London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202116921)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202116921

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

14 April 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about repairs to the bathroom at the property;
    2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about repairs to the kitchen at the property;
    3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the external back door at the property;
    4. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord at the property, a two-bedroom garden flat. She has lived at the property since 26th June 2000.
  2. There are historic records relating to the general condition of the property that date back to 2010. These include concerns raised about the condition of the back door to the property in 2010 and repeated requests for repairs to the bathroom between 2014 and 2017, including following an extensive leak during this period. This investigation relates however to the resident’s complaint of June 2021, concerning the condition of the kitchen, bathroom and rear door to the property.
  3. The landlord issued a stage one response on 27 October 2021, in which it upheld the complaint and apologised for the inconvenience experienced. It confirmed that works to the door, bathroom and kitchen had been sub-contracted out and that the resident would hear from the contractors directly. It also confirmed that make safe works to the door would be arranged within 24 hours.
  4. The final response to the complaint was sent on 25 February 2022. The complaint was further upheld, with the landlord apologising for its overall “poor” service, including poor communications, extensive delays and multiple attempts to repair which then led to additional repair issues. The landlord offered compensation of £500 to reflect these failures and confirmed that the case had been highlighted at a senior level for review. Regarding outstanding works, the landlord clarified that it was aware of required works but could not yet confirm when these would be completed.
  5. The resident confirmed to the Ombudsman that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint response. She said that the works remained outstanding and that its offer of compensation had been “insulting”. In further correspondence with the landlord from January 2023 it was confirmed that the resident had withheld rent due to the ongoing issues and that she was experiencing significant  health concerns brought on by stress. At this stage it was clear that works remained outstanding.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. Whilst it is clear that property condition issues have been of significant concern for the resident for an extended period, this investigation has focussed on events surrounding her formal complaint of June 2021. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution process, which requires complainants to raise concerns with member landlords whilst issues are ‘live’ and for these issues to then be brought to the attention of this Service promptly.
  2. The landlord confirmed in its final response that it had considered the case in the context of the previous year, presumably referring to the year prior to the formal complaint of June 2021. This was a reasonable approach to take – allowing its actions to be considered for a period during which it could reasonably be expected to have retained records. Whilst this investigation report will refer to historic issues, this will be done for contextual purposes only.

The external door

  1. The responsibility for repairs to the external doors at the property lies with the landlord. The tenancy agreement states that damage to any external door or window, at ground or basement level, which prevents you from securing the property against unauthorized entry is classed as an “emergency repair to be addressed within 24 hours”. In addition, the agreement confirms that, “broken or defective ground floor or basement door or window which reduces the amount of security against unauthorized access” is classed as an urgent repair and must be attended to within 5 days. This expectation is further outlined in the Repairs Policy and the Component Renewal Policy.
  2. The first record of the problem with the back doors was made on 24 June 2021, although it is clear from the correspondence that the matter had been previously raised with the landlord. It is not disputed in the evidence that the door was rotten at the base and needed to be entirely replaced as the rotten frame meant that even temporary repairs would be ineffective. There was a large hole meaning that the door was not secure and that vermin could enter the property. The resident was unhappy as she said that the issue has been repeatedly raised before, with no resolution having been achieved. She also raised security concerns due to burglaries having taken place in the neighbourhood and her enhanced concerns about this due to the door.
  3. There were numerous failures in the arrangements to replace the door and in the communication of timelines and proposed actions to the resident. The landlord initially stated on 28 June 2021 that the doors were “in stock” and that all that was required was an asbestos check. This was queried by the resident as she had previously understood that the doors were not a standard size and would need to be specially made up. The landlord replied that the parts were in stock and the door would be made up at the property. The resident was further informed that there was a 5-week lead in time from the point of order (which can be made when the asbestos check was complete) to the appointment at the property.
  4. The asbestos check was completed on 22 July 2021, and an appointment was made for the door to be fitted on 28 August 2021 with a new sub-contractor as the maintenance team had no availability to complete the work. This was in line with the timescales that had been communicated to the resident. However, when sub-contractor 2 arrived on site to complete the work it emerged that no measurements for the door had been taken and the work could therefore not be carried out. This caused significant frustration to the resident, who stated “This is now causing me extreme anxiety, I have been unable to sleep all weekend… I can’t live like this anymore”.
  5. The resident chased the landlord repeatedly over the course of the following weeks to confirm that measurements would be taken. These were finally completed on 18 September 2021, 61 working days after the initial report. Sub-contractor 2 attended the property on 27 October 2021 to make the door safe but no appointment was made at that time for the new doors to be fitted. The resident communicated extreme frustration throughout November and December 2021 as she repeatedly chased the landlord for confirmation of a fitting date. Eventually the new external back doors were fitted on 11 January 2021, 140 days after the initial report.
  6. The resident consistently attempted to escalate the matter and sought management involvement to expedite the repairs to the door. She appeared to be aware of the Component Renewal Policy and the procedures set out for assessment and completion of repairs, as she repeatedly requested a supervisor assessment of the property. This was one of the steps outlined in the policy. However, the assessment didn’t take place until 22 December 2021 and the complaint, repair schedule and communication all remained under the management of one member of the landlord’s Customer Services staff. This member of staff made repeated attempts to resolve issues but either did not have the authority to ensure that matters were addressed satisfactorily or the maintenance systems and processes she tried to employ were inadequate. In any event, the result was that the repairs never seemed to be “owned” by the Planned Project Manager as set out in the policy, remaining instead with a member of the Customer Services, alongside limited and ineffective liaison with members of staff within the maintenance team.
  7. The Ombudsman concludes that the delay to fitting the external back doors was clearly unacceptable given that it took 140 working days from the initial report to complete. Given the issues with the door in terms of its lack of security and the persistent problem of vermin entering the property, this should have been treated as an emergency repair. The cause of the unacceptable delay appears to have been the poor communication within the landlord’s organisation. The member of staff in Customer Services tasked with attempting to resolve the points of complaint was unable to escalate to a manager and the information that they were given by the maintenance team was often incomplete or inaccurate. When this was passed on to the resident, this caused inevitable frustration and distress. There was clear detriment to the resident as she was left with a property that was at risk of burglary and with a significant danger to health caused by vermin for an unnecessarily extended period of time.
  8. It was appropriate that the landlord identified and acknowledged its failures in relation the external door, and that it offered compensation for its failures. However, in all the circumstances of this aspect of the case, the landlord’s offer of remedy did not go far enough. In the circumstances, a total offer of compensation for this aspect of the complaint is considered to be £800 as the detriment was clear and substantial for a resident that was fearful of her safety due to the ongoing condition of the door for an unnecessarily protracted period. This is combined with an overall finding of maladministration, with the landlord’s acceptance of fault preventing this from being a finding of severe maladministration.

Bathroom repairs

  1. The responsibility for bathroom repairs lies with the landlord. This is set out in the Occupancy Agreement which outlines the landlord’s responsibility for maintenance in good repair of …..internal walls….plasterwork….basins, sinks, baths, toilets”. The Repairs Policy stipulates the timelines for such repairs; emergency works must be completed within 24 hours, while routine repairs must be addressed at the earliest mutual opportunity. In addition, the landlord adheres to a Component Renewal Standard Operating Procedure which sets out the referral process for the assessment and replacement of components such as bathrooms. In cases where repairs are not sufficient and an entire bathroom needs to be replaced (as ultimately appears to have been required in this instance), the landlord is responsible for escalating this through a supervisor and team manager for approval.
  2. The resident’s initial complaint on 15 June 2021 detailed a number of issues regarding the condition of the bathroom. There was a previous leak from the property above which caused extensive damage to the bathroom in 2014 and required the replacement of the ceiling following its collapse. The resident stated that there remained outstanding repairs from this time which had not been completed. These included tiling issues, damp and blown plaster, missing boxing around the toilet and mould. She stated that she has been chasing a supervisor visit for a year in the hope that this would provide an inventory of all necessary repairs to the property.
  3. Following this initial complaint, it appears that a plasterer was sent to assess the bathroom and confirmed that the work was a 2-day, 2-person job that could be completed after the asbestos tests concluded. The landlord further arranged for a tiler and carpenter to attend the property on 25 June 2021. It is not clear from the documentation exactly which works were completed but the resident appeared initially happy that some progress had been made.
  4. However, the resident emailed the landlord again and expressed frustration that she was still awaiting appointments for plastering and tiling to be completed in the bathroom. The toilet still hadn’t been boxed in. The resident said that she was still waiting for a supervisor to assess the whole property, as requested previously. The landlord responded that this would only happen once operatives completing the works scheduled had attended the property and confirmed that a full property assessment was required.
  5. In the subsequent months, the resident consistently requested a full assessment of the property so that all repairs outstanding could be properly recorded. Given that this request had been made on numerous occasions and that it was clear that there were a number of different repairs required at the property, the delay in arranging this inspection was, in the Ombudsman’s view, unacceptable. One of the overall failures in the handling of these repairs is the fragmented approach taken by the landlord, who would react to the latest complaint from the increasingly frustrated resident rather than looking to proactively resolve the overall issues. Had a thorough assessment of all necessary repairs been made at the point of initial complaint, this would have assisted the landlord in arranging the relevant works in a more structured way that would have been in line with its policies, and it would have helped to inform the resident about expected timelines.
  6. The landlord offered an appointment for the works to the bathroom on 11 and 12 September 2021. The resident could not easily take time off at this point. A new time was arranged for works to be completed on 2 and 3 October 2021. However, due to further delays, this work was then passed to sub-contractor 1, who finally was scheduled to complete works on 20 December 2021. These further delays added to the resident’s frustration.
  7. When sub-contractor 1 then attended the property to commence works in the bathroom, it becomes clear that the operatives were not plumbers and were there simply to prepare the bathroom for further works. They removed the bath before the resident become aware that no replacement would be fitted. She then stopped them from removing the toilet and the basin, which would have left her without either over the Christmas period and beyond. It is the Ombudsman’s view that this demonstrated a significant breakdown in communication between the landlord, its sub-contractors and the resident. The removal of the bath left the resident without washing facilities other than a bathroom basin for a period of two months; a situation for which she was wholly unprepared and caused significant distress. She stated in an email on 20 December 2021 that she considered her treatment to be “inhumane….I wouldn’t treat an animal like this”.  The bath was not finally fitted until February 2022.
  8. The Ombudsman considers this to be an unacceptable and avoidable delay, with little consideration of the resident’s living conditions during this time. The removal of the bath should have been co-ordinated with the fitting of the new bath. The management of this repair is not in line with the landlord’s Programmed Maintenance Policy which states that “We will provide advanced notice to residents when the works to their homes will start and finish, and if there will be any disruption to their amenities. Our service contractors will assist vulnerable residents to prepare for the works to their homes. We will keep residents’ updated on progress with the work”.
  9. In all the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman does not consider that the landlord’s apology and offer of compensation for its acknowledged service failures here goes far enough to offer the resident a remedy for her overall experience. As with the external door issue, a finding of maladministration has been identified, with a further £800 in compensation ordered. Again, this determination would have been increased to a finding of severe maladministration had the landlord not accepted fault and paid some measure of compensation at the end of its complaint process.

Kitchen Repairs

  1. The responsibility for kitchen repairs lies with the landlord. This is set out in the Occupancy Agreement which outlines the landlords’ responsibility for maintenance in good repair of …..internal walls, floors and ceilings. The Repairs Policy stipulates the timelines for such repairs; emergency works must be completed within 24 hours, while routine repairs must be addressed at the earliest mutual opportunity. In addition, the landlord adheres to a Component Renewal Standard Operating Procedure which sets out the referral process for the assessment and replacement of components such as kitchens. In cases where repairs are not sufficient and an entire kitchen needs to be replaced (as ultimately appears to have been required in this instance), the landlord is responsible for escalating this through a supervisor and team manager for approval.
  2. The resident’s initial complaint on 15 June 2021 detailed a number of issues regarding the condition of the kitchen. This include missing tiles and missing door hinges on kitchen cupboards. She said that she had been chasing a supervisor visit for a year in the hope that this would provide an inventory of all necessary repairs to the property.
  3. The resident repeatedly requested a review of all necessary repairs at the property. The delay to this meant that the subsequent repairs were delayed, causing significant inconvenience and distress to the resident.
  4. There is a lack of detail in the documentation and correspondence regarding the repairs required to the kitchen. This was partly due to the fact that the resident, as she explained in her email of 23 September 2021, had attempted to streamline the list of necessary repairs in an attempt to prioritise those causing her the most distress. However, it was clear from the Inspection Report from the visiting supervisor on 22 December 2021 that there were 12 identified repairs required in the kitchen – including repairs to kitchen cupboards, the waste pipe, MDF boxing behind a cooker, damage to the ceiling and missing tiles.
  5. A full kitchen refit was finally approved in May 2022, nearly a year after the initial complaint was raised. The final record in the file indicates that this was still not complete on 22 December 2022, 369 days after the initial complaint was raised, with subsequent correspondence in January 2023 confirming that the works still awaited completion. The Ombudsman considers this to be an unacceptable delay and well in excess of the timelines indicated in the landlord’s repairs policy.
  6. It is not known if the kitchen re-fit works have now completed. Given that the most recent correspondence received from the landlord (February 2023) gives no indication that this has occurred, this investigation has proceeded on the basis that the works remain outstanding. As such, a finding of severe maladministration has been identified, due to the extensive delays, the poor communication and management of the residents expectations throughout. It is clear that the resident has been affected by this issue for an extended period of time, dating back some time before the complaint under investigation. As this issue remains outstanding, a finding of severe maladministration has been considered appropriate, unlike with the other issues, which were resolved by the time of investigation. A compensation order of £1200 has been identified here, together with an order that the works are resolved within 3 months of the date of this investigation report. If this timescale is not achieved, the landlord is to consider further compensation for any further delay.

Complaints handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states that a Stage 1 complaint should be acknowledged within 5 working days, with a written decision being issued within 10 working days. It further states that any delay to this timeframe should be explained in writing in no longer than 10 working days.
  2. The landlord’s complaint policy states that a Stage 2 complaint will be reviewed either by a member of the Customer Relations Team or someone not involved at Stage 1. A final written decision will be issued within 20 days of the request to escalate. If the timeframe will be longer than this then the landlord will write and explain why within a further 10 working days.
  3. The initial complaint was submitted on 15 June 2021 and was acknowledged on the same day. However, the landlord did not issue a Stage 1 response upholding the complaint until 27 October 2021, which was 96 working days later. This was well outside the timeframe specified in the Complaints Policy and, for reasons that are not explained, the Stage 2 escalation was made on 3 September 2021, which was before the Stage 1 final response was issued. There is some indication that the member of staff the Customer Relations Team who was dealing with the complaint attempted to address and resolve a number of the requested repairs and this could have caused confusion about the timelines in relation to the complaint. In any event, it is the Ombudsman’s view that there was a breakdown in the complaint handling process and significant divergence from the timelines specified in the policy.
  4. The Stage 2 complaint response was not issued until 25 February 2022, which was 123 working days after the initial complaint. It upheld the complaint and offered £500 in compensation in total, with £100 of this sum relating to delay, though it is not known if this related specifically to delays in progressing the case through the complaints process.
  5. Both delays at Stage 1 and 2 were, in the view of the Ombudsman, excessive. The landlord explained, when asked by the resident, that there were backlogs in the complaint handling process but it failed to communicate the reasons for this or what the revised timeline might be. This increased frustration for the resident.
  6. Given the multiple issues under investigation, it would have provided clarity had the landlord’s offer of compensation broken down the amounts it was offering for each element of the complaint, rather than offering an overall figure for its general failures. In any case, the extensive delays in the landlord’s complaints  handling warrant a maladministration decision in respect of this aspect of the complaint alone, with a further amount of compensation payable reflecting these further failures (£250).
  7. In total, the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £3050, which is expected to be paid directly to the resident, rather than to any arrears that might have accrued on her rent account. Any amounts already paid in respect of the issues under investigation here would reduce this overall sum.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of repairs to the bathroom at the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of repairs to the kitchen at the property.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of repairs to the external back doors at the property.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord to pay a total of £3050 in recognition of the overall failures relating to the case, broken down as follows:
    1. £800 for failures relating to the external door at the property;
    2. £800 for failures relating to the bathroom at the property;
    3. £1200 for failures relating to the kitchen at the property;
    4. £250 for failures relating to complaint handling.
  2. Any compensation already paid to be deducted from this sum. The landlord to ensure that the Ombudsman is provided with evidence of this payment within four weeks of this report.
  3. The landlord to provide a written apology, at senior level, in relation to the overall failures on this case, confirming what lessons have been learnt as a result of its review of the findings made here. This to be provided to the resident (with a copy sent to this Service), within four weeks of this report.
  4. The landlord to ensure that any outstanding kitchen works are completed within 3 months of the date of this investigation report, with evidence provided to this Service by this date.