London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202341427)

Background

1. The resident told the landlord that a leak from the property above was causing damage to her home. She complained about how the landlord handled the repair and the compensation it offered her. She brought her complaint to us because she was dissatisfied with the way the landlord calculated the compensation.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The level of compensation the landlord offered after it acknowledged poor repair handling.
   2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of compensation.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Compensation for repair delays

4. The landlord did not take a consistent approach when calculating compensation. Its offer did not reasonably reflect the period the resident was affected by the leak and associated repairs.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord delayed providing a final complaint response. It offered compensation, but did not explain the reason for the delay, or what it had learned to prevent similar from happening in the future.

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.

What we did not investigate

6. The resident told us that the leak reoccurred after it had initially been fixed by the landlord and after redecoration had taken place. The circumstances of the leak and whether it was related to the initial repair are unclear.
7. As this issue occurred since the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure, it will not be considered here. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. The resident will need to raise this further leak with it before we can potentially investigate her concerns. If, after making a formal complaint about the matter, the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s actions, she has the option to ask us to start a new investigation.

What we did investigate

8. The resident’s complaints in February 2022 and July 2022 centred on the way the landlord handled the repair to a leak had originally been reported in January 2022. She explained that wastewater was leaking into her property onto her floors and walls and that it was unhygienic. She said the landlord had not done what it said it would to trace and repair the leak and had not updated her. She wanted the landlord to repair the leak and the damage, deep clean the affected area, and offer compensation for the time she was affected and the inconvenience and distress caused.
9. In response to the complaints the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delay in repairing the leak and associated damage, and delays in providing a response. It said in its final complaint response in March 2024 that it had taken several actions to complete the repairs. It said that overall, it had taken 7 months to complete the works but some of the delays were partly due to not being able to contact the resident or gain access.
10. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £1200 for distress, inconvenience, time and effort, complaint handling and a cancelled appointment. It is unclear how the landlord calculated the final compensation offer in respect of the time that the resident was affected by the leak.
11. The evidence shows that in October 2023 the landlord originally offered the resident £990 compensation based on her being affected by the issue for a 9 month period. This was based on the following calculation:
    1. Inconvenience 9 months x £30 = £270.
    2. Distress 9 months x £30 = £270.
    3. Complaint handling 9 months x £30 = £270.
    4. Time and effort 9 months x £10 = £90.
    5. Lack of communication 9 months x £10 = £90.
12. The resident queried this with the landlord and said the leak first occurred in January 2022. The landlord said the first repair was raised in July 2022 and said it would revisit the award to cover 15 months of disruption. Records show the landlord then internally reviewed the matter and concluded the resident was affected for a period of 7 months, with some delays attributable to the resident. There is also evidence that the landlord offered the resident another compensation amount of £1320 in December 2023, but the specific details for how that offer was reached are unclear.
13. The evidence shows the resident first reported the leak in January 2022. Investigations into the source began the same month, and initial repairs were carried out from April 2022. However, the landlord’s records show it did not confirm to the resident that the leak had been repaired, further investigations completed, and remedial works booked until September 2023.
14. Records show the landlord described the issue as intermittent when determining the time period the resident was affected. There is some evidence of appointments to complete the remedial repairs being cancelled, but the reasons for the cancellations are unclear from the landlord’s record keeping. Some can be attributed to the resident requesting further investigation and confirmation that the leak had been fully resolved before remedial repairs were undertaken, but some were also attributable to access issues with the flat above the resident’s and a vehicle breakdown on one occasion. The records show that the resident regularly contacted the landlord to obtain updates on the progress of the repairs, returned calls or messages from the landlord when they had been missed and sent several emails to the landlord to try to resolve matters, which at times were unanswered.
15. It was reasonable for the resident to remain concerned that the leak had not been fully resolved before remedial decorative work and repairs were completed. This is because the original inspection explained that access to concealed units was required to confirm the source of the leak had been repaired. The resident’s concern that investigations were incomplete is supported by the landlord later arranging further inspections to do so.
16. The landlord should have calculated the final compensation using a consistent formula. Its final offer of £1200 differed from previous offers, and lacked sufficient explanation as to how it had been reached. It did not reflect the full period of impact to the resident, who experienced further distress and inconvenience by the landlords handling of the issue.
17. The landlord’s actions to repair the leak reduced its impact on the resident. Its records show that further inspections in May and August 2023 found no evidence of the leak. However, the resident experienced further inconvenience because the landlord took too long to complete the outstanding inspections, which delayed remedial repairs. Records show the resident contacted the landlord several times to remind it that internal investigations had not been completed, even though these were recommended by the original operative when the leak was first reported. It was reasonable for the resident to remain concerned that the leak had not been fully addressed, while those investigations remained outstanding.
18. The time the resident was affected by the leak and associated repairs was approximately 20 months, although some of the delays were outside the control of the landlord. Because of that, and the leak’s intermittent nature, it was not unreasonable for the landlord to decide to compensate for 15 months rather than the full 20. The evidence shows the resident broadly accepted that decision at the time. However, the landlord’s final compensation did not match what it should have been had it used the same calculations it used in its earlier complaint response and applied it to the 15 month period. It did not explain how it had calculated the final amount, and in the absence of anything else explaining the lack of consistency its decision was not reasonable.

19. The landlord has a 2 stage complaint process. At the time the initial complaint was made, the landlords complaint policy did not state a timescale to acknowledge complaints, but its policies have changed over time to comply with the Code. Its policies have consistently said that a resident should receive a formal response to stage one complaints in 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days, unless an extension is required.
20. The landlord responded at stage one 2 days after the complaint was made. However, it then provided another stage one response 10 months later. The landlord told the resident in July 2022 and December 2022 that her request to escalate the matter to stage 2 had been accepted, but this was not formally acknowledged and responded to until March 2024, after the Ombudsman intervened on her behalf. This was a minimum of 20 months after the resident requested the complaint to be escalated.
21. The landlord acknowledged the delay in providing a response. It apologised, and offered the resident £200 compensation for the inconvenience.
22. These were appropriate remedies in the circumstances. However, the landlord did not say why the delays occurred, nor did it explain how it would seek to learn from its poor complaint handling to avoid such major delays in future. If it had done so, it may have provided reassurance to the resident that the landlord had learnt from her complaint and taken steps to improve its service. Not doing so meant the complaint was left incompletely resolved.

Learning

Communication and record keeping

23. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. The resident said long periods passed without a response, and she had to chase updates several times. She told us that when staff left the landlord’s employment, no other colleagues took ownership of her enquiries, and she did not receive responses. She said this continued after the complaint response.
24. The landlord should consider the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Attitudes, respect and rights, for further guidance on how to effectively communicate with residents in the future.
25. The record keeping provided by the landlord was incomplete and did not fully explain why some appointments to complete investigations or repairs were cancelled. The landlord should consider the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Record Keeping to assist it in improving how it records data in the future.