London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202207296)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207296

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

25 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:

1. Response regarding the resident’s concerns about the conduct of contractors on site.
2. Response to the resident’s personal items being damaged by paint.

2. This Service has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

3. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a housing association. She resides in a basement flat, which includes an exclusive rear garden, and has done so since 2003.
4. On 17 November 2021, while work was being carried out to the property above, the resident emailed the landlord’s contractor to raise several concerns regarding the ongoing works. She reported debris and rubbish had fallen into her garden as a result of the work, yet none of the operatives had cleaned up after themselves. As such, the resident had to clean the debris each day. The resident also advised that as a result of there being no “wet paint” signs, her son’s coat and her bag had been damaged. She also raised concerns over her windows having been painted shut and that her front and rear doors required draught-proofing.
5. Having previously been in correspondence with the contractor, the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 16 January 2022. In the complaint she reiterated the issues she had faced, specifically that the basement area had not been cleaned following works. She also asked the landlord to respond to the other issues she had raised with the contractor, but which had not been responded to, including her damaged personal items and the draught-proofing of her doors. On 20 January 2022, the landlord advised it would reimburse the resident the cost of cleaning the damaged bag and coat if she could take them to a dry-cleaner and obtain a receipt. However, the resident advised that, having attended more than one dry cleaner, she had been told it was not possible to remove gloss paint so the items could not be cleaned. She also advised she had left one of the items on the bus on her way home from the dry cleaners and asked whether it had been appropriate for the landlord to expect her to resolve the issue herself.
6. In its Stage One complaint response the landlord noted it had carried out a joint site visit with the contractor and the resident’s son and provided a list of the repairs it had agreed to carry out following the visit. These included the installation of a draft excluder, rubbing down metal railings and rubbing down installing pigeon spikes. The landlord advised the contractor had informed it that the works had been completed and wanted to confirm this with the resident. It advised it had reminded the contractor that it “must improve the working standards” and this would be monitored going forward. It also asked the resident to advise how she wished to “resolve” the issue regarding her damaged items now it had been established they could not be cleaned.
7. The resident requested her complaint be escalated, stating the landlord had “selectively” addressed her concerns and not provided responses to everything she had raised. She requested the landlord provided an apology to her son for a query it had made regarding Covid-19 and queried whether the contractor was a member of the “Considerable Builder Scheme” (this is assumed to be a reference to the Considerate Constructors Scheme).
8. The landlord’s Stage Two complaint response, sent on 5 May 2022, acknowledged that the service provided so far had been below standard and it did not dispute the claims made by the resident. It advised the contractor had cleaned all areas on 24 February 2022 and also advised it had met with the contractor to provide new training proposals and advised that its working practise would be monitored. The landlord offered the resident £270 compensation, broken down as follows: £100 for the delay in commencement of the final response; £150 for any inconvenience and distress caused; and £20 for any cost incurred by the resident in cleaning the communal areas herself. The landlord also offered the resident an apology.
9. When referring her complaint to this Service, the resident advised she remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her reports regarding the conduct of its contractors, its response to her damaged personal items, and the compensation that had been offered to her.

Assessment and findings

Policies & Procedures

10. The landlord’s compensation policy states that “where damage or alleged injury occurs because of [the landlord or the contractor’s] negligence, [the landlord] will refer the issue to the insurance team. This includes damage to [the resident’s] personal possessions”.

The landlord’s response regarding the conduct of contractors on site

11. After the resident initially raised concerns directly with the contractor, once she made a complaint to the landlord, it responded reasonably regarding the conduct of its contractors. It inspected the work area with the contractor and found there was no ladder from the scaffolding down to the rear basement area (the resident’s garden). As operatives were unable to access the area, they were unable to clear any debris that may have fallen into the garden. In an email between the contractor and the landlord on 13 January 2021, the contractor assured the landlord that it would instruct for a ladder to be made available from the scaffolding to the rear of the property in order to clear mess. It also advised that the debris would be cleared at the end of each day and that the ladder would be removed also at the end of each day.
12. It was appropriate that the landlord identified the issue, and that the contractor explained how it would prevent issue from recurring. However, these measures should arguably have been in place beforehand, and the resident had been caused unnecessary time and trouble contacting the landlord and its contractor, and unnecessary stress and inconvenience due to feeling compelled to clean the area herself.
13. In its Stage One complaint response, the landlord did not deny the conduct of its contractors had been below the level of service required. It appropriately acknowledged the basement area had remained uncleaned during the period of works, despite not finding evidence of debris when it attended a site visit (potentially due to the fact the resident was clearing up herself) and that contractors had failed to leave the work area tidy at the end of each day. It responded reasonably when advising the resident of the steps it would take to improve the situation, which included meeting with the contractor to remind it of its responsibilities and to improve its working standards. This was an appropriate step for the landlord to take and showed it took the resident’s concerns seriously.
14. However, the resident advised on 22 February 2022 that she had continued to clean the area herself as the contractor had still not cleaned the area by that point. On 24 February, the contractor attended the property and cleaned and cleared the resident’s garden area. Whilst the contractor did attend the property to ensure it was cleaned, this only happened following prompting from the resident, and after it had failed to adhere to its assurances that this would be done each day as the works progressed. The landlord is ultimately responsible for the actions of its contractor and, having assured the resident that the working practices would improve, particularly regarding on site cleaning, it was not appropriate that the situation appeared to reoccur.
15. However, in its Stage Two complaint response, the landlord appropriately acknowledged there had been further failing and apologised for this. It also explained the steps it was taking to learn from the issues the resident’s complaint had highlighted, which included providing new training proposals to the contractor and referring the case to its internal complaints learning group. The landlord acknowledged the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident and offered £150 in recognition of this, as well as a further £20 for any potential costs incurred in cleaning the area. The decision to offer compensation, along with an apology, was reasonable and the amount offered was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which state where “there was a failure which adversely affected the resident” but that a landlord has “acknowledged failings and/or made some attempt to put things right”, a payment of £100 and above would be appropriate”.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s personal items being damaged by paint

16. There was no dispute from the landlord or contractor that it failed to place wet paint signs to alert residents following works carried out in the communal areas. Ideally, this should have happened as standard, but the landlord acknowledged that it had not placed signs and, in correspondence with the resident, assured her it would do this going forward.
17. Once the resident had made the landlord aware of her damaged items as a result of the wet paint, it offered to reimburse the cost of cleaning the damaged items if the resident was able to obtain a receipt from the dry cleaners. This was an appropriate step for the landlord to take and was a reasonable response in the circumstances. However, unfortunately the resident advised that, having taken the items to more than one dry cleaners, she was informed that it was not possible to remove the gloss paint.
18. At this stage, having been advised the items could not be cleaned and/or repaired, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider whether it should refer the matter to its insurer, in line with its compensation policy. There is no evidence it did so, which is not appropriate. However, it is also noted that in its Stage One complaint response, the landlord did explicitly ask the resident how she wanted the matter to be resolved and this Service has not seen evidence that the resident provided a response. While it was appropriate for the landlord to ask the resident what her preference was in terms of an outcome, it would have been preferable for it to have followed this up with the resident to ensure the matter did not remain unresolved.
19. Overall, the landlord’s response was reasonable. It responded promptly and made a reasonable attempt to resolve the issue and when the resident informed it the items could not be cleaned, it asked her what her desired outcome was. It also advised that it would ensure the situation did not reoccur in the future.
20. However, given the matter still appears to be unresolved, a recommendation will be made for the landlord to contact the resident and ascertain what her desired outcome it, or offer to refer the matter to its insurer. 

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

21. It was appropriate that the landlord, in its Stage Two complaint response, acknowledged that its response was issued late. Its explanation that it had received a large increase in cases was reasonable, although it should have provided the resident with updates in the meantime. However, its apology and award of compensation was appropriate and, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, amounted to reasonable redress.
22. However, its complaint responses did not address all the concerns raised by the resident, either in her initial complaint or her complaint escalation request. Her escalation request queried whether some of the works outlined in its Stage One response had been completed and while the landlord advised “the following issues were resolved” and scaffolding had been removed on 24 February 2022, it did not address whether there had in fact been any delays, or whether the works it had advised were completed in its Stage One response, had in fact been completed. The landlord also did not address the resident’s concern regarding a Covid-19 enquiry which she stated had upset her son. While the landlord was not obliged to add this to the complaint, as it was not one of the concerns that had originally been raised, it should have addressed the matter and advised why it would not add the matter to the complaint, if it chose not to do so.
23. While the landlord’s complaint responses offered appropriate apologies and reasonable considered compensating the resident, it did not fully address all the concerns she raised. This meant it did not treat the resident fairly and was therefore a service failure. 

Determination

24. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress regarding the conduct of contractors on site.
25. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. No maladministration regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s personal items being damaged by paint.
    2. Service failure regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

26. The landlord should pay the resident an additional £75 for the failures in its complaint handling. For clarity, this is on top of the £100 it already offered as part of its previous compensation award.
27. The landlord should provide this Service with evidence it has complied with the above order within four weeks of the date of this letter.

Recommendations

28. The landlord should contact the resident to discuss her desired outcome regarding the damage caused to her bag and son’s coat (her personal items). It should also give consideration to referring the matter to its insurer if it is unable to reach agreement with the resident on how to proceed.
29. The landlord should also re-offer the £270 compensation it previously awarded if this has not already been processed.