London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202012728)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012728

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

2 June 2023

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. Repairs to the resident’s property following a leak/flood.
2. The resident’s claim for compensation for damaged belongings.
3. The resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is the assured tenant of a ground floor, two-bedroomed flat. On 3 December 2019 her property was flooded from a leak coming from a washing machine in the flat above. This permeated the second bedroom, damaging the ceiling and affecting the electrics in the property. The plaster work to the wall also suffered cracking and staining and the resident’s laminate flooring was damaged. In addition a number of personal items were ruined, namely a bed, cupboard, chest of drawers, electrical equipment, and clothing.
An out of hours electrician attended to make the electrics safe and later the ceiling was repaired and further electrical works undertaken. However, the resident considered more was required and that there had been delays. She was unhappy that she had not been compensated for her damaged belongings.
With the assistance of this Service, the landlord was advised that the resident wished to raise a complaint. In response it arranged to inspect the property which was done on 4 May 2021. The landlord prepared a list of works the resident wanted completing “as part of her ongoing complaint” and which related to the second bedroom.
On 27 October 2021 the landlord then recorded a formal complaint from the resident. An appointment had been missed for a fencing repair in the garden. Further, she was unhappy about the landlord’s ongoing handling of repairs to the bedroom but it was now stated that the ongoing repairs also included the bathroom.
In its stage one response the landlord confirmed that repairs to an internal door and the bathroom were proceeding and offered a £30 voucher in respect of the missed appointment. In a second stage one response it confirmed these repairs had been concluded and that with regard to the issue of “leak, damp and mould”, a plasterer and a carpenter would attend on 2 and 10 December 2021 respectively. The resident was referred to the landlord’s insurers with regard to her damaged belongings.
By the time of its stage two response the landlord confirmed that plastering, carpentry, and bathroom works had been completed. Further, investigation and treatment of damp and mould had taken place. It reiterated that an insurance claim needed to be made and offered compensation for a delayed complaint response of £100. It also offered the sum of £100 for the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
The resident remains dissatisfied with this response and has referred the matter to this Service. She is unhappy with the length of time taken by the landlord to complete the repairs. She considers the compensation offered does not reflect the impact on her. She views the landlord’s decision to refer her to insurers for damaged items as unreasonable.

Assessment and findings

Repairs to the resident’s property following a leak/flood.

The landlord’s records confirm it was advised of a leak on 3 December 2019. It might reasonably have been expected to carry out any repairs in accordance with its Repairs Policy. This states that in an emergency an attendance should take place within four hours. Follow on repairs should then be completed “at the earliest mutually convenient appointment” (which is also the stated service level for routine repairs).
It is noted that an out of hours electrician attended the property the same day to make the electrics safe which was appropriate. A repair to the ceiling was then scheduled on a “critical basis” because the light could not be repaired until that was resolved. However, this was cancelled when the landlord realised it was the bedroom ceiling and light that was involved – rather than the kitchen (as it had understood to be the case). In those circumstances it concluded the repair should be treated as follow on or “routine” and was not “critical”. However, the landlord then failed to schedule a routine repair for the bedroom ceiling to enable the situation with the light to be resolved.
A routine appointment to reinstate the light was arranged on 25 February 2020. However, at the scheduled appointment on 12 March 2020 the contractor reported he could not complete the task until the ceiling had been repaired – a fact that the landlord should already have been aware of. The COVID-19 pandemic then arose and impacted the landlord’s ability to attend to repairs. However, on 5 June and 8 June 2020 respectively the landlord did arrange for the ceiling and then the light to be repaired. This was because the resident had reported the bedroom could not be used without a ceiling by her asthmatic relative and the repairs were recategorized as “critical”.
In the Ombudsman’s view, the lack of lighting in the bedroom should have been given more priority and hence the ceiling repair with it. The fact it was the bedroom and not the kitchen should not have made such a marked difference. Even if the landlord had acted reasonably in its judgment on that point, it took six months to carry out the work as a routine repair – but pandemic restrictions only accounted for 2 ½ months of this. This delay was excessive, did not represent “earliest convenience” and represented a failing in the service offered to the resident by the landlord.
At the attendance on 8 June 2020 the resident raised the question of an inspection of the flooring, stating it was saturated during the leak. However the landlord advised that due to current restrictions it could only carry out emergency and “critical” works. The resident pursued the matter again in July and September 2020 but the position remained the same. Given the prevailing situation at the time, the landlord’s response was reasonable at this point.
The matter was then raised again by the resident in January 2021 and inspected by the landlord in May 2021 after this Service had intervened on her behalf. The landlord noted the resident considered the flooring was damaged and wanted it to be replaced – its record does not actually confirm it agreed to do so. However, it did then instruct its contractor to attend the property to deal with the issue, but this was not until December 2021. The contractor then declined to do any works on the basis it was the resident’s own laminate flooring that was affected and the landlord would not take responsibility for it.
The landlord’s Repairs Policy states it does not take responsibility for repairing floor coverings. Given this stance, the landlord might reasonably have been expected to explain this to the resident in June 2020 when its operative was at the property and should have noted the nature of the flooring. It might have been expected to explain this again when a full inspection of the property took place in May 2021. Instead the landlord led the resident to believe that it would deal with the damage and even scheduled an attendance for repair before refusing to do it. The resident was given the wrong information and this continued over a prolonged period. This represented a further failing in the service offered by the landlord.
During the property inspection in May 2021 the resident requested that the plaster on the wall in the bedroom be removed and replaced. It was cracked and stained due to water damage. The landlord did not contend that this was unnecessary and scheduled an appointment for the work to be done – but not until November 2021. However, when its operative attended in January 2022, he insisted that the crack could be filled and the stain treated and ‘blocked’ and refused to replaster four square meters of wall. This Service does not have the expertise to determine whether the operative was right in his assessment of what was required. However, irrespective of whether the operative reached the correct conclusion or not, the landlord had led the resident to believe the work would be done. It then did not carry out the work causing delay and confusion and this represented a further failing in the service it offered to the resident.
During the complaint process, the question of work to the bathroom arose. There is no indication of the leak affecting this area in the landlord’s records prior to this point. It is noted that reference is made to damp and mould with an inspection and treatment taking place. Other works are referred to such as plastering. The landlord refers to these issues taking place over a prolonged period and the resident stating they have been outstanding for 7 years and then 11 years. This suggests these works do not relate directly to the leak – which is the issue which has been referred to this Service.
What the records do reflect is a concern of generalised disrepair by the resident. Once reservations about the landlord’s handling of the leak had been raised, other outstanding matters were then introduced to the complaint and the situation. For example, it was identified during the complaint process that an extractor fan was required in the bathroom. This was installed but then the resident was dissatisfied with the size and position of it.
It is the role of this Service to examine the landlord’s response to problems raised by its residents. However, this can only be done once the landlord has had the opportunity to put things right through its internal complaints process. Although these repairs have been mentioned during that process, their handling has not been scrutinised. It is open to the resident to complain further about how this work was handled, although no indication of the likely or correct outcome can be given in this report.
Finally, for the sake of completeness, it is noted that the landlord accepted that an appointment had been missed for repairs to fencing. It offered compensation of £30. This was a fair and reasonable response given its Compensation Policy offers a payment of £20 in this situation.
In conclusion the landlord’s handling of the repairs relating to the leak were not dealt with in a reasonable time and the resident was given incorrect information on more than one occasion. This left her believing work would be done that was not then carried out. The landlord offered compensation in its final complaint response, divided into two sums. The first sum of £100 related to its complaints handling and will be considered below. The second sum of £100 was stated to be for distress and inconvenience but it is not clear whether this was also related to complaints handling or whether it related to these events.
In any event, the compensation offered was inadequate and did not reflect the impact on the resident of the failings that have been identified. This Service’s Remedies Guidance sets out that for failings where there has been contradictory/inaccurate information provided, and where failures have continued over a prolonged period, compensation of £250 – £700 should be considered. In this case a reasonable figure of £300 would be appropriate and has been ordered below.

The resident’s claim for compensation for damaged belongings.

The leak came from the upstairs flat’s washing machine and the resident was referred, initially, to the retailer who supplied it. They denied liability and the resident has sought to recover her losses from the landlord. In turn it advised her to claim on her own contents insurance or via its insurers.
The resident has no insurance and has complained about the landlord’s insurers’ delay in progressing her claim. This Service has no jurisdiction in respect of the insurance company and cannot examine its handling of the claim. We can, however, consider whether the landlord’s stance was fair and reasonable.
The Terms and Conditions attached to the resident’s tenancy agreement anticipate the resident having her own contents insurance, as follows: –
1. “We advise you to take out home contents insurance for your belongings, as we are generally not responsible for any losses you may suffer”.
Further, the landlord’s Compensation Policy states: –
1. Compensation is not a replacement for home contents insurance. Customers are responsible for arranging their own home contents insurance for accidental damage to their belongings/property that is not our responsibility.”
The landlord’s stance of requiring the resident to make a claim was fair, reasonable, and appropriate to its policies. It is further noted that the resident was supplied with the landlord’s insurance details to enable her to make a claim when it became apparent she was uninsured. This is confirmed by the resident’s request for her complaint to be escalated, dated 3 December 2021, as she confirmed she had made an insurance claim some two years previously, demonstrating that she had those details.
Further the landlord discussed making the claim with the resident in June 2020 and offered to chase the claim on her behalf in October 2021. It reiterated the contact details in its final complaint response in September 2022. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in this regard.

The resident’s complaint.

The landlord operates a Complaints Policy which sets out a two stage procedure for complaints handling. The first stage involves an investigation with a written resolution within ten working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied they can request the complaint be escalated to the second stage of the process. This involves a review with a written outcome within 20 working days.
The landlord was advised by this Service on 23 April 2021 that the resident was trying to make a complaint. The landlord acknowledged this to the resident by email and stated it would need to investigate. However, rather than providing a written response, it arranged an inspection for 4 May 2021. Despite a list of repairs being requested at that attendance, the landlord then took no further action – either on the complaint or the repairs.
On 27 October 2021 the resident made a further, verbal complaint which the landlord recorded as relating to a missed fencing repair appointment and ongoing issues with the leak. The landlord contacted the resident the next day, offering a £30 voucher for the missed appointment and signposting the insurance claim. It then emailed her to confirm the voucher offer and to confirm repairs to an internal door and the bathroom were proceeding.
The landlord might reasonably have been expected to examine the service it had offered the resident in this response – rather than simply scheduling further works. A further Stage One response was then sent on 2 December 2021 setting out appointment dates for works and signposting the insurance claim. Once again no examination of the service provided so far was made and no remedy offered for the delays and miscommunications.
On 2 and 3 December 2021 the resident emailed the landlord requesting that her complaint be escalated, giving reasons. The landlord’s records note it did not do escalate the complaint so until 17 December 2021. Its written response was not then given until 16 September 2022, a delay of nine months. Once again, no real assessment of the service offered was given although the landlord offered some compensation, the basis for which was not entirely clear (see above).
The landlord’s handling of the complaint was inappropriate. It failed to properly treat the first approach as a complaint; it failed to address its service in its initial investigation and that continued into its review which was considerably delayed. It also failed to properly recognise its failings in its handling of the complaint itself. Overall the resident’s complaint took over 16 months to exhaust the landlord’s internal complaints process.
The landlord offered compensation for its complaint handling. It wasn’t clear that the full £200 offered related to the landlord’s complaints handling. In any event, £200 was not proportionate to the time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s complaint handling failures and an order for further compensation has been made below.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the repairs to the resident’s property following a leak/flood.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s claim for compensation for damaged belongings.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord should pay the resident compensation of £600 calculated as:
1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the property.
2. £200 previously offered if this has not already been paid.
3. A further £100 for the time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
It should confirm with this Service that it has complied with the Order within four weeks of receiving this determination.

Recommendations

The landlord to contact its insurers on the resident’s behalf to ascertain progress on her insurance claim.