London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202209429)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209429

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

24 January 2023

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 response to the resident’s request for their fence to be repaired.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The tenancy commenced on 14 September 2020.
3. When the resident moved into the property, she became aware that the garden fence at the property was in disrepair. The resident has stated that she reported the fence on numerous occasions, before submitting a complaint on 7 July 2021. Within her complaint the resident explained that the landlord had advised that the fence would not be fixed during the covid-19 pandemic, as only emergency repairs were being completed at that time. The resident states that after the height of the pandemic, the landlord then said it was not responsible for her fence repairs.
4. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 8 July 2021. It reiterated that it was not obliged to repair the fence. The resident escalated her complaint on 21 July 2021. She explained that she had accepted the property during the pandemic, after only seeing photos. She had not undertaken a viewing and only discovered the fence repair after moving into the property. She felt that the repair should have been completed during the voids process. She also shared that her neighbours had complained about the condition of the fence.
5. The resident continued to chase the landlord for a response throughout the rest of 2021 and the beginning of 2022. She raised a duplicate complaint in May 2022, in an effort to gain a response from the landlord. Additionally, in May 2022, the resident informed the landlord that her neighbour’s child had sustained an injury from the broken fence. In July 2022, the resident agreed for her neighbour to replace the fence, and that she would reimburse the cost of £200.
6. The landlord spoke to the resident about her complaint, and sent its final response, on 2 August 2022. The landlord apologised, stating that it had been mistaken in its initial response and that it was actually obliged to repair the fence. It also apologised for the delay in rectifying this matter, and for its poor complaint handling. In total it offered £170 compensation, £100 for its complaint handling, £50 for distress and inconvenience, £10 as a goodwill gesture and £10 for the delay in providing its final response. However, as the resident had not asked permission to replace the fence herself, the landlord said that it would not reimburse her for the cost of replacing it.
7. In her complaint to this Service, the resident has stated that as the landlord was obliged to repair her fence, it should reimburse her for the costs that she incurred. She is also dissatisfied that the £170 offered by the landlord was added to her rent account, as it was in arrears, rather than paid directly to her.

Assessment

Scope of investigation

8. The resident has brought several issues to this Service, including a matter concerning redecoration of parts of her property. It does not appear that this matter has been assessed through the entirety of the landlord’s complaint procedure. Under paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. If this matter remains an issue, the resident may wish to consider raising a formal complaint for the landlord to consider and resolve.

Assessment.

9. The landlord’s void’s policy states that during the void period it will carry out repair works to ensure that the property offers residents a clean, safe and let-able home. In regard to fencing, the policy states that collapsed fencing and broken gates are to be repaired. Where defective beyond repair the fencing will be replaced, the landlord is responsible for maintaining the boundary fences which it owns and it should consult building plans/deeds to determine ownership.
10. The resident’s tenancy agreement also states that the landlord is responsible for keeping the property’s structure and exterior in repair, whilst the resident lives there. Within the landlord’s repairs policy, it further defines the exterior of the property as including its boundaries (e.g. fences). The repairs policy states that the resident’s responsibilities are set out in their tenancy agreements. The tenancy agreement does not state that the resident is responsible for repairing any of their fences.
11. The same repairs policy states that residents must not remove, alter or replace any hedge, fence, wall or tree at the property without the landlord’s permission. Where the resident is required to get written permission, the landlord agrees to not refuse permission unreasonably.
12. According to its voids policy, the landlord should have inspected the resident’s fences and repaired or replaced them if it was obligated to do so. This should have been completed before the resident moved in, to provide safe housing in line with the standard laid out in its own policy. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord considered repairing the fences during the voids process.
13. The landlord initially informed the resident that due to the pandemic, it was only undertaking emergency repairs. Whilst this was a reasonable approach for the landlord to take, the landlord would be expected to take steps to address the repairs within a reasonable amount of time after the easing of those restrictions. However, at this point the landlord incorrectly stated that it was not responsible for the fence and, despite the resident’s complaint, failed to acknowledge that it was obligated to maintain the resident’s fences until its final response in August 2022. This issue was therefore ongoing for almost two years, starting from when the resident first moved to the property in September 2020. This is not a reasonable amount of time for the resident to have to wait. The landlord should have ensured that its understanding of its obligations were correct and if necessary to have been proactive in investigating the extent of those responsibilities prior to responding to the resident.
14. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will respond within ten working days of an initial stage one complaint. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision, the landlord will escalate the complaint to stage two of its complaint’s procedure. It should then respond within 20 working days. The landlord initially responded within its policy timescales. However, after the resident escalated her complaint on 21 July 2021, the landlord failed to respond until 2 August 2022, over a year later.
15. In this instance the landlord has not offered an explanation as to why it failed to respond for over a year. In that time, the resident continued to chase the landlord for a reply, and even submitted her complaint again, in order to gain a response.
16. In its final response in August 2022, the landlord acted appropriately by acknowledging that it had given the resident incorrect information initially. It apologised for its error, as well as for the delay in resolving the issue and for the delay in escalating the resident’s complaint to stage two. It offered a total of £170 compensation, in recognition of its failings in complaint handling and the delays, as well as a small amount as a good will gesture. The Ombudsman deems this amount to be sufficient in terms of recognising the distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident. However, according to our Remedies Guidance, where the resident has suffered a quantifiable loss due to the maladministration of the landlord, the resident should be reimbursed accordingly. This is applicable only when the landlord has had the opportunity to rectify its mistake, which clearly applies in this case.
17. The landlord has stated that it will not reimburse the resident for replacing the fence, as according to its tenancy agreement, the resident should have sought permission before replacing it. However, the landlord had ample opportunity to fulfil its obligations by inspecting and repairing the fence within the two years that it was reported broken. The resident continuously followed up on the repair, and attempted to communicate with the landlord throughout the two years. In the end the resident funded the repair of the fence herself, after requesting the landlord to attend on numerous occasions, in order to facilitate good relations with her neighbours. As such it would not be reasonable to expect the resident to incur the cost of replacing a fence that the landlord is responsible for, due to a failure on the landord’s part to act in accordance with its obligations. The landlord has therefore been ordered to pay a further £200 to the resident in respect of the cost she incurred in having the fence replaced.
18. The resident has stated that she is dissatisfied that the landlord paid her compensation into her rent account, rather than directly to her. From 1 October 2022, an updated version of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme and remedies guidance was published. It is now the Ombudsman’s position that compensation awarded by this Service should be treated separately from any financial arrangements between the landlord and resident and should not be offset against any arrears. As the compensation paid to the resident predated the new guidance, the Ombudsman will not recommend any changes to how compensation has been paid so far. However, the additional £200 ordered by this service in this report must be paid directly to the resident.

Determination (decision)

19. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for their fence to be repaired.

Orders

20. Within four weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £200, to reimburse her for the fence repair. This should be paid directly to the resident, and not to her rent account.
21. Evidence of compliance with this order should be sent to this Service, within the four weeks stated above.