London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202410130)

Background

1. The resident reported an electrical fault in her electric box to the landlord on 31 October 2023. She later complained that the landlord failed to attend a follow‑up appointment.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Report of an electrical fault.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the report of the electrical fault.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The response to the report of the electrical fault

4. The landlord followed its repair policy timeframes when dealing with the resident’s report of the electrical fault. It took reasonable steps to reschedule a missed follow-up appointment.

The response to the resident’s complaint

5. The landlord did not comply with its complaint policy or our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The landlord did not acknowledge its complaint handling failures or offer any redress to put things right for the resident.

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 reported smoke and a burning smell coming from her electric box on 31 October 2023. She also contacted the fire brigade, who attended and then called the electricity company. The landlord’s contractor arrived while the fire service was still on site. The electricity company then arrived while the contractor was still present and repaired the fault. The landlord complied with its repair policy which states it will attend an emergency repair within 24 hours.
7. Following this, a landlord arranged to visit the resident on 7 November 2023 to discuss several issues she had raised, including the recent electrical fault and any outstanding repairs.
8. The resident called the landlord on 7 November 2023 to complain that it had not attended the appointment. She said she felt the landlord was not taking the electrical fault seriously, particularly as she had a young child. The landlord offered to book another appointment, but the resident did not agree to this.
9. The landlord did not uphold the complaint. It said it had attended, received no answer when it buzzed and knocked, and left a card. It confirmed the appointment was rescheduled for 29 November 2023. The resident escalated the complaint on 22 November 2023, saying her concerns had not been addressed. She maintained the landlord had not attended and she had not received a card. The landlord has not provided any evidence to confirm its attendance.
10. The landlord issued its stage 2 response and again did not uphold the complaint. It said its vehicle tracker confirmed it had attended and while it acknowledged the resident felt disbelieved, it said this was not its intention. The landlord also said it had not received reports from the fire brigade or the electricity company “as to whether there was a problem.” However, its repair log from 31 October 2023 clearly records that both services attended. The landlord’s wording could have been clearer, as it may have implied uncertainty about the incident despite having this information. This may have contributed to the resident feeling she was not believed and could have been avoided with better communication.
11. In summary, we find no maladministration. The landlord responded to the electrical fault in line with its repair policy. The appointment on 7 November was to discuss wider concerns, and although this did not go ahead, the resident was not left at risk or without essential repairs. The landlord said its tracker showed it at the location, but it has not provided evidence to support this. The landlord offered to reschedule the appointment when the complaint was made and confirmed the details of the new appointment in its stage 1 response. Taken together, these actions show it responded reasonably in the circumstances.

12. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Code (April 2024). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
13. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint at stage 1. It therefore missed an opportunity to confirm its understanding of the issues and avoid any misunderstanding. However, it did provide a stage 1 response within the timescales set out in its policy.
14. The resident escalated the complaint on 22 November 2023. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged the escalation, and the stage 2 response was issued 39 working days later. The landlord’s complaint policy states a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days of escalation, meaning the response was 19 working days outside the required timeframe. There is also no evidence the landlord explained the delay to the resident. It did not offer an apology in its stage 2 response or indicate how it would learn from its complaint handling failures.
15. In summary, we find service failure. There is no evidence the landlord provided an acknowledgement at either stage, which left the resident uninformed and meant it did not follow its own policy. The stage 2 response was issued significantly outside the landlord’s own policy timescales, and no updates or reasonable explanation was provided.
16. Although the delay lasted a few weeks, the electrical repair had already been completed, so the impact on the resident was not significant. However, the lack of acknowledgement or communication about the delay would likely have left her feeling ignored. Taking this into account, we have ordered the landlord to pay £50 in compensation for the frustration and inconvenience caused by the failures identified in this report.

Learning

17. The landlord should acknowledge complaints in line with its complaint policy and demonstrate what it has learned from any failures in its complaint responses.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

18. The landlord should ensure it provides us with all the information requested.

Communication

19. The landlord should inform residents of any delays in the complaint process and provide clear timeframes and explanations and ensure its complaint responses include internal references to avoid confusion.