London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202442705)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2nd floor flat. She was unhappy with the communal intercom system upgrade.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Concerns about the communal intercom system upgrade.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the intercom system upgrade.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the intercom system upgrade

4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns was reasonable.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

5. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint in line with its complaints policy timescale. It sent its stage 2 response 2 working days late, but this delay did not cause any significant impact.

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 landlord upgraded the communal intercom system on 29 August 2024. Following the installation, there were some issues with the system which the landlord promptly responded to. The resident did not report any faults with the new system during this period or before she complained.
7. When the resident complained, the landlord checked and found the intercom audio was on the lowest volume. Its engineer said it could complete a full system check to investigate the resident’s missed calls. The landlord attempted to contact the resident to discuss this, requested details of the missed calls and explained the reporting process.
8. The resident was unhappy the landlord did not consult residents before the upgrade. It explained it did not consult with residents about the upgrade because the cost did not exceed its building budget. It said the installation company sent resident’s a letter on 23 August 2024, a week before installation, with new fobs and details of the new system.
9. As part of her complaint, the resident said the previous intercom system worked fine and did not need replacing. She wants the old system back or a system which does not use the internet. The landlord decided the upgrade was necessary based on reports and recommendations by its previous contractor. It was reasonable for it to rely on this advice, and we would not order it to install a different intercom system. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns was reasonable. It investigated her concerns and explained its findings. It checked logs and found no issues with the resident using the intercom. In view of this, we found no maladministration.

10. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days, and at stage 2 within 20 working days of an escalation request. This is in line with our complaint handling code (the Code).
11. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint in line with its policy.
12. The landlord sent its stage 2 response 22 working days after the resident’s escalation.  This was not in line with its policy or the Code unless it agreed an extension. However, the 2-working day delay was unlikely to have significantly impacted the resident or affect the overall outcome.
13. In view of the above, we found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

14. No record keeping issues were identified.

Communication

15. The landlord’s communication with the resident was reasonable.