London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202323380)

Background

1. The resident lives alone in sheltered accommodation. The landlord has vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. The resident told us that she has arthritis, hip replacements and epilepsy.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. Repairs to the shower.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to repairs to the shower.
   2. There was reasonable redress in how the landlord responded to the complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Repairs to the shower

4. The landlord did not carry out repairs to the shower in line with the timescales in its repairs policy. The solution offered by the landlord regarding the shower pump was not reasonable. The problem with the shower pump remains unresolved.

Complaint Handling

5. The landlord did not log the resident’s first complaint in line with its policy or our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). There were complaint handling failures at stage 1 when the resident made her second complaint. The landlord made an appropriate offer of redress for the failings.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

6. The resident told the landlord she had been chasing repairs to her shower since 2021. We would not normally consider events that have happened more than 12 months prior to them being raised formally with the landlord. So, we have only considered the landlord’s actions during the 12 months leading up to the resident raising the complaint.
7. The landlord’s stage 2 response acknowledged the length of time the resident had experienced problems with her shower and the number of appointments there had been. It apologised for the delays the resident had experienced, this was appropriate.
8. The landlord arranged a joint visit for a surveyor and contractor to attend the property on 21 February 2024. After the visit, a work order was raised on 23 February 2024 for a contractor to fit a new shower door and “overhaul” the shower to see if there were any blockages.
9. The landlord apologised in its stage 2 response that the resident had needed to chase it for repairs. It said its communication had fallen short of acceptable standards. This was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge. However, the landlord did not put things right or learn from outcomes as the resident had to continue chasing the landlord to progress the shower repairs.
10. From 29 February 2024 to 19 August 2024 the resident repeatedly chased the landlord for when the work to the shower was going to be carried out. The landlord did not keep the resident updated. The outstanding work was only chased up within the landlord and with the contractor when the resident contacted it for updates. This was not reasonable. We would expect the landlord to monitor the progress of the job to ensure the work was carried out in line with its repair timescales and for the resident to be kept updated.
11. For the work to be carried out, the contractor needed to submit a quote and the landlord needed to approve it. The quote was requested on 23 February 2024 but was not received until early July 2024. This was an unreasonable delay.
12. On 20 June 2024 the landlord advised the resident it had escalated the outstanding quote to senior management. This was 4 months after the quote was requested. Knowing the resident’s vulnerabilities and that she did not have a bath so the shower was her only washing facility, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have escalated this matter much sooner.
13. When the quote was received, there were further delays because the landlord told the contractor more information was needed. On 23 August 2024, 6 months after the quote was requested, the landlord’s repair panel was asked to approve the quote. However, on the same day the landlord requested further information from the contractor. It was unclear when this information was received and whether the quote was approved or not. As the work was not carried out, it was reasonable to conclude the quote was not approved.
14. Confusion appeared to also contribute to the delays the resident experienced. Within the landlord, there was confusion as to whether the job had been given to the minor works team. Within the contractor, the job was confused with another one that required the water company’s involvement. These confusions may have been prevented if there was better communication, oversight and ownership of this work order.
15. Nearly ten months after the work order was raised, the landlord attended the property on 17 December 2024. The landlord repaired the shower door and resolved the problem with the shower water pressure. These repairs were not carried out in line with the timescales in the landlord’s repairs policy. The problem with the pump getting clogged up was not addressed.
16. The resident has told us that to unclog the pump she gets down on her hands and knees, pulls up the pump, being careful not to disconnect it from the power and pulls the debris from the blades. She said this was dangerous and difficult due to her arthritis.
17. The resident said the landlord told her to report every time the pump gets clogged up. It said it would send an operative to unclog the pump. She told the landlord the pump clogged every 2 weeks, so that was not a suitable ongoing solution. It was unreasonable of the landlord to deem this an appropriate solution. We would expect the landlord to resolve the matter that causes the clogging.
18. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s vulnerabilities in its stage 2 response. It awarded £480 compensation for distress and inconvenience “for failure to recognise the impact due to vulnerabilities”. This was appropriate. However, the length of time the matters remained outstanding after the stage 2 response showed the landlord did not continue considering the resident’s vulnerabilities.
19. The compensation the landlord offered at stage 2 was proportionate and in line with our remedies guidance. However, it did not carry out the repairs promptly. The resident had to continue chasing the landlord to progress the repair. It did not attend to fix the shower door and water pressure until nearly 10 months after its stage 2 response was issued. The problem with the shower pump remains unresolved 20 months after the stage 2 response.
20. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £500 in recognition of these further failures. This is to recognise the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the delays and unresolved problem with the shower pump clogging. We have made an order for the landlord to repair or renew the shower, so the pump does not clog and a permanent solution to the problem is found.

21. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that it did not log a complaint when the resident initially made a complaint in September 2023. This was not in line with the Code which states a complaint must be raised when a resident expresses dissatisfaction. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to resolve the matters.
22. When the resident made another complaint on 8 January 2024, the landlord did not log this until 8 working days later. The complaint was not acknowledged until 19 January 2024. These timeframes were not in line with the 5 working days specified in the Code and the landlord’s policy for complaints to be logged and acknowledged. However, the landlord did issue its stage 1 response in line with the correct timescale.
23. The landlord issued its stage 2 response within 5 working days of being contacted by us to issue a response. However, it did not appear the resident had attempted to escalate her complaint with the landlord, so no failing has been identified at stage 2.
24. The landlord awarded the resident £90 compensation for complaint handling in its stage 2 response. This was £60 for time and effort getting the complaint resolved and £30 for poor complaint handling. This was a proportionate amount of compensation for not logging the complaint in September 2023 and for the complaint handling failures identified at stage 1.
25. We have found that the landlord made an offer of redress which was satisfactory in resolving its complaint handling failures.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. More robust record keeping may have prevented the confusions identified above about the work order that had been raised for the shower repairs. We were not provided with records about why the quote for the work on the shower was not approved. It would have been beneficial for this key information to be submitted to us.

Communication

27. The landlord needs to proactively keep residents updated while repairs are ongoing. Better communication with its contractor, aided by more robust oversight of the jobs allocated to its contractor, may have prevented some of the delays the resident experienced.