London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202413687)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 4th floor flat. In early June 2024 the resident reported to the landlord that she had no hot water. The resident continued to report this to the landlord and the landlord completed the repair on 11 October 2024. The resident raised concerns about the delays in completing the repair and requested compensation.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s requests for hot water repairs.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for hot water repairs.
   2. The landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress which resolves the handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for hot water repairs

4. The landlord delayed completing the necessary works to restore the hot water within a reasonable timeframe. It should have acted more promptly to ensure the repair was assigned to a contractor that could complete the repair given the effect the lack of hot water had on the resident.

The complaint handling

5. The landlord delayed responding to the complaint at stage 2, although it recognised its failure and offered compensation to put things right. This compensation was proportionate to the identified failure.

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.

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 raised with us that she had to pay to use a facility to shower across the 4 months she did not have use of her shower. She also provided us invoices of the costs associated with the use of the facility. However, it is not apparent from the evidence that the resident provided this information to the landlord and claimed for the associated costs during the landlord’s complaints procedure. Therefore the landlord has not had an opportunity to sight the resident’s claim for these costs. For this reason, this investigation is only able to assess what was provided to the landlord during its complaints process and whether its response was reasonable in the circumstances.
7. The landlord’s repair policy states that the landlord is responsible for hot water repairs, and that it will complete routine repairs within 25 calendar days.
8. The resident’s first reported hot water loss was on 7 June 2024, and the landlord completed the repair on 11 October 2024. It therefore took the landlord 4 months to complete the repair, which was well beyond its 25 calendar day policy.
9. The resident chased the repair on at least 5 occasions. The landlord said it would supply clarity to the resident about the repair following its stage 1 response, however we have seen no evidence in support of this assertion or that the landlord adequately responded to the resident’s requests for updates across the complaint. This lack of communication and uncertainty around the repair caused the resident ongoing distress and inconvenience.
10. Although we have not seen evidence of all of landlord’s attendances or the effectiveness of such, we understand from the resident’s contact with the landlord that its contractors attended on 3 occasions before the repair was resolved. The first contractor was unable to do the repair due to not having the expertise. The second contractor presented a quote which the landlord declined as it was too costly. Following this the landlord delayed reassigning the repair. The landlord should have acted sooner to assign it to a contractor who was capable of completing the repair within its budget constraints. This lack of action contributed to the extended delays.
11. The landlord acknowledged failures in its complaint responses, including delays, inconvenience, distress, and its poor communication. While it was positive to recognise where it had gone wrong and to offer compensation for its failures, it did not communicate adequately with the resident about when the repair would take place. It was unreasonable of it to not supply clarity to the resident about the repair, especially because one of the resident’s main concerns in her escalation was about the absence of a repair date.
12. Additionally, it took the landlord another month beyond its final complaint response to complete the repair. This was an ongoing failure, where the resident continued to be impacted until the repair was carried out.
13. Overall, the landlord’s offer of £380 compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified given the length of time the repair remained outstanding (including further delays after stage 2) and the significant impact it had on the resident. Furthermore, the landlord failed to clarify in its complaint responses when the repair would be completed and this meant there was ongoing uncertainty and further resulting distress and inconvenience to the resident. For these reasons, the full extent of the detriment to the resident was not recognised and we find there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for hot water repairs.

14. The resident raised the complaint on 26 June 2024. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response the next day. This was within 1 working day and within its policy timeframe of 10 working days.
15. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 2 July 2024. The landlord acknowledged this on 5 July 2024, within 5 working days, this was in line with its policy timeframe.
16. The landlord issued its final response on 3 September 2024, which was 42 working days from its acknowledgement and was not in accordance with its 20 working day timeframe. However, the landlord did recognise this delay and it offered £40 for its poor complaint handling. This was an appropriate and proportionate response to recognise the inconvenience of the delay to the resident.