London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202346886)

Background

1. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The tenancy began in September 2016. The resident lives with her two children, one of whom the resident says has cold-induced asthma. She has reported generalised anxiety disorder for herself. She has experienced draughts and coldness in the house which led to this complaint.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of radiators which were undersized or underperforming.
   2. The resident’s reports of draughty windows.
   3. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reports of undersized or underperforming radiators.
   2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reports of draughty windows.
   3. The landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress with regards to the impact flowing from failings in complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The handling of reports of radiators which were undersized or underperforming.

4. The landlord conducted a number of heat loss surveys which were based on unreliable data and it did not discover its error for a significant period of time. It made an offer of redress which went some way towards recognition of the distress caused to the resident but did not go far enough.

The handling of reports of draughty windows.

5. The landlord delayed for about 3 months in responding to the resident’s concerns and then raising repairs. It also failed to respond when the resident provided photographic evidence the contractor had not completed work as planned and took no further action.

The handling of the associated complaint.

6. The landlord made an offer of redress to recognise a number of failings including delays in providing complaint acknowledgments and responses. All the delays were of a relatively short duration so its offer of redress was reasonable.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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.

7. There is no dispute between the parties that the radiators were too small for the rooms. The landlord has acknowledged this.
8. The resident first raised a report that the radiators were not working properly in March 2023. The landlord’s repairs log shows that its contractor attended for a heat loss survey and recommended replacement of the radiators, however, there was no follow-up action.
9. The resident raised the issue again in November and December 2023. The landlord again carried out heat loss surveys in late 2023 to early 2024, but did not seem to be able to rely on the findings. For example, at stage 1 it decided to do a repeat survey rather than relying on the most recent survey. After the repeat survey, it then suggested the radiators were of adequate size but did not take into account the previous survey from March 2023 which recommended a replacement.
10. The landlord then discovered an error in the data after the resident raised the dispute and changed its position, ultimately replacing the radiators in late April 2024. The series of inconsistencies and errors indicated a repeated failure by the contractors to ensure their data was reliable and the surveys were of good quality.
11. In total (discounting the warmer months of April to October 2023) the resident experienced uncertainty and worry starting from March 2023 over the landlord’s lack of follow-up after the initial heat loss survey in March 2023. She and her family also likely experienced discomfort, distress and inconvenience in the colder months without the use of adequate radiators for about 6-7 months from March 2023 to April 2024. She has explained to us that her young daughter has cold-induced asthma, which made the impact on her family more significant, although we acknowledge that there is no record that she has previously shared her daughter’s vulnerability with the landlord.
12. The landlord offered £120 in recognition of this impact. While this goes some way towards mitigating the impact on the resident and her family, it came to about £20 per month for the 6-7 months of distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident and her family during the colder months, not counting the months of uncertainty she also experienced outside of winter while waiting for the landlord to take action. We consider this was not sufficient nor proportionate to the impact experienced and therefore find maladministration on this aspect of the complaint. We would order the landlord to pay £380 in total, equivalent to £40 per month for the period of 7 months, plus £100 for the distress of waiting for the landlord to follow up.

13. the resident first reported windows being draughty and having gaps in November 2023. There was no record of the landlord following up with any repairs. She referred to this again during escalation of this complaint. the landlord conducted repairs to the windows in early April 2024 when the resident made a formal complaint about the issue. It failed to raise the appropriate repairs within the response timeframe per its responsive repairs policy (25 calendar days for a routine repair).
14. The parties gave different accounts on what work was actually done to the windows. The landlord explained in its stage 2 response of April 2024 it had cleaned and lubricated the window mechanisms, as well as replaced all the ‘broken’ hinges and some screws. In follow-up, the resident then sent in an email with multiple photographs to show that the hinges remained the same as they were and there had been no replacement of parts. We cannot see from the records that the landlord made any acknowledgement or reply to address these concerns.
15. There was a further inspection report in late July 2024 which stated the landlord had adjusted the windows and left them in good working order. The landlord could have taken this opportunity to verify what work it had previously done both internally and with the resident, which would have provided some reassurance on the reliability and quality of its operative’s work, instead of appearing to dismiss the resident’s concerns. It did not however do so.
16. The resident stated she continued to experience draughts and gaps in the windows despite the landlord further ‘adjusting’ the windows. Records do not show the landlord has taken any further action since then to acknowledge or mitigate the issue.
17. The landlord should have acted sooner to inspect and repair the windows. It should have acknowledged the resident’s email of 19 April 2024 and responded to her concerns that the contractor did not complete the hinge replacement work as it said it had done. A post-inspection would have been appropriate to determine if any further work was needed. Overall, we consider the landlord’s handling of the window issues was passive and failed to consider the impact to the resident.
18. The landlord has not acknowledged any of these failings nor offered any redress to the resident on this aspect of the complaint. She has been experiencing distress and inconvenience over these window issues from November 2023 up till now (for about two years). Due to the duration of time that has passed and the landlord missing multiple opportunities to resolve this problem, we find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the window issues.
19. Our remedies guidance states for a finding of maladministration, we would consider a financial redress in the range of £100 to £600 to be appropriate. In this case, we consider the level of impact to be medium and would therefore order the landlord to pay compensation of £300.

20. The landlord identified a number of issues in its complaint handling at stage 2. These included: a delayed stage 1 response; failing to call back; failing to reply to the resident’s emails; not informing her when it escalated the complaint at stage 2; and mishandling the email from our service in April 2024 resulting in ‘late acknowledgment’ of the resident’s complaint.
21. It has made an offer of £90 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by these failings.
22. We consider these failings all occurred within a 3-month period from January to April 2024. On each occasion the impact of each individual failing lasted about 3-4 weeks. While there is a accumulative impact of distress and frustration on the resident from these failings, overall, the duration is of relatively short duration and the £90 offered is in line with our remedies guidance for a service failure. We consider the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress for its failings in complaint handling.

Learning

Communication and Knowledge and Information Management (KIM)

23. Our Spotlight Report on KIM set out that landlords should ensure its databases are capable of adequately capturing information about residents (including vulnerabilities) and repairs. Staff should be able to easily access information they require as this is essential for evidence-based decision-making.
24. In this case, at stage 1 the landlord had to re-conduct a heat loss survey instead of referring to an old one that had been done recently. The heat loss/radiator surveys were also found to be based on data that was not fully reliable. The landlord should review its capacity and that of its contractors to collect accurate data and keep good records.
25. In terms of communication, the landlord failed to acknowledge or reply to the resident’s communication about the windows on multiple occasions. If it had responded in a more timely and active manner, it might have mitigated a significant part of the impact to the resident.