcome of his complaint caused by the landlord’s complaint handling delay, or its closing and reopening of his complaint. Its final stage complaint response was nevertheless late, and its record keeping was not appropriate in relation to its complaint handling, as it was not clear how many complaints were opened, re-opened or escalated on his behalf. While the delay and confusion did not have a significant impact on the outcome of the complaint, the landlord has been recommended below to review its record keeping processes and staff training needs to try and prevent them from occurring again.


Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its handling of his reports of outstanding repairs to his shower satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its complaint handling satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Re–offer the resident the £550 compensation that it previously awarded him, if he has not received this already.
    2. Review its record keeping processes for complaint handling in order to ensure that clear and coherent records of complaints and responses are kept in every case.
    3. Review its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of its complaints policy to seek to ensure that timely and appropriate complaint responses are issued and recorded in every case.