London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202302084)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302084

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

27 June 2025

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Concerns relating to the cooker socket.
2. Reports of an uneven driveway.
3. Reports of issues with the stop tap.
4. Concerns relating to the accessibility of the garden.
5. Reports of damage to the microwave and dryer.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began on 30 November 2020. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The resident has complex disabilities that affect her mobility, complex health issues, anxiety disorder and depression. The resident lives with her husband and 2 daughters.
At some point after the resident and her family moved into the property, the local authority built an extension for a fully adapted downstairs bathroom under a disabled facilities grant. The internal work to the extension was still ongoing at the time of the resident’s complaints.
The resident raised concerns about the safety of the driveway and the accessibility of her garden prior to the extension works taking place. The landlord told the resident in August 2021 it could not complete the external works until the extension was completed.
The resident informed the landlord her tumble dryer was not working on 4 April 2022. She asked the landlord to provide a replacement as she believed the damage was caused during the extension work.
The resident raised concerns about the position of her cooker socket on 16 March 2023. The landlord responded on 17 March 2023 and said it would arrange for an electrician to attend and investigate.
The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 29 March 2023 about the positioning and safety of the cooker socket (complaint 1). The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response on 17 April 2023. It has not provided us with a copy of the response. However, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 17 April 2023 as she was unhappy with the landlord’s response.
The resident raised concerns about the stop tap with the builder completing the extension works on 3 July 2023. The builder told the resident the stop tap was the landlord’s responsibility. They said the landlord needed to remove and replace the old stop tap.
The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 7 July 2023 in relation to the stop tap and the driveway (complaint 2). The resident said the stop tap was in a poor condition which meant she could not turn the water off. She also raised concerns that her driveway was uneven and unsafe.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 21 July 2023. It upheld the resident’s complaint. It said it understood a plumber had visited on 20 July 2023 to assess the stop tap. It said it was not aware of the outcome of the visit, however, it would arrange to complete any required work. It said it agreed it needed to address the driveway. It said it hoped to start the work at the beginning of August 2023, once the internal adaptation work was complete. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2.
Following works to her garden, the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 24 July 2023 (complaint 3). The resident said the landlord’s operatives had not removed enough soil from her garden which had left the garden in a dangerous state.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response on 3 August 2023. It said its contractors had removed 12 tonnes of soil. However, they were unable to remove any more as the level of the soil would have fallen below the concrete fence bases. The landlord said it had completed the agreed work to the garden. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 as she did not agree with the stage 1 outcome.
The resident contacted the landlord on 3 and 4 October 2023. She said the landlord had not been in contact to arrange a replacement dryer or microwave.
The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 13 October 2023 about the replacement of her dryer and microwave (complaint 4). The resident said the landlord had not provided replacements following damage to both items. She said her microwave was damaged because of a leaking boiler. She said she had replaced the microwave, but the replacement was also broken.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response on 3 November 2023. It has not provided us with a copy of the response. However, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on the same day as she did not agree with the landlord’s response.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 16 November 2023. The response addressed all 4 of the resident’s complaints. The landlord said:
1. On 6 June 2023 it instructed an independent electrical contractor to survey the electrical installation following concerns the resident raised about the position of the socket. The electrical contractor found the positioning of the socket and the space behind the cooker to be acceptable.
2. It had raised a repair appointment for 5 December 2023 when it would remove the old stopcock and isolation valve, leaving only 1 stopcock.
3. It had confirmed the driveway was uneven during an inspection on 28 July 2022. It had agreed to replace several paving slabs, and it still intended to honour that agreement.
4. It had undertaken works to the garden. It had cut back brambles, replaced 4 fence panels and removed several tonnes of soil to make the ground level. It had removed the original step as requested and would not therefore reinstate it. It would, however, add some topsoil to shallow areas.
5. It was not liable for the damage to the microwave as it had not acted negligently when repairing the boiler. It was also not responsible for the damage to the tumble dryer as the resident took the decision to store the dryer in the outhouse.
6. It offered the resident £40 compensation for failing to respond to 2 complaints at stage 2 within 20 working days.
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, so referred her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

As part of this investigation, we asked the landlord to provide documents, correspondence, and any other evidence relevant to the resident’s complaint. Specifically, we asked for copies of all complaints and complaint responses. However, the landlord has only provided limited information. This has significantly affected our investigation. It has made it difficult to establish how the landlord responded at stage 1 of the complaints process, and what (if any) resolution the landlord offered the resident.
A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, investigations, and communications. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken, and failure to keep adequate records indicates the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. The landlord’s staff should be aware of its record management policy and procedures and adhere to these.

Scope of investigation

The responsibility for the delivery of major adaptations under a disabled facilities grant (DFG) sits with the local authority. We are only able to make determinations on the actions of the landlord in this investigation. Some reference may be made within this report to the actions of the local authority. This is to provide overall context to the case. However, these actions will not be considered as part of the assessment. If the resident wishes to complain about the actions of the local authority, she should seek advice from the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.
The Equality Act 2010 provides a legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals with protected characteristics from unfair treatment. Under the Act, the landlord has a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where there is a provision, criterion or practice which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled. The reasonable adjustments duty does not require the landlord to alter or remove ‘physical features’, for example structural changes, removing walls, widening doorways or installing permanent ramps.
Whether or not the landlord has breached the Equality Act is a matter for a court to decide. However, we can decide whether a landlord has properly considered its duties under the Equality Act.
The resident has expressed concerns about the impact the situation has had on her health generally. Claims for personal injury are matters for a court to decide, as the court can consider medical evidence to arrive at findings. However, if there has been a failing by the landlord, we can consider any general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

Concerns relating to the cooker socket

The resident contacted the landlord on 16 March 2023 to reports concerns that her cooker socker was not in the correct position. She said grease was getting into the socket causing it to short out. She said the landlord’s electrician had been working at her property and told her the socket contravened regulations and was therefore dangerous. The landlord said it would make an appointment for one of its electricians to investigate and complete any required remedial repairs. The evidence shows the landlord booked an appointment for 11 April 2023.
The appointment was within the 20 day timeframe for routine repairs set within the landlord’s repairs policy. There was no evidence to suggest the appointment should be on an emergency basis as the socket had been in that position since the resident moved into the property. In addition, the landlord’s electrician did not raise any concerns to the landlord following the visit.
The landlord contacted the resident on 27 March 2023. It said it had investigated her concerns. It said it had spoken to the electrician involved. The landlord said the electrician had made assurances that he did not say the socket was unsafe. The electrician explained to the landlord, what was in place was a standard socket arrangement used across domestic housing. The landlord said the electrician had confirmed he had agreed to return to fit a different type of socket to allow the cooker to be hard wired as a gesture of goodwill. It reiterated the current arrangement was safe and complied with the relevant regulations.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 29 March 2023. She said she had reported her concerns about the position of the plug behind the cooker but she had not had a satisfactory response. The resident said she felt the socket was a danger to life.
The resident sent the landlord a further email on 31 March 2023. She said 2 independent electricians had confirmed on 30 March 2023 that the socket was dangerous in its current location. She said she was scared to use her oven and grill. There’s no evidence to show the landlord responded to this email. This failure to respond was unreasonable in the circumstances as the resident was clearly distressed by the situation and concerned about the health and safety of her family.
The evidence shows the appointment arranged for 11 April 2023 did not go ahead as planned. The landlord spoke to the resident on 13 April 2023 to confirm another appointment date for an electrician to assess the location of the socket. However, the resident refused to confirm an appointment on the basis that the electrician would not be independent as it was the landlord’s usual contractor.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response on 17 April 2023. However, the landlord has been unable to provide a copy of the response. This demonstrates the landlord’s failure to keep adequate records.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on the same day as she was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She reiterated that she wanted an independent electrician to assess the socket.
The landlord contacted the resident on 4 May 2023 to provide her with an update. It said it was producing a list of electrical contractors for the resident to choose from. It said it would send the resident the list as soon as it was ready and it confirmed the contractors did not work for the landlord.
The resident responded on 5 May 2023 and told the landlord the fire service had confirmed the socket was dangerous. She said her cooker was not working properly and she was worried about using it as “it blew all the electricity in the house”. There is no evidence to show the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns. The failure to respond in these circumstances showed a lack of concern and urgency on the landlord’s part to address the resident’s worries. This was unreasonable, particularly as it is unclear as to whether she had functioning cooking facilities.
The electrical safety inspection took place on 6 June 2023. The outcome of the inspection was that the kitchen installation complied with both statutory and non-statutory regulations and was considered safe for continued use.
The resident contacted the landlord on 28 June 2023 as she did not agree with the outcome of the electrical safety inspection. This was because she believed the electrical contractor was not independent.
Despite the resident’s concerns, it was reasonable of the landlord to accept the electrical contractor’s conclusion that the cooker socket was safe. This is because a landlord is entitled to rely on the observations and conclusions of appropriately qualified staff and contractors. There is no evidence to suggest the contractor was not independent.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 16 November 2023. It confirmed the steps it had taken to instruct an independent electrical contractor to carry out a survey of the kitchen electrical installation on 6 June 2023. It confirmed that no issues were found and that there was sufficient space between the back of the cooker and electrical accessories to allow air flow. As such, it did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
In summary, the landlord appropriately arranged for an electrical inspection. However, its communication with the resident was poor at times. On occasion it failed to respond to the resident’s emails. It was dismissive of her concerns and it demonstrated a lack of urgency at times. As a result of these failings and the level of detriment caused to the resident, we find that there was service failure by the landlord in the case.

Reports of an uneven driveway

The landlord’s records show it inspected the resident’s driveway on 4 August 2021. It said it could not “renew/relay” the driveway and rear path until the extension was complete. The information provided by the landlord does not confirm the works it did agree to carry out.
The resident told us that the landlord agreed to replace the existing driveway and rear patio area. She said it asked the contractor to submit an estimate of costs and once approved, the works could start.
The resident contacted the landlord on 30 May 2023 to ask when the driveway and patio work would be done. She contacted the landlord again on 16 June 2023. She said it had been over 2 years and she needed safe accessibility to the property due to her disabilities. There is no evidence to show the landlord responded to the resident’s emails. This was unreasonable given the resident’s mobility issues and the amount of time she had been waiting for the work to be undertaken.
The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 7 July 2023. She said the driveway was uneven and unsafe. She said she had asked the landlord for an update on the driveway work but nobody had got back to her.
The landlord inspected the resident’s driveway on 21 July 2023. It found the driveway and path at the front of the property to be ‘quite level’, although it agreed it needed to replace a couple of flagstones. The landlord’s inspection notes show the resident disagreed with the landlord’s decision. She said a previous contractor had given a differing opinion of the work needed. The landlord confirmed it had no records to support the resident’s claim.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response on 21 July 2023. It agreed it needed to address the uneven driveway. It said it had asked one of the surveyors to project manage the work. It said it hoped to start the work in August 2023 once the ongoing internal adaptation works were complete. It thanked the resident for her patience and it confirmed her complaint was upheld. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on the same day.
The landlord inspected the resident’s driveway on 28 July 2023. It has not provided us with any inspection notes. However, the resident told us that during the inspection the landlord deemed all areas of the driveway and paths to be safe. This was despite it having already confirmed it would complete the work during earlier inspections and also within the stage 1 response. The resident said she asked the surveyor to leave as she was too upset to continue the discussions.
The landlord contacted the resident later the same day to apologise. It said it understood it had agreed to complete the work to the driveway. However, the surveyors did not have the relevant information to hand. This led to the surveyor forming an opinion that the driveway was adequate in its current condition. The landlord offered its sincere apologies for the miscommunication and upset and confirmed the previously agreed work would go ahead. It said it was waiting for the relevant paperwork so it could confirm exactly what work had previously been agreed. There is no evidence to show the landlord retrieved the paperwork or that it contacted the resident with any updates.
The resident chased the landlord for an update on the driveway by email on 20 October 2023 and 6 November 2023. It is unclear from the evidence provided whether it provided a response.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 16 November 2023. It said:
1. The resident had referred to an inspection of the driveway that took place on 4 August 2021. The outcome of which confirmed works were required and would be completed once the works to the downstairs wet room were complete.
2. It attached a copy of an email (not provided to us) from the contractor which showed a different version of events.
3. The repairs manager and a property surveyor visited the resident’s home on 28 July 2022 and confirmed the driveway was even. Although they found several paving slabs that may require replacing and it would honour the agreement to complete the work
4. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
Analysis of the stage 2 response shows it was confusing and unclear. The landlord had upheld the resident’s complaint at stage 1, yet not at stage 2, with no clear reasoning as to why. It has been difficult to fully assess the landlord’s response as we have not been provided the email referred to from the contractors.
The response failed to identify issues present in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord has not considered its poor communication with the resident, lack of updates and the length of time she has been waiting for the work to begin. This was unreasonable.
In addition, although the landlord is not required to make physical adaptations to the property, it has not demonstrated that it considered the resident’s disabilities and the overall effect of the delays and confusion in its response. The landlord agreed to complete some work to the driveway, however, it was still unclear to the resident exactly what work it would do and when.
As a result of these failings and the level of detriment caused to the resident, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord in the case.

Reports of issues with the stop tap

The evidence shows the issue with the stop tap became apparent whilst the local authority’s contractor was trying to resolve an issue with the shower in the wet room extension on or around 3 July 2023. The plumber identified an issue with the stop tap and the contractor confirmed that the original plumbing had been done by the landlord. The contractor said, in his opinion, the old stop tap needed to be removed and replaced. The resident reported her concerns to the landlord on 6 July 2023.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 7 July 2023. She said the landlord needed to complete works to the stop tap before the local authority’s contractor could complete works to the wet room. She said she was tired of emailing and nobody getting back to her.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 19 July 2023. She told the landlord it needed to send a plumber to repair or replace the stop tap, as the water could not be turned off to allow the plumber to fix the shower in the wet room. The landlord raised a repair on 20 July 2023.
The landlord attended the resident’s property on the same day. This was in line with the timeframe of 24 hours set within its repairs policy for emergency repairs. The landlord’s job completion notes show that there was already a new stop tap next to the old stop tap. The operative showed the resident how to shut off the water and then turned it back on.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response on 21 July 2023. It said it understood a plumber had attended. It said it was not aware of any follow up works required. However, it would complete any necessary remedial works if needed. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 as she was not satisfied with the landlord’s response.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 4 October 2023. She told the landlord the stop tap was incorrectly fitted. The landlord raised a repair to “remove old stop cock and isolation valve”. Its plumber attended on 5 October 2023 in line with the service standards for an emergency repair. However, it is unclear from the landlord’s records what work was carried out, if any.
The resident contacted the landlord on 20 October 2023, 6 November 2023 and 7 November 2023. She said the landlord had not repaired or replaced the stop tap as the plumber said there was nothing wrong with it. In response, the landlord raised a further work order to “remove old stopcock and isolation valve to help with the water flow” on 7 November 2023.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 16 November 2023. It acknowledged it had not repaired the stop tap. However, it had raised a job to complete the work on 5 December 2023.
This was not a satisfactory response. The landlord appropriately confirmed it had raised a job, but it did not address the on-going delays. The issue with the stop tap became apparent in early July 2023, yet the work was still outstanding and had been for almost 5 months. The landlord did not give the resident reasons why it had not completed the work. It also did not recognise the effect of the delays on her, which were significant given she could not use her wet room shower safely.
The landlord repaired the stop tap on 7 December 2023. It required the assistance of a neighbour, who was a qualified plumber, as the landlord’s plumber was unable to turn the water off at the mains. The landlord’s plumber found multiple stop taps, which were reducing the flow of water into the property.
In summary, there were significant delays by the landlord to conduct the necessary work to resolve the water flow issues caused by multiple stop taps. The landlord’s responses during its complaints process failed to recognise or demonstrate it considered the effect of the delays on the resident due to her disabilities. As a result of these failings and the level of detriment caused to the resident, we find that there was maladministration by the landlord in the case.

Concerns relating to the accessibility of the garden

The landlord commissioned a private occupational therapy (OT) assessment sometime in October 2022. The OT report said, “consideration of landscaping [the garden] to remove steps at one access point would exceed current needs but would not be unreasonable given [the resident’s] condition and variability. Extend paving to minimum 900-1200mm on straight runs, with 1200 x 1200 paved areas at change of direction to meet current needs for independent mobility”.
It is unclear from the evidence provided whether the landlord agreed to complete all of the work recommended by the OT. It is also unclear when the landlord intended to do the work.
The resident contacted the landlord on 30 May 2023. She asked it to confirm when it was going to make the gardens safe. She said a contractor had attended recently, but she had not heard anything since. There is no evidence to show the landlord responded to the resident’s email.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 5 June 2023. She said the landlord agreed on site that it would dig out and treat the brambles and level the garden to provide safe access. She said a contractor had cut the brambles down but all other work was outstanding. The landlord responded on the same day. It asked the resident to contact the person dealing with the landscaping.
This was an unhelpful response. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to pass the resident’s email onto the correct person internally, particularly as it is unclear whether she knew who she should contact.
The resident chased the landlord again on 15 June 2023 and 28 June 2023. The landlord responded on 28 June 2023 and said it would review the situation with the team and update her as soon as possible.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 5 July 2023. She asked when it would contact her to complete the works to the garden. The landlord responded and asked what works were outstanding. This was an unreasonable response. The landlord should have been able to access the information on its systems and through its records. It had been over 8 months since the landlord had received the OT’s report.
The landlord’s operatives attended the resident’s property on 24 July 2023 to remove a large amount of soil from the garden. However, the resident was unhappy with the work. She said the landlord was unable to remove as much soil as she was expecting and had left it like a “mud slide”.
The landlord raised a formal complaint on 25 July 2023 following the resident’s contact. It also visited the resident on the same day. It told the resident the contractor could not remove any more soil due to the level of the soil dropping below the concrete bases. The landlord asked the resident what she felt needed to be done to finish the work. The resident said she would like steps, a concrete retaining wall, and a paved patio area or decking. The landlord said it would discuss the resident’s requests with a manager.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 3 August 2023. It said it had agreed to remove brambles, replace 4 fence panels and remove soil to create a more level surface. It said it had completed the agreed work. It stated it had removed 12 tonnes of soil. They said its contractors said it would be unsafe to remove any more soil due to the level of the concrete fence panels. It said the current level of soil was not “hugely unlevel” and it was safe to walk on.
The landlord said the resident had since asked it to install a retaining concrete wall and steps. It said it was unable to carry out any further work. It said if the resident wished to carry out any further work to the garden, in line with its improvement policy, she was able to do so. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 as she believed the garden did not provide safe level accessibility.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 16 November 2023. It said it had completed the agreed works to the garden. It had removed several tonnes of soil to make the ground level. It said it would re-visit to look at the uneven paving in the garden once the downstairs wet room extension was complete. It said it had removed a step at the resident’s request to level the ground. Therefore, it would not reinstate the step. It said it would top up some shallow holes with topsoil.
Although the stage 2 response appropriately confirmed the landlord had completed the agreed works, it did not address the poor communication with the resident or the overall delays in starting the work following the OT assessment. Although the landlord is not required to make physical adaptations to the property, it has not demonstrated in the stage 2 response it considered the resident’s disabilities and the overall effect of the poor communication and delays.
In summary, the landlord’s communication was poor at times throughout this case and it showed a lack of empathy towards the resident and her situation. There were delays in agreeing a start date for the works and it did not show it had considered the resident’s disabilities within its responses. As a result of these failings and the level of detriment caused to the resident, we find that there was maladministration by the landlord in the case.

Reports of damage to the microwave and dryer

The resident’s tenancy agreement sets out the responsibilities of both the landlord and the resident. The tenancy agreement states at paragraph 3.7, the landlord is not responsible for repairs to the resident’s personal belongings. This obligation is mirrored in the tenant’s responsibilities at paragraph 4.33.
The resident originally stored her dryer in an outhouse at the back of the property. This was because the kitchen was not big enough to house the dryer. When the local authority built the wet room extension, the outhouse was demolished. The resident then moved the dryer inside, as extra room had been created through the extension. Once inside, the resident said her dryer no longer worked and needed to be replaced. She asked the landlord to replace the dryer on 4 April 2022.
The landlord responded to the resident on the same day. It said it would not replace the dryer as it was not the landlord’s responsibility to replace the resident’s personal items. This was in line with the obligations set out within the tenancy agreement.
The landlord applied on behalf of the resident, to a third party organisation for funding for a new dryer on 16 September 2022. The landlord chased the third party organisation for a response on 22 September 2022. It also gave the resident an update and said she would hear from the third party organisation directly. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances given that it had no obligation to replace the resident’s dryer.
The resident reported a leak from her boiler on 17 October 2022. The landlord’s gas contractor attended the following day to carry out a temporary repair. On arrival the engineer noted a small drip, and a bowl placed underneath the boiler. This response was in line with the timeframes set out within the landlord’s repairs policy of 24 hours for emergency repairs. There was no record of the resident reporting damage to her microwave at that time.
The resident raised the issue of the damaged microwave with the electrical contractor on 6 June 2023. She said the microwave had been damaged by a leaking boiler, although it appeared to relate to the incident reported in 2022. The electrical contractor passed the resident’s concerns to the landlord.
The resident raised the broken microwave with the landlord again on 11 July 2023. She raised both the broken microwave and dryer with the landlord again on 3 October 2023, 4 October 2023 and 10 October 2023. It is unclear from the landlord’s evidence whether it responded to the resident’s emails. However, the landlord logged a formal complaint on 13 October 2023. This was an appropriate response.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 3 November 2023. However, the landlord has been unable to provide a copy of the response. This demonstrates a failure by the landlord to keep adequate records. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on the same day.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 16 November 2023. It said:
1. Its records showed the resident reported a leak from the boiler on 17 October 2022. Its gas contractor attended the following day (18 October 2022) to carry out a temporary repair. It was not aware of any damage to the microwave at that time.
2. Its gas contractor attended within the 24 hour service level agreement for vulnerable customers. Therefore, it had not acted negligently and was not liable for any damage caused to the microwave.
3. It had applied to a third party organisation on the resident’s behalf for a replacement microwave in August 2023. Unfortunately, the application had been refused.
4. It recognised the resident’s need for a dryer and it understood the dryer had not worked properly since it had been stored in the outhouse. However, it did not uphold the resident’s complaint and would not be replacing the dryer.
The stage 2 response appropriately addressed the resident’s complaints. Given that the landlord is under no obligation to replace the resident’s personal items, and there is no evidence of any negligence on the landlord’s part, we find there was no maladministration in this case.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its policy says it will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days from the date the complaint was first logged. It will respond at stage 2 within 20 working days from the date of escalation.

Complaint 1

The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 29 March 2023. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response on 17 April 2023. This was 13 working days from the date the complaint was logged and just outside of the timeframe of 10 working days set within the landlord’s policy.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 17 April 2023. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 16 November 2023. This was 7 months from the date of escalation and significantly outside of the timeframe of 20 working days set within the landlord’s policy.

Complaint 2

The resident raised a further formal complaint with the landlord on 7 July 2023. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response on 21 July 2023. This was within the timeframe of 10 working days set within the landlord’s complaints policy.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 21 July 2023. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 16 November 2023. This was almost 4 months from the date of escalation and significantly outside of the timeframe of 20 working days set within the landlord’s policy.

Complaint 3

The resident raised complaint 3 with the landlord on 25 July 2023. It sent the resident a stage 1 response on 3 August 2023. This was within the timeframe of 10 working days set within the landlord’s complaints policy.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 3 August 2023. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 16 November 2023. This was just over 3 months from the date of escalation and significantly outside of the timeframe of 20 working days set within the landlord’s policy.

Complaint 4

The resident raised complaint 4 with the landlord on 13 October 2023. It sent the resident a stage 1 response on 3 November 2023. This was 15 working days from the date the complaint was logged and just outside of the timeframe of 10 working days set within the landlord’s policy.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 3 November 2023. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 16 November 2023. This was within the timeframe of 20 working days set within the landlord’s policy.

Conclusion

The evidence shows the landlord’s complaint handling was poor. There were minor delays in the stage 1 responses in complaints 1 and 4. There were significant delays in the stage 2 response in complaints 1, 2 and 3. The landlord did not provide individual stage 2 responses to each complaint. Instead, it sent one stage 2 response a significant time after the stage 1 response in complaints 1 -3. Its approach in dealing with the resident’s complaints was inappropriate, confusing and not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy.
The landlord did offer the resident £40 compensation for its failure to respond to 2 of the stage 2 complaints in line with its compensation policy. Given the extent of the inconvenience caused by its failures, this amount was insufficient to provide appropriate redress.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it can offer between £40-£60 in cases where the impact of the service failure is ‘greater than reasonably tolerable’ (considering the customer’s personal circumstances).
As the resident was unable to refer her complaint to us until the landlord had responded at stage 2, the delay caused a significant impact. This was because she had to wait up to 7 months before she received the stage 2 response. The compensation offered in total does not adequately reflect the inconvenience the resident sustained due to the landlord’s overall complaint handling failures.
The significant delays and failure to provide adequate redress amounts to a determination of maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. The landlord is ordered to pay compensation totalling £220 to the resident. This breaks down as £60 for each of complaints 1-3 and £40 for complaint 4.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns relating to the cooker socket.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of an uneven driveway.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of issues with the stop tap.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns relating to the accessibility of the garden.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damage to the microwave and dryer
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks from the date of the report, the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident, in writing, for the failings identified in this report. A senior manager must make the apology on behalf of the landlord.
2. Pay the resident total compensation of £1,145 (the landlord can deduct from the total any amount of compensation it has already paid) made up of:
  1. £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns relating to the cooker socket.
  2. £275 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of an uneven driveway
  3. £275 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with the stop tap.
  4. £275 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns relating to the accessibility of the garden.
  5. £220 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. Pay the compensation directly to the resident.
4. Review the work completed to the resident’s garden and confirm whether it will address the unlevel patio area. The landlord must inspect the garden within 4 weeks and write to the resident within 1 week of the inspection. The landlord must provide us with a copy of the letter.
5. Revisit the work to the resident’s driveway. The landlord must inspect the driveway within 4 weeks and confirm the work it will complete to level the driveway within 1 week of the inspection. The landlord must provide us with a copy of the letter.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.