London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202429116)

Background

1. The resident reported water “seepage” into his property, a top floor flat, in December 2017. The landlord completed roof repairs in May 2023. The resident complained in March 2024. He said that he wanted compensation for the stress, time and trouble the situation had caused him. He also said that one room of his property continued to smell and be cold, and this meant he was incurring additional heating costs.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The resident’s request for additional compensation for the landlord’s handling of his reports of water ingress into the property.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was reasonable redress which satisfactorily resolved the complaint about the resident’s request for additional compensation for the landlord’s handling of his reports of water ingress into the property.
4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Reasons

Resident’s request for compensation

5. The shared ownership lease sets out the landlord’s responsibility to maintain, repair, renew and improve all structural parts of the building, including the roof. The leaseholder is otherwise responsible for keeping the property in good and substantial repair and condition.
6. The landlord’s applicable repairs policy says that it will complete “routine day to day repairs” for which it is responsible in an average of 25 calendar days. It does not set out a timescale for larger-scale or more complex repairs. It is acknowledged that such repairs may take longer than a landlord’s usual timescales to complete.
7. Our scheme rules state we may not investigate complaints that were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. The resident said he was aware of the roof leak from December 2017. He raised a formal complaint in March 2024. There is therefore no evidence he raised a complaint promptly, and in any event within 12 months of becoming aware of the issue. We also have not seen evidence he was prevented from raising a complaint sooner. For that reason, we have considered the period from March 2023 (12 months before the complaint) in our investigation. However, earlier events have been referred to by way of context, and the landlord’s recognition of these in its initial complaint response taken into account.
8. The landlord carried out the structural repairs in line with its responsibility and acknowledged its delays in doing so. It also completed repairs to the interior of the property. It subsequently awarded the resident £300 compensation in recognition of the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble he experienced.
9. The £300 awarded by the landlord aligns with our compensation guidance (published on our website), which suggests awards within this range where there was a failing which adversely affected the resident but there was no permanent impact. It was also appropriate that the landlord acknowledged its poor communication and showed it had taken learning from the complaint.
10. We have been unable to make contact with the resident and have not seen evidence to suggest further failings in addition to those acknowledged, and adequately compensated for, by the landlord. As we have not identified further failings, we are satisfied that the offer made was proportionate in the circumstances of the complaint.

Complaint handling

11. The landlord operates a 2‑stage complaints procedure. In line with our statutory Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’), it must acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and issue its stage 1 and stage 2 responses within 10 and 20 working days respectively. The landlord did not issue its stage 1 complaint response until over 5 months after the resident’s complaint. This delay was a failing which caused the resident time and trouble.
12. The landlord’s application of its complaints policy was inconsistent. In its stage 1 complaint response it investigated events dating back to 2017 and awarded the resident compensation in recognition of its failings from this point. However, in its stage 2 complaint response it stated that it was unable to investigate back further than a year, in line with its complaints policy. These were contradictory messages which likely caused the resident confusion and frustration.
13. Where accepted failures have occurred, it is good practice for landlords to provide an explanation for these in their complaint responses. The landlord told us its delays were due initially to a lack of clarity regarding repair responsibilities, and later to a change of contractor and procurement process. However, it did not outline these factors in its complaint responses. It therefore missed an opportunity to demonstrate openness.
14. The Code states that landlords must address all parts of a complaint. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s concern about the condition of one of the rooms at the property. This was a failing.
15. Furthermore, it was inappropriate for the landlord to refer the resident to its insurer regarding a claim for the additional heating costs he was experiencing without obtaining further information about why the room was cold and smelled. It should have investigated this part of the complaint and considered whether it needed to take action in line with its repairs policy obligations.

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.