London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202430425)

Background

1. In or around June 2024, the resident reported staining / mould to the spare bedroom ceiling. The landlord attended the property and said there was no evidence of a current leak. It offered to treat, and stain block the affected area and carry out repointing work to the walls. At the time of the resident making his complaint the works had not been completed.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Leak

5. The landlord made an undertaking to complete repairs at the resident’s property. It failed to complete the repairs in a reasonable period of time and failed to communicate the delays to the resident.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaint at both stages of its complaints process and its stage 2 response was significantly delayed. These failures were against its policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

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.

What we did not investigate

7. The resident raised complaint issues that have not been through the landlord’s complaint procedure. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. There is no evidence the resident has raised a complaint about reoccurring leaks at the property. Therefore, we have no power to investigate this issue.

What we did investigate

8. The resident is a shared owner of a new-build property. His lease states he is responsible for all repairs. When he bought the property in 2020, there was a roof leak that was repaired during the defect period. The defect period ended in 2022.
9. After the resident raised concerns about the property’s structure and potential latent defects, the landlord and its contractor inspected the property in early June 2024. The landlord has been unable to provide us with a record of what happened during this visit. However, its records indicate there was no evidence of a current leak. It is not disputed the landlord offered to treat an area affected by water staining and repoint some brickwork. As no latent defect was found, the landlord was not responsible for the repairs under the lease. Its offer to complete the repairs was above what would be expected of it.
10. The resident contacted the landlord 2 weeks later to chase the repairs. The landlord did not respond. This led to the resident to make a complaint about outstanding repairs on 5 September 2024.
11. The landlord’s repairs policy states it would complete routine repairs within 20 calendar days (on average). Although the landlord was not obliged to do the repairs, by agreeing to complete them, the resident could reasonably expect them to be completed within the usual timescales, unless told otherwise. At the time of the complaint, the landlord had known about the need for repairs for 3 months.
12. The landlord’s stage 1 response said the resident declined its offer to fix the water staining. The resident’s email which chased the repairs in June 2024 contradicted this. The landlord also offered to repoint under the lounge window. The resident’s escalation request challenged the extent of repointing agreed. The landlord’s failure to make a record of its earlier inspection made it harder to handle the complaint effectively at stage 1.
13. The landlord contacted the resident on 4 October 2024. It confirmed it would carry out repointing at the front and rear of the property and said all works would be completed by 1 November 2024.
14. It is unclear from the documents provided when the works to the water staining were completed. However, at the time of the stage 2 response, the landlord confirmed there had been delays to appoint a contractor for the repointing. It apologised to the resident and committed to book in the repairs once its contractor had submitted a quote.
15. It is unclear from the evidence provided whether the repointing work was completed by the landlord. Some time after the stage 2 response was issued, a new landlord acquired part ownership of the residents property.
16. The evidence shows the landlord handled the co-ordination of the repairs poorly. It failed to raise the repairs after it agreed to complete them in June 2024. The landlord’s failure to record the inspection caused confusion about what repairs were agreed. At the time it issued it’s stage 2 response, the repointing repairs were 6 months late. The landlord’s failure to communicate the known delays to the resident caused him time and trouble in pursuing the matter.
17. The above failings lead to a finding of service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident £150 compensation for the time and trouble caused.

18. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process in line with the Code. Its complaints policy sets out the timescales in which the landlord will deal with complaints:
    1. It will acknowledge and record a complaint at both stages within 5 working days.
    2. It will issue its stage 1 response within 10 working days from when the complaint was recorded.
    3. It will issue its stage 2 response within 20 working days from the request to escalate the complaint.
19. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint or escalation request in line with its policy. It issued the stage 1 response one day late (allowing 15 working days from when the complaint was made). Although the delay was small, it was not acknowledged in the landlord’s response.
20. The landlord issued its final response 3 months after the resident escalated his complaint. This was significantly outside of its policy timescales. There is no evidence to suggest it informed the resident of the delays in advance to manage his expectations. The landlord also failed to acknowledge these delays in its response.
21. The landlord’s failure to acknowledge the complaint and the delay to issue its stage 2 response leads to a finding of service failure in complaint handling. An order has been made for the landlord to pay £100 compensation to the resident for the inconvenience caused.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

22. The landlord should learn from the record keeping failures identified in this case. If an inspection at the resident’s property been properly documented and shared internally, the complaint could have been avoided.

Communication

23. The landlord should reflect on the shortcomings identified in this case and implement improvements. In particular, it should ensure residents are informed of any changes to timescales, helping to manage expectations effectively.