London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202410480)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202410480

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

28 February 2025

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 handling of:
1. Subsidence at the property.
2. Repairs, including reports of a leak from the property above.
3. The resident’s concerns about the conduct of its contractors and damage to her personal belongings.
4. Reports of mice in the property.
5. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. There are vulnerabilities in the household. The resident has fibromyalgia and COPD. Her son is under the care of great Ormond Street Hospital. He has multiple health issues including growth issues and a serious lung condition, causing reoccurring respiratory tract infections.
The resident lives in a period property that has been converted into 2 flats. In 2023 the roots of a tree in the front garden which it had cut down several years earlier started causing problems with the foundations. The tree had previously been cut down because it was identified as the cause of subsidence. The resident reported associated problems such as cracks appearing and the misalignment of her backdoors and her kitchen floor sinking. Gaps in the building have allowed access points for infestations of mice. She has also experienced problems with a leak from the flat above, that has re-occurred several times since 2020. She was temporarily rehoused while it carried out remedial work to her property in 2021. She has also reported damage to her belongings from water and mould on several occasions.
On 15 September 2021, the resident made a formal complaint about the condition of her property following the landlord carrying out the remedial works. She said the contractor had covered everything in plaster, damaged her belongings and left its tools, materials, and rubbish at her property. She requested escalation of her complaint when it had not responded by 21 November 2021.
The landlord declined the resident’s escalation request because its policy does not allow it to escalate a complaint until it has provided a stage 1 decision. It issued its stage 1 response to the resident on 10 August 2022. It said it had been unable to resolve her request in a reasonable time and would like to offer her £200 compensation.
On 28 March 2023, the landlord issued a further stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint. It apologised for the state in which the contractor had left her home. It said its investigation showed that the contractor did not leave the property in the condition she described and that they returned on 18 October 2021 to collect their materials.
The resident requested escalation of her complaint regarding ongoing repairs and her feeling that she was not being listened to. The landlord’s notes from a telephone call on 8 May 2024, state the resident listed several repair issues that were still outstanding. The issues included, rotten windows, extensive mould in her bedroom and a pest infestation. She also highlighted cracks that she was very concerned about. She was also still getting leaks from the flat above which had caused damage to her belongings.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 24 May 2024. It addressed the issues of the mice infestation, subsidence, kitchen floor repairs, and leaks. It explained that it carried out remedial works to her property in October 2021, while she was temporarily re-housed. It noted she had reported further leaks in February and April 2023. But despite it carrying out work in the flat above, water was still dripping through. It had raised an order for further investigation, once resolved, it would re-instate a defective bedroom light outstanding from the previous leak. It intended to replace the defective windows, but this needed planning permission from the local authority. It offered a total of £435 compensation inclusive of the £200 offered at stage 1. It said £110 was for her inconvenience, £25 was for her time and effort and £300 was for its poor complaint handling.
The resident’s MP escalated her complaint to this Service. She said the landlord’s failure to address the outstanding repairs had made the property unsuitable for the resident and her son with their medical conditions.
In a recent update to this Service, the resident advised that she was still experiencing a leak from above. The landlord had found an appropriate temporary property for her to move to so that it could carry out extensive repair work to the property. She was presently too ill to physically pack and move.
An update from the landlord advised that due to the resident’s ill-health it was arranging a packing and moving service for her to expedite the move to the temporary housing. It was awaiting a decision from the Planning Team on the window replacement, which it expected on 13 February 2025.

Assessment and findings

Subsidence

The resident’s tenancy agreement expects the landlord to repair and maintain the structure of the property, including any shared parts of the building which the home is a part of. This aligns with its repairing obligation in section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The Act also expects it to complete repairs within a reasonable time. What is a reasonable time is based on all the circumstances of the case. Landlords have repairs policies which usually set out their target timescales.
The landlord had cut down a tree thought to be causing subsidence 5 years earlier. However, between July and September 2023, signs of further movement emerged. This included surface cracks in relatively new plaster work, larger cracks and, by its stage 2 response on 24 May 2024, repeated calls to re-align the resident’s backdoor. Following this, she reported the kitchen floor was sinking.
We recognise that repairs concerning suspected subsidence can be complex and will often incur delays while the landlord, its insurers and and other experts involved decide the best way to proceed. However, we expect investigations to be managed effectively and with a sense of urgency, to identify the cause of potential ground movement and a solution as soon as possible.
Here, it was hard to determine the exact course of events, as the landlord did not provide us with a record of communication between itself and the insurer. There were also no records of its communication with the resident on this issue, between July 2023 (when movement re-started) and the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 25 May 2024.
It is important that landlords keep clear, correct and easily accessible records to show proof of its actions and an audit trail of events. This helps the Ombudsman to understand the landlord’s actions and decision making. From the evidence available, we cannot conclude that the landlord proactively engaged with the insurer or the resident up to the stage 2 response.
The landlord’s repair log gave detailed information on 23 August 2023 about the tree’s re-growth. It stated that it was potentially causing structural issues to the resident’s flat, the property of the private neighbour next door, and lifting the pavement on the highway. It did not, however, say who reported this or identified the resulting issues.
On 5 September 2023, the resident reported visible cracks in her living room. She said they were from floor to ceiling, wide enough to put her finger through and had appeared rapidly. There was no follow-up report from the landlord, or information on its repair log, just one note on the job order stating “cancelled.” It re-raised the job again on 6 September 2023 and noted it as “finished.”
The issue was raised again on 13 September 2023, when contractors reported finding the resident extremely distressed about the cracks in her property. They advised the landlord that there appeared to be movement from the foundations and recommended a surveyor attend. The landlord did not inspect, it looked at photographs supplied by the contractor and decided it was nothing of concern. It instructed the contractors to relay the message to her and advised her that filling the cracks was internal decorating which was her responsibility. It was also not reasonable to have determined the situation by just having looked at pictures of surface cracks in isolation. There was a history of subsidence at the property and other signs of movement being reported. Moreover, it is clear that cracking in plaster is a landlord’s obligation (see: Grand v Gill [2011] EWCA Civ 554, in which the Court of Appeal found that plaster formed part of the structure and exterior which decoration could be placed upon, as opposed to decoration itself).
Even if that was not the case, then the landlord still be responsible for the decoration in these circumstances. Where a landlord has an obligation to repair, there is also an obligation to make good any damage to decorations because of the repairs or the repair work (See: Bradley v Chorley). This duty applies both to damage that occurs because the landlord fails to comply with a repairing obligation and to damage which occurs as a result of the repairing work. The resident’s property has subsidence. It is the landlord’s duty to address this and the resulting damage to the internal decorating. Put simply, the landlord could not expect the resident to fill the cracks if the subsidence damage would continue. Therefore, on both premises the landlord’s decision was incorrect and unreasonable.
A quote from a tree specialist, dated 21 September 2023, confirmed trees were causing structural damage to the 2 properties and a trip hazard on the pavement. It recommended felling the trees to ground level and poisoning the stumps, to allow necessary repairs to be completed. There is no evidence the landlord shared this information with the resident. It completed the tree work on 13 November 2023.
Living with subsidence problems can be extremely stressful and distressing for residents. Apart from the condition of the property, the uncertainty of timescales and the extent of the works needed, there is often the anxiety that the property is unsafe. To help with this, we expect landlords to communicate regularly with residents to give reassurance. It was even more pertinent in the resident’s case because of the household vulnerabilities and potential effect any repair problems might have on their health. It is also important to manage their expectations, as a complex problem like subsidence might take a significant period to resolve. It was not evident that it had done so, which was a service failing.
The resident submitted a formal complaint because of multiple repair issues at the property. She felt the subsidence was being ignored by the landlord. Its stage 2 response was the only communication with her on the issue that we have seen. This only said that it was addressing the issues of subsidence through its insurance team. It had instructed a construction company to complete any repairs needed but was awaiting a start date. This information was limited and would not have reasonably assured the resident of what the works were, when they were likely to start and what that would mean for them.
In our view the landlord should have given the resident a full overview of the situation and process. This should have included the cause of the movement and its proposals to address it. Whether it might require a period of monitoring to ensure the movement had stopped or reduced to an acceptable level before arranging a program of repairs. It should have shared details of the work to be undertaken. And lastly, whether that might involve her moving out. Had it done so, it might have reduced her anxiety over safety. It may also have prevented her need to complain.
As stated earlier, we understand that work in identifying the cause and solutions to subsidence is complex and it may not be appropriate to apply standard repair response times. As a result, we expect to see proactive management of the process combined with regular and effective communication with the resident. This is doubly important when there are complex medical needs in the household that could be negatively impacted. On the evidence available, we could not conclude that the landlord did.
On the whole the landlord’s handling of this matter was poor and amounted to maladministration. The level of compensation should factor in that there would have likely been more worry and upset caused to the resident when compared to the ordinary household without vulnerabilities. The level of compensation awarded in this case has factored this in.

Repairs, including reports of a leak from the property above

The windows

The resident raised the issues of rotting windows in her stage 2 complaint. She said this was causing draughts, loss of heat and mould. The photographs she provided, show single-glazed sash windows with cracked/scratched glass and extensive rot in the wooden frames.
In its response of 25 May 2024, the landlord said it agreed the windows needed replacing, but it needed to obtain local council planning permission to do so. It committed to submitting a planning application as a matter of urgency but warned it could still take some time. While any delay is inconvenient for the resident, the need for planning permission is outside of its control.
In a recent update from the landlord, we were advised that it is awaiting a decision from the planners. This is expected on 13 February 2025. It also advised us that the date for the decision from the planners, is late in the financial year. This means the contractor cannot complete the resident’s window replacement within the 2024-25 replacement programme. She will now have to wait to be included on the 2025-26. This outcome will not only be extremely disappointing for her, but it could also cause her significant detriment. It was expected that the windows would be replaced while she was temporarily rehoused which is imminent.
It was not clear whether the delay in receiving this decision was down to when the landlord submitted the application or the planning team’s decision making. On our request for the date it submitted its application, it repeated the date the decision is expected. The landlord has not provided evidence that it acted promptly to submit the planning application. The council’s website suggests the application was made in November/December 2024 some 5/6 months. The Ombudsman therefore finds fault on the part of the landlord for this.

The leaks

The landlord’s tenancy agreement requires it to repair and maintain the pipework and fixtures in its rented properties that supply water and sanitation. This includes basins, sinks, baths and toilets. (Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 section 11).
The resident had reported on 22 April 2021 that her bedroom ceiling was showing cracks, despite only being re-plastered 2 years before. There had been past problems that were attributed to the pipework between the floor and ceiling of the 2 flats and problems with the gutters. She had experienced 3 leaks in 2020. On this occasion, however, the landlord decided that no action was necessary.
On 3 June 2021, the landlord raised an emergency (24hr response) repair for water coming through the resident’s bedroom ceiling light. It allocates this priority when there is an immediate danger to the occupant. It did not complete the job until 7 June 2021. This exceeded its repairs policy response time by 3 days, which was not reasonable.
The landlord’s stage 2 response (May 2024) said that it had completed repairs to the neighbour’s flat in July 2021. It did not tell the resident at the time or in its complaint response what caused the leak or what works it completed to resolve it. It considers this a data protection issue. Given the history, with no understanding of the cause or solution to the leak, the resident could not be confident it would not happen again.
The landlord raised an order for works to the resident’s flat on 3 September 2021. This included re-boarding, plastering the ceiling, and redecorating the bedroom. It was also addressing a separate issue, which required major works to the kitchen, which made the works extensive. The target completion date was 1 October 2021.
The landlord moved the resident out on 27 September 2021 to complete the work. This was appropriate as the work was vast and there are health issues in the household that the works could affect. It did, however, seem late in the month to move. The completion date was only 4 days away and it raised the job on 3 September 2021. It was also concerning that the repairs log had a completion date of 10 February 2022. The resident formally complained about the condition of her property on her return, which was 15 October 2021. It is not clear whether this meant it had exceeded its repair completion target, or its record keeping is poor.
In its stage 2 complaint, the landlord confirmed receipt of a report of a leak from the resident on 11 February 2023. There was, however, no record of this in its repairs log. It stated it carried out repairs to the neighbour’s property that day, but did not give any detail. It said she reported the following day that water was still dripping from the flat above. Again, there was no record of the repair on the log provided. It said it prioritised this as a non-urgent repair. However, with no knowledge of the issue the day before, we cannot say the landlord demonstrated it acted reasonably.
Following this leak, the landlord realised it had not reinstated the resident’s bedroom light since the previous leak. In its internal records, it mentioned her light was disconnected for 3 months, which in itself was not reasonable. However, the repairs history shows the previous leak was September 2021. This suggests she had not had a light in the room for 17 months. Regardless of which timescale was correct, it had not identified that this was a service failing in its complaint investigation.
The resident reported a further leak on 31 August 2023 along with claims from the water authority that it had calculated 32 litres of water an hour, was leaking from somewhere in the property. The landlord attended that day but could find no evidence of a leak in her flat or the neighbour’s flat above. It was unfortunate the leak could not be traced, but this was not a service failure.
She reported leaks again on 27 September 2023, 12 and 15 April 2024. The landlord visited on the same day for each report, made differing findings on the cause and completed repairs where required. Although her neighbour’s property was a recurrent source, the last leak was external and came from an overflow pipe. The landlord completed the job on 27 April 2024. As water was not penetrating the resident’s flat, a non-urgent response was reasonable.
The resident’s formal complaint, according to the acknowledgement on 8 May 2024, said her bedroom was covered in damp and mould. She said she had to heat the property even in the summer to stop the damp; something she could not afford to do. The rotten windows added to the problem. She also continued to experience leaks every time her neighbours used their bathroom.
The cause of a leak is not always easy to identify, and it can require a process of elimination before the source is found. This inevitably needs to be considered in the length of any reasonable completion time. If the landlord is pro-actively investigating and acts on new reports, we would have to consider this reasonable.
It was apparent that the landlord attended each report of the leak and overall, within its policy timescales. However, the resident’s concern was that it was just patching up the problem. Contractors had repeatedly told her they could not fully resolve the leak until the upstairs bathroom had been refurbished. She said the condition of her neighbour’s bathroom was poor. She had been in the flat and seen it for herself. While we cannot verify her accounts, an internal email from the landlord dated 31 July 2024 confirmed this.
On 31 July 2024, the landlord received notice that the resident and her neighbour were instructing a solicitor for a joint disrepair claim. This opened internal discussions on the issue. In an email it said “this problem has gone on for years, flat A’s ceiling has collapsed twice. Her light in the bedroom was disconnected 3 months ago due to water coming through”. Its contractors had advised it needed a complete renewal. It said it “would not disagree” with this assessment. The bath needed replacing, it had blown tiles, the shower screen leaked, the sealant had gone around the bath and on the floor.
If the landlord knew this, it should have carried out the refurbishment sooner. It should have identified the condition of the neighbour’s bathroom in its complaint investigation. The solution to overhaul it, should have been an action for resolving the issue, but it was not. This indicates that it was only prepared to act when under the threat of a disrepair claim. This was unacceptable. A resident should not have to threaten litigation for a landlord to meet its repairing obligations.
Damp and mould pose a risk to anyone’s health and should always be acted on quickly. Government guidance says it is particularly important that damp and mould are addressed with urgency for the groups more vulnerable to significant health impacts. These include people with pre-existing health conditions, such as COPD and other lung diseases. They are at risk of their condition worsening and have a higher risk of fungal infections and allergies. It also includes children whose organs are still developing. And are therefore more likely to suffer from physical conditions such as respiratory problems.
The landlord knew that the resident and her son were highly vulnerable. Both have lung disease, and her son has multiple complex conditions, including physical growth and developmental problems. Both are at high risk of the negative effects of living with damp and mould. Under these circumstances, we would have expected the landlord to act with maximum urgency and provide the most effective solutions at the earliest opportunity. It was not evident that it had done so.

Conclusions on repairs

Overall, there was a combination of problems contributing to this vulnerable family living in cold, damp, and mouldy conditions. The landlord could have done significantly more and sooner to prevent leaks from the property upstairs. The same was true of the window replacement. It had not fully considered the household vulnerabilities in its decisions and actions taken on the repairs. Not doing so was a significant service failing and caused unnecessary and prolonged detriment to the resident.
Taking the above into account there was maladministration. As previously stated, the impact on the resident and her household is likely to have been more significant than on a household without these vulnerabilities and this has been factored into the compensatory awards made.

Conduct of contractors and damage to personal belongings

The resident stated in her formal complaint to the landlord of 15 October 2021 that contractors had left her property in poor condition following remedial work. She said on return she had to carry out extensive cleaning. The bed frame was covered in plaster, broken, but staged to look like it was not. She said it appeared they had poured hot water over her laminate flooring, which was damaged. They left broken items of furniture, building materials, and rubbish outside her home.
The landlord stated in its response of 10 August 2022 that it could not “resolve the resident’s request in a reasonable time”. For this, it offered £200 compensation for the inconvenience caused. It broke this down into £100 for “work /complaint” response time, £50 for the condition of property, and £50 for poor workmanship.
This was not an appropriate response. The landlord decided not to investigate the resident’s complaint. Instead, it acknowledged it had not acted in line with its policy and just offered compensation. In doing this, it further undermined its complaint handling and trust and confidence in it.
Any remedy offered should reflect the extent of any service failures and the level of detriment caused to the resident. As it had not investigated the complaint, it had not inspected the condition of the property or the workmanship. It gave no indication as to how it then calculated the sums offered. This means we are unable to assess whether its offer was reasonable or proportionate.
In not investigating the resident’s complaint, the landlord did not address all aspects of it. Specifically, the damage to her property and her belongings. Its compensation policy states that in cases of damage caused by contractors, it will refer the issue to its insurance team. There is no evidence that it did so, which means it failed to implement its compensation policy.
The landlord rectified this through its stage 2 review in May 2024. It advised the resident to make a claim through its insurer and gave her details on how to do so. While this was appropriate, it was unreasonably delayed. Much of the damage occurred 2-3 years earlier, as it had taken her that long to receive this advice.
On 28 March 2024, the landlord issued a further stage 1 response. It was seemingly unaware of its earlier reply. It apologised for “the state” the contractor left her home in. It acknowledged this was not the standard of service it sought to provide. However, having apologised, it then said its investigation had shown it had not left her home in the state she described. It concluded this from its contractor’s notes. They also said they returned to collect their materials on 18 October 2021.
Reliance solely on the notes of the contractor complained about does not signify a thorough independent investigation as required by the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (paragraph 5.8(a)). Furthermore, the contractor returning 3 days later to collect its materials added weight to the resident’s argument. Irrespective of this, the landlord had already implied acceptance of service failure by its previous award of compensation.
The second stage 1 response also offered the resident £200. It did not state whether this was in addition to the previous offer or instead of. It said £40 was for “inconvenience for failure to recognise the impact due to vulnerabilities.” This should have been made clearer as it had not referenced the household’s vulnerabilities in its response.
It was not evident the landlord investigated or tried to address the resident’s concerns about contractor behaviour. It did not follow its complaint handling policy which was confusing and contradictory for her. It ignored her complaints about the damage caused to her home and belongings. And failed to implement its compensation policy designed to deal with this issue. We therefore conclude that there were significant service failings in its handling of the concerns she raised about the contractor’s conduct and damage to her belongings.

Reports of mice in the property

Section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (as amended) requires landlords to ensure their properties are fit for human habitation at the start of and throughout the tenancy. A property may be considered unfit through the presence of pests.
The landlord’s pest control policy commits to treating mice in certain circumstances. These include:
1. Under its vulnerable resident’s policy.
2. When it is affecting multiple dwellings or communal areas.
3. When it is because of disrepair.
4. If a resident has had no success treating it themselves.
The resident was vulnerable and there were multiple significant repairs required to the property. Therefore, under its pest control policy, the landlord was committed to addressing the issue.
The landlord said it first received a report of mice from the resident in June 2020. It said that because of COVID-19 restrictions and a mice infestation not being considered an emergency; it could not respond.
There were a variety of Government COVID-19 restrictions in place throughout 2020 which affected landlords’ ability to inspect and repair. However, from 1 June 2020, all wider issues of repair, including internal planned maintenance was resumed. Rules on social distancing and self-isolation had to be maintained.
The landlord’s claim that it was restricted to emergencies only, because of COVID-19 restrictions, was not technically correct. However, we recognise that when restrictions were relaxed, there were other challenges. It would have had a backlog of repairs and continual staff absence through COVID-19 or a need to self-isolate. It should however have taken the report, put it in a queue and informed the resident there would be delay. In not doing this the infestation became completely overlooked.
The landlord raised a job ticket for mice at the resident’s property on 15 December 2020. No further outcome was reported so we assume it did not progress.
On 24 December 2020, the landlord raised an order for a new back door. It was broken and had become an access point for mice. This was marked as completed the same day. This was another record keeping error. External doors must be measured for and ordered. Its stage 2 response said it was replaced in June 2021.
The landlord’s response time for routine repairs is an average of 25 days. Even with a lead in time for ordering and manufacturing the door, 6 months to completion was excessive. During this time, mice were continuing to access the resident’s property.
However, even when the new door was fitted, movement in the building caused it to misalign. This enabled mice to re-enter the property each time. We acknowledge the landlord attended to address this and it was reliant on the subsidence resolution. But this is an example of how multiple problems with the property were impacting the resident, even when it did act.
The landlord acknowledged the resident had complained about the mice infestation as part of this complaint. But as the original complaint was not actioned in October 2021 and no order for the pest control was raised. As a result, the infestation was not attended to until 5 August 2022. This was 20 months after it was first reported, which was not reasonable. The landlord acknowledged there were service failings in its handling of the repairs for the mice infestation. It offered the resident £60 compensation.
Rodents are a hazard which can spread disease. The landlord’s own pest control policy recognises that pests can impact on quality of life and health. It was aware the resident’s son has multiple-complex health issues. He needs to live in a home free from any risk that may impact his health or treatment. Considering this, its offer was low. It did not reflect the level of service failure or risk to the household. It also was not in the range the Ombudsman would recommend for failures that have had a long-term impact.

Complaint handling

From December 2020, all member landlords were required to complete an annual self-assessment against the Housing Ombudsman’s newly published Complaint Handling Code. Our duty to monitor against it became statutory in April 2024, so landlords are now obliged by law to follow its requirements.
The Code stipulates a 2-stage complaint process. This is to enable landlords to resolve complaints quickly and ensure access to Our service is not delayed.
The Code requires landlords to respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days. If it cannot respond to a complaint within that time, it can agree an extension with the resident or extend without agreement for 10 working days only.
The resident made her stage 1 complaint on 15 October 2021. The landlord responded on 10 August 2022. This was a response time of 10 months against a target of 10 working days, or 20 working days maximum. There was no evidence that it had agreed an extension with the resident, in accordance with its complaint handling policy or the Code. This was a significant service failing.
In November 2021, the resident requested her complaint be escalated. This was because the landlord’s response to her complaint of 15 September 2021, was taking too long. It declined the resident’s escalation request because its policy does not allow it to escalate a complaint until it has provided a stage 1 decision. While this was frustrating for her, its decision was taken in accordance with its complaint handling policy.
The landlord acknowledged that it had not responded to the complaint in a reasonable time and offered £100 compensation for “work/complaint” response time. It was not clear if this was an offer for 2 failings or a description for the same failing. A delay of 10 months for it to respond to her complaint was excessive. An award of £100 was not proportionate or reflective of that delay.
The landlord sent a further stage 1 complaint response on 28 March 2024. This made no reference to the complaint response of 10 August 2022. This was a response time of 622 working days. It acknowledged the resident had been waiting a considerable amount of time, but again, it only awarded £100 compensation for poor complaint handling. This was even less proportionate and reflective of the delay. It awarded her £60 for her time and trouble. Considering it was calculating her taking over 2 years to get the response, £60 was also not reflective of her time and effort.
The landlord sending a second stage 1 response effectively created another layer in the complaint process. This was not compliant with the Code’s requirement for a 2-stage process.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord explained why it had sent a second stage 1 response. It said it had not saved the original stage 1 to its systems, so had no record of the letter sent. This was confusing as it has supplied a copy of the original response letter of 10 August 2022. It also calculated compensation for the delayed complaint response up to that date. With no record of the earlier response, it should have calculated compensation to the second response.
The landlord did not show that it followed its complaint handling policy or adhered to the Code. There were significant delays and confusion over duplicated responses. Ultimately, not adhering to its policy or response timescales significantly hindered the resolution of the resident’s substantive complaint. While it acknowledged its failings and offered redress, they were not considered sufficient to address the detriment experienced by the resident. These were also not proportionate to the failings identified in our investigation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. Subsidence at the property.
2. Repairs, including reports of a leak from the property above.
3. The resident’s concerns about the conduct of its contractors and damage to her personal belongings.
4. Reports of mice in the property.
5. The associated complaint.

Orders

The landlord must, within 28 days of the date of this decision:
1. Send a written apology to the resident.
2. Provide the resident with a full schedule of the works to be undertaken to her property. This should include estimated timescales for completion and how it intends to monitor the success of works and/or any further potential movement at the property.
3. Ensure the agreed window replacement is arranged to run concurrently or consecutively to the above schedule of works. It must provide the resident with an estimated start date.
4. Provide the resident with a summary on the works carried out to resolve the leaks into the property.
5. If it has not already done so, reinstate the resident’s bedroom light.
6. Pay the resident the sum of £2,750 (in addition to any compensation previously offered), broken down as follows:
  1. £300 for the likely distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.
  2. £600 for the likely distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in its handling of the subsidence.
  3. £600 for the likely distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in its handling of the repairs.
  4. £250 for the likely distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in its handling of pests.
  5. £500 contribution towards financial losses/loss of opportunity incurred due to its delay in advice on insurance.
  6. £500 for the stress and inconvenience caused by it not fully considering the household vulnerabilities.
7. Provide this Service with evidence that it has complied with these orders.