London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202310204)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310204

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

19 December 2024

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:
1. Handling of the resident’s concerns about parking issues.
2. Response to the resident’s concerns about the affordability of the property and request for a transfer.
3. Response to the resident’s concern that it did not complete a check of the property at the end of the defect liability period (DLP).
4. Handling of the resident’s reports of issues with the balcony door and balcony decking.
5. Handling of the resident’s reports of:
  1. Cracked walls.
  2. Cracked sub-floor.
  3. Dripping taps.
  4. A hole behind the radiator.
6. Response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
7. Response to the resident’s reports on ongoing repair issues including:
  1. Pest control issues.
  2. Cracked plug sockets and sockets getting hot when in use.
  3. Mould in the property.
  4. Missing lock on the bathroom door.
8. Handling of the associated complaints.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She moved into the property, a 2-bed ground floor flat, in July 2019. She lives there with her 2 children.
The resident’s property was a new build when the resident moved in. The property was within a DLP until 19 June 2020.
The landlord says the resident has not disclosed any vulnerabilities.
On 18 May 2023 the resident telephoned the landlord and asked it to log a stage 1 complaint. She said:
1. All residents were supposed to have an allocated parking space. She had not been allocated one more than 3 years into the tenancy.
2. She had requested a transfer but it ignored her request until after it closed its transfer list.
3. The property was not affordable and had “put [her] into poverty”.
4. Noone had attended to complete checks at the end of the DLP.
5. She had reported several repairs but was passed between the landlord and the builder.
6. Her balcony floor had “fallen through” and no one came to repair it.
7. She had previously tried to log several complaints but the landlord had no record of them.
The landlord received the complaint on 18 May 2023 and provided its stage 1 complaint response on the same day. It said:
1. There was a problem at the scheme with residents using more than 1 space and non-residents also parking there. The managing agent was addressing this. The resident could park in the “alternative” parking at the back of the underground car park. If she provided copies of the fines she had received, the managing agent would address these.
2. Its transfer list had closed in May 2021 and it had now also suspended referrals to its rehousing service. The resident could apply to the local authority for rehousing or apply for a mutual exchange.
3. Its aftercare team tried to contact her in June 2021 and April 2022 to request details of any repairs required before the end of the DLP. As the resident had not responded it had “expected” that there were no further works required.
4. It was sorry that it had not repaired the balcony. It had passed the repair to the builder in 2021 when the resident had first reported it. The repairs service she had received “fell short of acceptable standards”.
5. It offered her £1,400 compensation comprising:
  1. £460 for distress, time and effort.
  2. £690 for inconvenience.
  3. £250 for the ‘right to repair’.
The resident replied and accepted the compensation but said she felt the amount offered was “insulting”. The landlord responded and said was closing the complaint as it had provided a resolution.
The resident contacted the landlord on 31 May 2023 and asked why the stage 1 complaint response had not addressed all the repairs issues she had reported. She said it had not resolved the balcony door, cracks in the walls and sub-floor, and hole behind the radiator. The landlord replied and said she had not told it what repairs were outstanding. It said it had now raised repairs for the required works.
On 15 June 2023 the resident again told the landlord that its stage 1 response had not addressed all the issues in her complaint. She said she would be contacting this Service.
The landlord responded on 19 June 2023 and said that the resident had accepted its offer of compensation. It said she had had the opportunity to discuss any concerns and reiterated that the complaint was closed as it had provided a resolution.
In September 2023 we wrote to the landlord and asked it to confirm whether it had considered the resident’s stage 2 complaint. The landlord replied and said the complaint was “awaiting a stage 2 [response]” and it would provide this within 10 working days.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 15 September 2023. It provided its stage 2 response on 29 September 2023. It said:
1. It was satisfied its stage 1 response had referred to repairs other than the balcony. It accepted however its reference to the other repairs was “vague”.
2. It had signposted her to its contact centre to raise any repairs. It acknowledged it could have offered more support in getting the issues resolved.
3. It was sorry the resident was still experiencing issues in relation to parking and had received several fines. It was addressing the issue with residents and the managing agent.
4. The resident had first asked for a transfer in May 2020. It had advised her to apply for a mutual exchange. It was sorry she felt it had ignored her request but a mutual exchange was the quickest route to moving. It had suspended new referrals to its rehousing service.
5. It was sorry she was finding the rent and council tax unaffordable. It provided details for several support services.
6. During the DLP the builder would attend to address defects. Before the end of the DLP residents had a “final chance to get the builder to rectify any issues”. Usually this would take place at an in-person inspection by the landlord and the builder. The resident would sign an inspection sheet to say they agreed all items had been noted.

In this case the end of the DLP occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. Government restrictions at the time meant it was unable to attend and complete an inspection. This was not a failing on its part.

It emailed her on 10 June 2020 and advised it was unable to attend an inspection and asked if there were any issues to raise with the builders. The resident did not respond. It had sent a further email, telephoned, and wrote a letter but did not receive a response.

It appreciated that she had reported several issues in the property separately to the contact about the end of the DLP. It could have reviewed its systems and used previous reports to identify issues.

There had been issues with the balcony doors throughout the scheme and the builder had replaced the doors. As the resident had continued to report issues, it had raised a repair appointment for 14 November 2023.
The resident had reported that the decking had fallen through in June 2021. It attended the next day to make it safe and referred the issue to the builder. The builder did not take action as the DLP had ended. The operative who attended had told her to stay off the balcony and lock the door to avoid injury. She could not do this as the lock did not work at the time.

The resident had since had the decking repaired herself. She could instruct a contractor to inspect the decking. If it submitted a report saying there were issues that were the landlord’s responsibility, it would “review” this and consider reimbursing her costs.

The resident had reported cracks in the wall on 27 July 2020. It took no action until 1 June 2023 when it booked a repair for 24 October 2023. The resident had since wallpapered, and did not want to lift this. The resident had provided photographs. Its surveyor had reviewed this and considered they were “cosmetic and superficial”. If she wished, it would repair the cracks on 24 October 2023, or when she next redecorated.
The resident reported the cracked sub-floor on 2 July 2021. It raised a repair on 1 June 2023 and booked an appointment for 24 October 2023. The resident had now carpeted the floor and did not want to have this lifted. The surveyor did not believe there were structural issues. It was happy to repair the cracks but this would mean lifting the carpet.
The resident had reported dripping taps on 2 July 2021. It had booked an appointment for 10 October 2023.
The resident first reported the hole behind the radiator on 2 July 2021. It did not raise a repair until 1 June 2023 and booked an appointment for 24 October 2023.
The landlord accepted that it had not responded correctly to several of her previous complaints.
It awarded her a further £610 in addition to the £1,400 offered at stage 1. This comprised:
1. £100 for not raising complaints when it should have and for the stage 1 complaint response being “vague”.
2. £510 in relation to its handling of her reports of cracks in the walls, cracks in the floor, the hole behind the radiator, and dripping taps.
3. It would apply this as an adjustment to her rent account as her account was in arrears.

On 18 October 2023 the resident told the landlord that she was going to cancel all her repair appointments. She said she was referring her case to this Service and wanted to show the “true state” of the property.
The resident’s case with this Service became duly made in April 2024. The resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her complaint and with the level of compensation offered.

Legal and policy framework

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places an obligation on the landlord to keep in good repair and working order, the structure of the property and installations for water and space heating.
The resident states that the landlord advised her that the property had an allocated parking space. The tenancy agreement does not include an allocated space. The tenancy agreement states that the resident will only park in designated parking spaces and in accordance with parking restrictions.
The landlord’s allocations and lettings policy states that it will only add those who meet certain criteria to its rehousing list. These criteria include those at immediate risk due to violence, those in medical need, those wishing to downsize, and where there are “severe maintenance issues”.
The allocations policy states the landlord will “assess [a resident’s] circumstances and give them options…appropriate to their needs”. This may include mutual exchange or application to the local authority’s housing register.
The landlord’s latent defect procedure states:
1. The DLP lasts 1 or 2 years from the date a building is complete. Any defects reported in this period should be referred to its aftercare team as a normal defect. The aftercare team will arrange for the builder to rectify the issue.
2. A latent defect is one that becomes apparent after the DLP but within the first 12 years of a building’s life. It is an issue caused by “poor design, workmanship, or materials on the part of the original contractor”. It is not caused by wear and tear, damage by residents, or poor maintenance.
3. Latent defects should be referred to the development team.
4. Prior to referring a matter to the development team a surveyor (or other “technically competent person” should:
  1. Check whether the building is in its DLP.
  2. Establish whether there are any warranties or guarantees in place.
  3. Gather evidence (such as photographs, surveyor’s reports etc) to support a latent defect claim.
The landlord’s repair policy states it will complete routine repairs in an “average of” 25 calendar days. In an emergency where there is “an immediate danger” to the resident it will attend within 24 hours to “make safe”. It will then return at the “earliest mutually convenient appointment” to complete the follow-on repair.
The landlord’s complaints policy states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that residents are expected to provide evidence where it is claimed that an expense has been incurred due to its failure to resolve an issue. It also states it will offset compensation payments against any rent and service charge arrears owed by a resident (except for out-of-pocket expenses).

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, the following complaints are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports on ongoing repair issues including:
  1. Pest control issues.
  2. Cracked plug sockets and sockets getting hot when in use.
  3. Mould in the property.
  4. Missing lock on the bathroom door.

Response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

We acknowledge that the resident has reported ASB to the landlord on several occasions. We have not however seen evidence that she raised a formal complaint about its handling of these reports.
In accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme we may not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
Given that we have not been provided with any evidence that the resident tried to complain about the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports and that it failed to respond, we cannot consider her concerns as part of this investigation. If the resident is concerned with the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB she can make a complaint to the landlord. If she remains dissatisfied after the complaints completes the landlord’s complaint process, she can refer the issue to this Service.

Response to the resident’s reports on ongoing repair issues.

We have not seen evidence that the resident reported the following repair issues to the landlord prior to making her formal complaint:
1. Pest control issues.
2. Cracked plug sockets and sockets getting hot when in use.
3. Mould in the property.
4. Missing lock on the bathroom door.
While the landlord did mention the issues in its stage 2 complaint response it clearly stated that these had not been part of its complaint investigation. As we have not seen evidence that these issues had previously been reported, it was not unreasonable that the landlord decided to deal with them as a service request.
We acknowledge that the resident has stated that she did raise these issues prior to her complaint. We accept that she believes the landlord either failed to record her reports or deleted the records. As we have not seen evidence of this, we are unable to assess this assertion. We cannot therefore find that the landlord should have handled the issues as part of the complaint and that there was a complaint-handling failure in relation to this.
We consider that, in accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Scheme, these complaints have not completed exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure either. Consideration of these complaints therefore falls outside of our jurisdiction.

Handling of the resident’s concerns about parking issues.

The resident has told this Service that she has been experiencing issues with parking since moving into her property.
The first evidence we have seen of the resident’s reports of parking issues to the landlord were in April 2022. We acknowledge that the resident states she reported the issues sooner however we can only make assessments of the landlord’s handling of the issue based on the evidence provided by both parties.
On 1 April 2022 the resident reported to the landlord that she kept receiving parking tickets for parking on the scheme. She explained it had previously given her a number for an allocated bay but that this bay did not exist. She said she had a baby and was struggling being unable to park. The landlord advised that as she did not have an allocated bay it would “not be responsible for her parking illegally and she would have to pay these [fines]”.
We accept that the landlord was not responsible for paying any fines incurred by the resident. It would however have been reasonable for the landlord to have given the resident some advice regarding how she could appeal the charges with the managing agent. We also note that the landlord’s response lacked empathy for her situation.
The landlord emailed the resident again on 4 April 2022 following an enquiry from her MP. It said that while there were enough parking spaces for each property on the scheme some households had more than 1 car. It said that it was considering implementing parking enforcement but that this would only be to prevent non-residents from parking there. The landlord said that none of its residents had allocated parking spaces as this did not form part of the tenancy.
The resident replied and said she had previously been allocated a parking bay but had then received a letter from the landlord to say she had been allocated the wrong number bay. She said the letter had advised she would be issued a new bay but had received no further information about this.
The resident repeatedly referred to having allocated parking and having previously been issued a bay number. We have not however seen evidence of when the landlord communicated this to her. What is clear however is that the understanding of both parties of the situation regarding allocated parking differed. It would therefore have been reasonable for the landlord to have investigated the resident’s account to provide clarity.
On 13 February 2023 the landlord wrote to all residents on the scheme. It said it would be meeting with the managing agent on 31 March 2023 to discuss the parking issues. It said it did not take any responsibility for any parking fines issued by the managing agent and advised residents could appeal these if they felt they had been issued incorrectly. While it was positive that the landlord organised this meeting to address its resident’s concerns, it is unclear why it had not done so sooner.
The resident submitted an online complaint on 24 February 2023 about the parking issues. On 27 February 2023 the landlord tried to visit the resident to discuss her parking issues but she was not home. It emailed her the following day and reiterated the message from its letter sent 2 weeks earlier to all residents. This was reasonable.
On 28 February 2023 the resident’s MP wrote to the landlord. They said the resident stated she was supposed to have an allocated parking space but did not. She said she kept receiving parking charges and could not afford to pay them. She said the issue was impacting her mental health.
The landlord responded to the MP’s enquiry on 21 April 2023 and said:
1. It was not the freeholder for the external common parts. The land was owned by the builder and managed by a managing agent.
2. Its residents had “one allocated bay assigned to their demise”. It was aware that some resident’s did not know which their allocated bays were. It would be writing to all residents and putting information on the communal notice board to provide guidance.
3. It would write to the resident within 5 days to provide guidance on where her bay was located. It would also provide advice on what to do if someone else parked in her bay.
4. It was in the process of tendering for a parking enforcement company to patrol the bays allocated to its residents.
We have not seen evidence that the landlord did write to the resident as outlined in its MP response. This was inappropriate and mismanaged the resident’s expectations causing her to feel unnecessary distress.
It is unclear when and why the landlord’s stance changed from the parking being unallocated, to each property having an allocated bay. However, the information it had provided was conflicting. This, understandably, would have caused the resident confusion.
On 15 May 2023 the resident called the landlord and said she wanted to make a complaint as she still had not been allocated a parking bay. The landlord logged this as a query rather than a complaint. It responded by leaving the resident a voicemail which stated that it had written to all residents on the scheme explaining where to park. This Service has not seen a copy of this letter.
On 22 May 2023 the resident’s MP again contacted the landlord regarding the parking issues.
The resident emailed the landlord on 28 May 2023. She said she still did not have an allocated parking space and so had parked at the back of the car park as previously advised. She said people had been leaving notes on her car telling her she could not park there and posting pictures of her car on social media. She said she felt she was being harassed. We have not seen evidence that the landlord responded to this contact. This was inappropriate, particularly considering the distress the resident was expressing.
On 15 June 2023 the landlord provided the resident with her parking bay number. The resident contacted the landlord later that day and said she was unhappy with the bay she had been allocated. She said that despite living in a ground floor flat she had been allocated a bay on the third floor at the opposite end to where she lived. The landlord replied and advised that the bays were not allocated according to what floor residents lived on. It said allocation was at the discretion of the landlord and the managing agent and that it had also considered the needs of residents with disability requirements.
We acknowledge the resident’s frustrations at being allocated a parking bay which was in an inconvenient location, particularly as she had children. The landlord’s response to her concerns was however reasonable. It was appropriate that it pointed out its legal obligation to consider the needs of those with disability requirements.
On 25 June 2023 the resident reported that someone had been parked in her bay for 2 days and she had been unable to use it. We have not seen evidence that the landlord responded. This was unreasonable.
The landlord responded to the May 2023 MP enquiry on 27 July 2023. It said:
1. As it did not own the external areas of the scheme its powers and actions were limited.
2. The resident had been issued with parking tickets as she was not parked in a bay. She had appealed the fines and was awaiting a response from the managing agent.
3. It had asked the managing agent to consider suspending the car parking zone and parking fines but it had not yet received a response.
On 5 August 2023 the resident again reported that someone had been parked in her allocated bay for 2 days. She asked the landlord what it would do to address this. We have not seen evidence that the landlord responded.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s MP was therefore reasonable. We accept that it was aware that its responses to the MP would be passed on to the resident. It does not however follow that the landlord therefore did not have to respond to direct contact from the resident.
It is accepted that the landlord’s control over management of the car park area is limited. However, from the information provided it is apparent that a proportion of the car park is supposed to be reserved for the use of tenants of its properties. We would therefore reasonably expect the landlord to facilitate communication between its residents and the managing agent and freeholder when issues arose.
Overall, the landlord’s messaging regarding whether the resident had an allocated parking bay was inconsistent. This caused her frustration and distress. While the landlord stated it had written to residents providing clarity on the allocated parking, we have seen no evidence of this. Nor have we seen evidence that on several occasions it responded reasonably to contact from the resident. While the landlord did meet with the managing agent, we have seen limited evidence that it liaised effectively between it and its residents. We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about parking issues.

Response to the resident’s concerns about the affordability of the property and request for a transfer.

In May 2022 the resident contacted her MP. She said she was unable to afford the property and asked for assistance in getting a transfer. The MP contacted the landlord and chased for a response on 4 occasions between May 2022 and November 2022. On 23 November 2022 the landlord responded and said the resident should apply for a mutual exchange, as this was the quickest route for a transfer.
That it took the landlord 6 months to provide a response was inappropriate. The landlord’s response to the MP also failed to address the resident’s concerns regarding the affordability of the property. This Service would reasonably have expected the landlord to have offered support to the resident or to have signposted her for specialist advice. That it did not do so was unreasonable.
As the landlord had already closed its transfer list prior to the resident’s 2022 request, it follows that the resident could not access this. The landlord did not however in its communication with the MP make clear that the transfer list was closed. This was a missed opportunity to make clear that this was why a mutual exchange was the best option available to the resident.
In the resident’s stage 1 complaint in May 2023 she stated that she had previously requested a transfer but that the landlord had ignored her request. She said it had then closed its transfer list. She also said that the rent and council tax on the property was unaffordable and that this had “put [her] into poverty”.
The landlord’s stage 1 response did not acknowledge the resident’s concerns about affordability. Given the distress expressed by the resident and as it was aware that there were children in the household this was inappropriate.
The landlord’s response explained that it had closed its transfer list in 2021 and had also suspended referrals to its rehousing service. It advised that the resident could apply for rehousing by the local authority or for a mutual exchange. It is not clear when the landlord suspended referrals to its rehousing service. If this occurred after the resident’s 2022 communication via her MP, we would have reasonably expected the landlord to assess her request.
The landlord’s policy states that it will only add those who meet certain criteria to its rehousing list. Its criteria includes where there are “severe maintenance issues”. The evidence does not demonstrate that the landlord had considered whether there were severe maintenance issues affecting the resident. It would have been reasonable for it to have done so.
Overall, while we empathise with the resident’s situation this Service acknowledges the difficult position faced by many housing providers due to the extremely limited availability of social housing. We accept that for this reason landlords have had to change their allocations policies to make best use of housing stock. We do not however consider that the landlord responded reasonably, appropriately or with suitable empathy to the resident’s communications. We also consider that it should reasonably have referred her for financial advice and support following her raising concerns about the affordability of the property. We therefore find that there was service failure in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the affordability of the property and request for a transfer.

Response to the resident’s concern that it did not complete a check of the property at the end of the DLP.

The landlord has stated that the DLP for the property ended on 19 June 2020. It has accepted that it did not complete a physical inspection of the property at the end of the DLP as it usually would. This is confirmed by evidence including a form titled ‘end of defects inspection sheet’ dated 18 June 2020. The form contains the resident’s address and states “not on site due to Covid-19”. The form is otherwise blank and unsigned.
On 2 July 2021 the resident telephoned the landlord and raised concerns that the landlord had not inspected her property at the end of the DLP. She said she had not been involved in the process and that the builder now would not address any of the defects. We have not seen evidence that the landlord responded to this communication. This was poor and would understandably have resulted in the resident feeling ignored.
In April 2022 the resident again raised concerns that the landlord had not completed a check prior to the end of the DLP. The landlord replied that it had been unable to physically complete the inspection due to the COVID-19 lockdown. It said it had contacted her by email and letter to request details of any outstanding defects. It said she had not responded and it had therefore “closed the warranty period” on the property.
We note that on 25 September 2023 the landlord’s complaint team sent an internal email regarding its investigations. It said that, while emails sent to the resident said it had emailed and written to her on 10 June 2020 regarding to the end of the DLP, it could not find evidence that this was done.
The landlord has not provided this Service with any evidence that it did attempt to contact the resident. Had it done so, we would have reasonably expected it to maintain a record of this eg a copy of the letter and email and notes of any attempted telephone calls. As there is no evidence to support the landlord’s assertion, we cannot conclude that it did so. This was unreasonable.
In respect of COVID-19 restrictions, this Service will consider what was reasonable and appropriate in all the circumstances of the complaint along with the law and government guidance in place at the time. The UK went into a national lockdown due to Covid-19 on 26 March 2020. Several periods of lifting of restrictions and further lockdowns followed during 2020 and 2021.
On 18 May 2020 the government issued a letter to all social housing residents regarding the easing of lockdown measures. The letter said that landlords could resume routine repairs and planned works. We acknowledge however that the landlord still had to balance any risk to its staff and residents posed by COVID-19 against the urgency of a given task. We do not therefore consider that it was unreasonable that the landlord decided not to carry out physical inspections of all properties on the scheme.
However, we do consider that the landlord should reasonably have carried out proportionate investigations to satisfy itself that there were no outstanding defects to the property. This may have included:
1. Attempting to contact the resident more than 9 days before the end of the DLP.
2. Checking its repairs and other systems to find issues that the resident had reported.
3. Knocking on the resident’s door and speaking with her there at a distance in line with government guidance.
4. Carrying out the inspection via video call with the resident.
That the landlord has not demonstrated that it did so was inappropriate.
Overall, we accept that the landlord’s decision not to complete a physical inspection of the property at the end of the DLP was reasonable. We do not however consider that the landlord carried out proportionate investigations to satisfy itself that there were no outstanding defects. Nor have we seen evidence that the landlord contacted the resident by email or letter as it maintains. We therefore find maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concern that it did not complete a check of the property at the end of the DLP.

Handling of the resident’s reports of issues with the balcony door and balcony decking.

On 3 January 2021 the resident emailed the landlord about an ASB issue. She said her balcony door did not lock and as she was on the ground floor she was worried about the safety of her children. While the landlord replied to her report of ASB we have not seen evidence that it took action in relation to her report regarding the door at this time. This was inappropriate. The resident had put the landlord on notice of a repair issue and it should have taken steps to raise a repair or inspection accordingly.
The landlord raised an emergency repair on 19 March 2021 for the balcony door. It attended on the same day to secure the door and then logged the follow-on work as a defect. It is not clear from the records whether the landlord or builder took any further action at this time. We would reasonably expect the landlord’s records to be clear on what action has been taken to resolve a repair. This indicates issues with the efficacy of the landlord’s record keeping.
On 24 June 2021 the resident reported that a piece of the decking flooring of her balcony had fallen through when her partner stood on it. The landlord attended the following day to make the area safe and said it would pass the repair to the builder as an “urgent” defect.
We note that the balcony doors were faulty and that therefore the broken decking was not ‘made safe’. This was a health and safety issue and should reasonably have been prioritised. That it was not, was a failing. The resident has stated that she had to arrange for her own contractor to replace the broken decking slat as the landlord did not do so. We have made an order for the landlord to reimburse the resident for the costs of this work, subject to the provision of receipts and/or invoices. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy.
On 26 April 2022 the landlord emailed the resident and asked for further information regarding the issue with her patio door. It said that it understood that the builder had replaced all patio doors in November 2021. The resident replied and confirmed that the builder had replaced the doors. While we understand due to later events that the patio door was still faulty, we accept that this was not clear to the landlord from this communication with the resident. The landlord did not take any further action at this time was therefore not unreasonable.
The resident contacted the landlord on 31 May 2023 and said that the issues with her balcony door had not been fully resolved. The landlord replied and said it had passed the repair to its contractor who would contact her to arrange an appointment. The landlord’s repair logs show that a repair was “completed” on 29 June 2023. The records do not provide any detail about what work was done. This is a further example of unsatisfactory record keeping.
The landlord advised the resident in its stage 2 complaint response that it had booked a repair appointment for the balcony door for 14 November 2023. The repair records show that the resident called on this date to rearrange the repair appointment, it is not clear why.
The landlord booked a new appointment for 2 February 2024. On the day of the repair the landlord rearranged the appointment for 7 February 2024. It is again unclear why the appointment was rearranged.
The repair records show that on 7 February 2024 an operative attended. The operative noted that something had been stopping the door from closing fully and this was preventing the lock mechanism from working properly. The landlord recorded the repair as complete. Later that day the resident rang the landlord and explained that her door could still be opened from the outside and so was insecure. The landlord re-attended the following day and found the lock was faulty. This was replaced and the repair log notes that the door was then “in perfect working order”.
In total it took the landlord from January 2021 to February 2024 to repair the resident’s balcony door. We accept that some confusion was caused by communications with the resident in April 2022 and that there were some gaps in reporting. This timeframe is nevertheless inappropriate. During this timeframe the resident’s balcony door was insecure and could be opened from the outside. We accept that this may not have been made explicitly clear to the landlord. We would however have reasonably expected it to carry out appropriate checks that the door was secure from inside and out before recording the work as complete. That it did not do so was unreasonable.
The landlord offered the resident £1,400 at stage 1 for the issues with the balcony. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge it failings and to try to put things right. However, the landlord did not satisfactorily repair the balcony door until February 2024. This was 9 months after its stage 1 complaint response. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay a further £450 compensation for this period. We have calculated this at £50 per month.
Overall, the landlord unreasonably delayed in repairing the balcony door which resulted in it being insecure and accessible from the outside for a period of 3 years. It also failed to repair the balcony decking and this resulted in the resident incurring expenses in having the issue resolved herself. Both of these repairs were health and safety issues and should have been prioritised. While the landlord did take some steps to put things right, we have identified detriment that has yet to be remedied. For that reason, we have found maladministration in respect of this complaint.

Handling of repairs

Cracked walls

While we accept that the resident states she reported the issue earlier, the records show that the resident first reported cracks in the bedroom wall in July 2020. We have not seen evidence that the landlord took action at this time. The reason for this is unclear, but this was unreasonable.
It is unclear what prompted communication on 23 March 2021. However, the landlord emailed the resident in relation to cracks in the plaster in her son’s bedroom. It asked if the builder had contacted her. The resident replied that the builder had visited but she had not received an appointment regarding the cracks or her balcony door. The landlord said it would find out what was going on and come back to her. We have not seen evidence that the landlord took any action following this communication. This was unreasonable.
The resident raised the issue again during her stage 1 complaint and the landlord raised a repair on 1 June 2023. It booked the repair for 24 October 2023. It is not clear why the appointment was not due to take place for 4 months. This is not in line with the timeframes in the landlord’s repairs policy which states it will complete routine repairs in an average of 25 days. This was therefore unreasonable.
We accept that in its stage 2 complaint response the landlord offered to repair the cracks. By this time however the resident had carried out her own decorating and did not want this to be damaged. Her concerns are understandable.
The landlord delayed in addressing the cracked walls between July 2020 and September 2023. This was a considerable deviation from the timeframe in its policy and was therefore unreasonable.
The landlord’s final complaint response said it would repair the cracks when the resident next redecorated. We have recommended that the landlord to keep this offer open so the resident can make contact when she next decorates.

Cracked sub-floor

The records show that the resident reported cracks in the concrete sub-floor on 2July 2021. She does however state that she raised the issue previously. The landlord did not take any action until 1 June 2023 when it booked an appointment being for 24 October 2023.
It took the landlord almost 2 years to raise a repair for the cracked sub-floor. This was inappropriate. Again, it is unclear why the landlord did not make an appointment within the timeframe outlined in its repairs policy. That it did not was a failing.

Dripping taps

The first entry in relation to dripping taps is dated 2 July 2021. We acknowledge the resident’s comments that this was reported earlier. However, we have seen no other evidence to support this. Despite the resident’s report, landlord took no action at the time to inspect or repair the taps.
Following the stage 2 response the landlord raised a repair and booked an appointment for 10 October 2023. That it took it almost 2 and half years to repair the issue was inappropriate. The evidence also suggests that the repair was prompted by the resident raising her concerns as a complaint. It should not have taken the resident complaining about the taps for the landlord to have responded in line with its obligations under the tenancy agreement.

A hole behind the radiator

The landlord has stated that the resident first reported the hole behind her radiator ion 2 July 2021. However, the evidence seen by this Service shows she reported the issue on 29 May 2021.
The landlord responded to the resident’s report on 1 June 2021. It said that it was unable to ask the builder to deal with this as a defect as it could not prove the issue was there during the defect period. It said it would however arrange for its own operative to attend as a “goodwill gesture”. This response was reasonable. We have not however seen any evidence that it booked an appointment at that time to resolve the repair. This was not reasonable.
The landlord did raise a repair on 1 June 2023 after its stage 1 complaint response. It booked an appointment for 24 October 2023. This was not in line with the timeframes in its repairs policy.

Compensation for handling of repairs

When the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint, it offered compensation for the inconvenience caused by its failure to respond to the reports of repair appropriately. This was broken down as:
1. £150 for the cracks in the walls.
2. £120 for the cracked sub-floor.
3. £120 for the dripping taps.
The landlord’s failure to respond appropriately to any of the resident’s repair reports led her to feel ignored. This understandably caused her distress. It is also noted that there were a number of outstanding repairs throughout the property and this would have understandably been the cause of disappointment and frustration for the resident.
We acknowledge that the resident has decided to cancel the appointments for the repairs referred to in this report. She said she did so as she wanted this Service to consider the property in the condition it has been in while the landlord did not address her reports.
The landlord has not provided a breakdown of how it calculated its offer of compensation in relation to its handling of these repairs. It is therefore unclear what factors were taken into consideration and how the overall figures were reached. Taking into account the long duration of the delays to the repairs we consider that the compensation was not reasonable or proportionate. We have therefore ordered the landlord to replace its offer of £390 for its handling of these repairs to £500.
Overall, the landlord unreasonably delayed in addressing the repairs reported by the resident. It:
1. Failed to address the cracked walls for over 3 years.
2. Did not address the cracked subfloor for 2 and a half years.
3. Did not respond to the resident’s report of cracks to the sub-floor for 2 and a half years.
4. Failed to address the resident’s reports of a hole in the wall behind her radiator for 2 years.
We therefore find maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repair reports.

Handling of the associated complaints.

On 30 June 2021 the resident submitted an online complaint about repairs issues and the affordability of the property. The landlord logged this as a ‘query’ and did not raise a complaint.
On 1 April 2022 the resident asked the landlord to raise a complaint about the parking issues she was experiencing. The landlord also logged this as a ‘query’ and did not raise a complaint. In May 2022 the resident contacted her MP. The MP chased the landlord for a response on 4 occasions between May 2022 and November 2022. The landlord did not respond until 23 November 2022.
The resident submitted another online complaint on 24 February 2023 about parking issues. The landlord again logged this as a ‘query’ and passed the issue to its neighbourhood housing team. It did not raise a complaint.
In March 2023 the resident’s MP forwarded a further complaint from the resident about parking issues, outstanding repairs, and the affordability of the property. This was followed by further correspondence from the resident on 16 May 2023.
That the landlord failed to raise a formal complaint until 18 May 2023 was inappropriate and not in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code states that a complaint is an “expression of dissatisfaction, however made”. The resident’s contacts clearly communicated her dissatisfaction. The landlord’s failure to open a complaint unfairly and inappropriately delayed the investigation into her concerns.
The stage 1 response was issued on the same day the complaint was raised. The response did not address all the issues raised by the resident in sufficient detail. Given the extremely short timeframe taken to investigate the complaint we do not consider that the landlord undertook a thorough investigation into the concerns that had been raised.. While it was positive that the landlord wanted to resolve the resident’s issues for her quickly, its rush to do so undermined this aim.
The Code states that the landlord must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions within its response. As it failed to do so this was a complaint handling failure.
Within a month of the landlord’s stage 1 response, the resident twice made it aware that it had not addressed all the issues of her complaint. It replied that she had had the opportunity to raise any concerns at the time and as she had accepted its offer of compensation the complaint was closed.
The Code states that if a complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1 the landlord must progress it to stage 2 of its process unless an exclusion ground applies. The Code also states that if a landlord refuses to escalate a complaint it must clearly communicate the resident’s right to approach the Ombudsman about its decision.
The landlord’s own complaints policy states that if a resident is unhappy with a complaint, they can request an escalation within 6 months or before all the resolution actions have been completed (whichever is later). In this case the resolutions (repairs) had not been completed and the resident made the request within a month. While the resident had accepted the compensation offered, this should not have precluded the landlord from considering her outstanding concerns further. There was therefore no justification within the landlord’s policy, or otherwise, for it refusing to escalate the complaint.
The landlord did escalate the complaint in September 2023 at the request of this Service. That the resident needed to take the time and trouble to bring her complaint to this Service for intervention, was unreasonable. In the spirit of the Code, the landlord should have been working with the resident to try to resolve her concerns and to improve the landlord-tenant relationship.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response addressed each of the resident’s issues separately. This provided a more appropriate level of detail.
While the stage 2 complaint response was reasonable, it did not fulfil the primary aim of the complaints process, resolving the substantive issues of complaint. The resident’s balcony repairs remained outstanding for 5 months after the stage 2 complaint. While we accept that the resident cancelled the appointment for the other repairs, the appointment was not within a reasonable timeframe.
Overall, the landlord repeatedly failed to log a formal complaint. It then failed to address all aspects of the complaint at stage 1 and unfairly refused to escalate the complaint to stage 2. While the stage 2 complaint response was much improved, it failed to satisfactorily resolve the repair issues. We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about parking issues.
2. Service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the affordability of the property and request for a transfer.
3. Maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concern that it did not complete a check of the property at the end of the defect liability period (DLP).
4. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with the balcony door and balcony decking
5. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
  1. Cracked walls.
  2. Cracked sub-floor.
  3. Dripping taps.
  4. A hole behind the radiator.
6. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.
In accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the following complaints are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. Response to the resident’s reports on ongoing repair issues including:
  1. Pest control issues.
  2. Cracked plug sockets and sockets getting hot when in use.
  3. Mould in the property.
  4. Missing lock on the bathroom door.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 working days of the date of this report:
1. A senior officer of the landlord must apologise to the resident in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
2. The landlord must pay the resident £1,110 compensation comprising:
  1. £200 for distress and inconvenience, time and trouble in relation to its handling of the resident’s parking issues.
  2. £100 for distress and inconvenience in relation to its handling of the resident’s concerns that no checks were completed at the end of the DLP.
  3. £450 for distress and inconvenience, time and trouble in relation to its handling of the issues with the balcony door and balcony decking.
  4. £110 for time and trouble and distress and inconvenience in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs.
  5. £250 for distress and inconvenience, time and trouble in relation to its complaint handling.
  6. The compensation ordered is in addition to the £2,010 previously paid by the landlord at stage 1 and stage 2 of its complaint process. The compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears on the rent account
3. The landlord must, on production of supporting evidence from the resident, reimburse her for the costs of repairing the balcony decking.
4. The landlord to carry out a full inspection of the property to identify any outstanding repairs. It should then cooperate with the resident to agree a mutually convenient time for the repairs to be completed.
Unless it can demonstrate that it has done so within the last 6 months, within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord to conduct training to all staff involved in complaint handling. The training should explain:
1. The requirements of the Code.
2. That all complaints must be logged and responded to as such.
3. That staff must respond to all complaints within the timescales outlined in the Code and its own policy.
4. That it must not unreasonably refuse to escalate a complaint.
5. That where compensation is paid it provides an explanation for the amount offered.
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

The landlord should keep the offer of repairing the cracks to the walls and flooring open so that the resident can approach it when she next decorates the property.