London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202106689)

A picture containing logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202106689

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

10 February 2022

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 how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of:
1. The poor quality of work to renew the kitchen.
2. Delays in completing repairs to fencing at the property.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a house.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours and that it will arrange a mutually convenient appointment to attend all other repairs. Emergency repairs are defined as a repair where there is “an immediate danger to the occupant or members of the public”.
During the period of the complaint, the landlord was operating a restricted service due to the Covid-19 pandemic. This resulted in repairs that were deemed non-urgent being postponed. The landlord continued to respond to repairs deemed critical during this period. It defined a critical repair as “an emergency or very urgent works that should be completed ‘in days’ and that cannot be safely left for any longer than that”.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy. When a complaint is raised, the landlord will provide a complaint response within ten working days. If the complainant remains dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation to the next stage. The landlord will then undertake a review of the complaint and send a stage two response to the complainant within 20 working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.
The complaints policy also states that the landlord will not open a complaint into issues concerning insurance claims or investigate matters which occurred 12 months prior to a complaint being made.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider compensation when it has failed to follow its policies, procedures or guidelines; for loss of facilities or amenities in the home; failure to respond to a complaint within its target time; or failure to complete repairs within its agreed response time. The policy also states that the landlord will consider discretionary payments that recognise individual household circumstances.
From 1 April 2020 onwards, the landlord introduced an interim compensation policy in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. This policy suspended non-statutory compensation payments under almost all circumstances other than for rehousing or to reimburse a resident’s out-of-pocket expenses due to its service failure. However, the policy also states that it would consider compensation for complaints made after 1 April 2020 on a case-by-case basis.
The landlord’s records state that the resident requested to raise a complaint in June 2019 relating to damage to her fridge during work undertaken in the property’s kitchen in 2018. A formal complaint was not opened as this was deemed by the landlord as an insurance matter. It advised the resident to contact her insurance provider, who could make contact with the contractor’s insurer.
On 22 November 2019 the resident requested to raise a complaint into how a leak in the property was handled by the landlord. The landlord replied and informed the resident that the leak was repaired on 13 November 2019 and an inspection of the property had been arranged for 23 January 2020 to identify any outstanding issues at the property. There’s no evidence that a formal complaint into this matter was opened by the landlord.
In December 2020, the resident requested to raise a complaint into how repairs into a broken fence were handled by the landlord. She noted that she was informed that the repair would be delayed due to the Covid-19 pandemic and that she had not received an update that had been promised by October 2020.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint and informed the resident that it would chase up the matter. However, there is no evidence that a formal complaint was opened into the matter.
On 26 February 2021 the resident called the landlord and requested to raise a complaint about: a gas leak which occurred in December 2020 while work was undertaken in the kitchen; that items were taken from her fridge during the work; that she was without the use of her cooker for five weeks; and that personal items were damaged as a result of a leak. The resident also noted that she had not signed-off the kitchen installation work that took place in 2018.
A formal complaint was opened by the landlord, it called the resident to discuss the issues she had raised, and a stage one response was then sent on 29 April 2021. The landlord apologised, offered £66 compensation for the loss of the use of the cooker and the inconvenience that this caused. The landlord also informed the resident that it would open a new complaint into ongoing issues with the kitchen she had highlighted during their discussions.
The resident called the landlord on 7 May 2021 to accept the resolution offered in the stage one response. The landlord then called the resident on 10 May 2021 and offered £100 compensation in recognition of the ongoing issues she had experienced. This was declined by the resident.
The resident called this Service on 18 June 2021 to state her dissatisfaction that a new complaint had yet to be opened by the landlord. This Service then wrote to the landlord on the resident’s behalf and described the outstanding issues of her complaint as:
1. The contractor had to repeatedly return to the property to fix problems due to the poor quality of the kitchen replacement.
2. Damage was caused to the flooring and her fridge, as well as damage to her personal items because of leaks.
3. She was without the use of her cooker for six weeks.
4. She had received conflicting correspondence from the landlord as to whether her cooker was checked during a gas safety inspection.
5. How the landlord handled her reports of repairs required to the fencing.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 21 June 2021. It apologised that she felt the need to contact this Service. It noted that she had already accepted compensation for the cooker and confirmed that a work order had been raised to repair the fencing. The landlord requested more detail from the resident about the other outstanding issues and that it would then open a complaint. The resident called the landlord on 22 June 2021 to discuss her complaint.
The stage one complaint response was sent to the resident on 29 June 2021. The landlord informed her that:
1. The kitchen was installed in 2018 by the contractor it used at the time and remedial work was then undertaken in July 2019. No further reports were received from the resident until 2021.
2. The landlord would not normally investigate matters which occurred more than 12 months ago. However, during an inspection of the kitchen held on 30 April 2021 the inspector noted that:
  1. Scratch marks were found to be on the fridge, but it was not possible to determine the cause or when they occurred.
  2. There was evidence of damage to floor tiles, but likewise it was not possible to determine the cause or when the damage occurred.
  3. The resident stated that the wrong colour worktop was installed by the contractor.
  4. Mismatched tiles were visible under the washing machine.
  5. The resident provided evidence of how untidy the contractors were.
3. In relation to the damage to the resident’s personal items, the landlord informed the resident that it would be standard practice for her to contact her insurance provider, who would then liaise with the contractor’s insurer to progress the claim. The landlord also provided the resident with its insurance provider’s details if she wished to register a claim against the landlord.
4. It had placed all non-essential repairs on hold during the Covid-19 pandemic and national lockdowns, this included the repairs to the resident’s fencing. The landlord informed the resident that the work had now been assigned to a contractor, who would be in contact with her when they were in a position to start work.
5. The landlord accepted that it had received evidence from the resident which showed mismatched floor tiles, poor quality tiling on the walls (which was subsequently fixed in July 2019) and general untidiness. The landlord apologised to the resident and noted that since the kitchen renewal was undertaken in 2018, that it no longer used that contactor and that it now assigns a staff member as a point of contact to handle renewals.
6. It had contacted the resident on 10 May 2021 and offered £100 compensation, which she had declined. The resident had stated during the conversation that she would call the landlord back with the amount that she was seeking, but due to scheduling conflicts she had been unable to speak to the appropriate staff member.
7. It then requested that the resident contact it to inform it of what level of redress she was seeking, and then it would then review the resident’s request and make a compensation offer in order to fully resolve the complaint.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 29 and 30 June 2021 to dispute the stage one response. She noted that the kitchen was installed in May 2019 and the make-good work was completed in September 2019, and that the inspection held on 30 April 2020 was in relation to a leak from the boiler and did not concern the kitchen renewal. The resident also informed the landlord that she had first requested to raise a complaint about the kitchen renewal on 6 October 2019 but did not receive a response and described its compensation offer of £100 as “insulting”.
The landlord replied to the resident on 9 July 2021. It informed her that its maintenance team had reviewed its records and that the handover form it received from the contractor was dated October 2018. The landlord provided a copy of the form with its email. The landlord also advised the resident that she had the option of requesting an escalation of the complaint to the next stage if she remained dissatisfied.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 18 July 2020 and requested an escalation of the complaint on the grounds that it had not properly responded to the issues, that she never signed a sign-off form for the kitchen, and the fence had yet to be repaired.
The landlord replied on 19 July 2021. It confirmed that the complaint had been escalated and advised that due to a current backlog there may be a delay in the complaint being assigned. The landlord also asked the resident to provide more detail as to her outstanding issues.
The resident replied on 19 July 2011 and explained she was unhappy with the time the matter was taking to be resolved, that it took 12 months for the kitchen work to be completed, that previous attempts to raise a complaint were ignored and that the landlord had not taken responsibility for the poor work of its contractor.
On 4 August 2021, the landlord’s contractor arranged an appointment with the resident for 31 August 201 to undertake repairs to the fencing. The landlord then wrote to the resident on 22 September 2021 to inform her that a staff member had now been assigned to the complaint.
The stage two complaint response was sent to the resident on 27 September 2021. The landlord informed her that it stood by its position as set out in the stage one response. It went on to inform her that:
1. It noted that the resident had disputed the dates given to her relating to the kitchen renewal and that the work was not properly signed off. However, due to the time that had elapsed, and in line with its complaint policy, it would not investigate these issues any further.
2. The fence repair was first arranged for 21 April 2020. However, due to the first national lockdown this was suspended, and the resident informed on 8 April 2020. An inspection of the fence then occurred on 11 November 2020, but the work was again suspended due to the second national lockdown. A new work order was raised on 28 April 2021 and the work was completed on 31 August 2021.
3. It confirmed its position that the damage to her personal items was an insurance matter. It gave further details on how to make a claim against its insurance provider and what information would be required from the resident to progress the claim.
4. It had undertaken a review of its compensation offer and awarded the resident £300. It broke this down as:
  1. £100 previously offered on 10 May 2021.
  2. £100 for delays in providing a stage two response.
  3. £100 for delays in completing fence repairs.
The landlord concluded the response by informing the resident that she had exhausted its internal complaints process and advised her on the steps to take to bring her complaint to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
The resident called this Service on 8 October 2021 and described the outstanding issues of the complaint as:
1. The landlord refused to investigate issues which had occurred more than 12 months from when the complaint was raised.
2. The amount of compensation offered by the landlord was inadequate.
3. The landlord had informed her that any compensation payment would be used to offset arrears on her rent account. The resident disputed that she had any rent arrears.

Assessment and findings

In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged that the resident had provided evidence of poor service from its contractor, that there had been delays in completing repairs and she had also received poor service from its staff when raising these issues. The landlord apologised, explained what steps it had taken internally to improve its service (such as suspending use of the relevant contractor) and offered £300 compensation for its service failures.
Our role is to assess the landlord’s complaint handling. Therefore, the response to a complaint can be as important as the events which led to the complaint. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The compensation payment was made in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance. This guidance suggests a payment of £250 to £750 in cases of considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant. As examples for when this level of payment should be considered, the guidance suggests:
1. A complainant repeatedly having to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes, necessitating unreasonable level of involvement by that complainant
2. Failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs; to respond to antisocial behaviour; to make adequate adjustments
In this case, it took several months and several emails and telephone calls by the resident until a formal complaint was opened. During the complaint process, the landlord accepted that the resident had provided it with evidence that the kitchen renewal had not been to its expected standard and that even with taking into account the delays caused by the national lockdowns, the length of time it took to complete repairs to the fencing and the poor level of communication in keeping the resident updated on the status of the repair was not acceptable.
The resident has expressed her dissatisfaction that the landlord would not look at elements of the complaint which had occurred more than twelve months ago. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
This is in accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that we will not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord not to directly address specific matters which had occurred in 2018 and 2019.
The resident requested that damage to her personal items caused by leaks were considered by the landlord when calculating its compensation offer. The Ombudsman is not able to determine liability where it is disputed, and as such does not award damages in the way a court might. Further, this Service will not consider complaints which would be more reasonably dealt with via another organisation or procedure. The resident’s claims for damage to her personal items would be better dealt with as an insurance claim. The landlord advised the resident of this (in June 2019) a year before the formal complaint which led to this case.
The resident had also stated her dissatisfaction that any compensation paid by the landlord would be used to offset her rent arrears and disputed that she had any arrears. As the arrears were not part of the formal complaint, and as the compensation was not tied to a specific cost the resident had incurred, it is reasonable for the landlord to deduct the offer from any outstanding arrears.
Therefore, for the reasons set out above, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint in respect of:
1. The poor quality of work to renew the kitchen.
2. Delays in completing repairs to fencing at the property.