London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202202115)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202115

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

12 May 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:
1. Handling of repairs at the property and associated offer of compensation.
2. Response to the resident’s reports that a tree was lifting her garden path, that a window unit had been replaced with the wrong glass and that a kitchen drawer was broken.
The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
It is noted from the evidence on file that the resident had reported a number of repairs from 2019 onwards. These included that a tree was lifting the garden path, that a window unit was replaced with the wrong glass and a kitchen drawer broken.
While it is acknowledged that the resident was unhappy with how these repairs were responded to, the evidence provided to this Service does not demonstrate that they were raised during the course of the complaints process. Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme states that the Ombudsman “may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaint procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale”.
As these matters have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure, and there is no evidence of a complaint handling failure, they have not been investigated as part of this complaint. If the resident remains concerned about how these repairs were handled, she may wish to raise a new complaint with the landlord. Should the resident choose to do so, and she remains unhappy once the complaints procedure has been exhausted, she may refer the matter back to this Service as a new complaint.

Background

The resident has been a secure tenant of a four-bedroom house built in 1910, since March 2000. She currently resides in the house with her adult daughter. The resident has no vulnerabilities recorded by the landlord, although she has notified them of some health issues.
The resident submitted a complaint form in December 2019 regarding problems with three separate repair issues: a leaking roof, cracks and damp in the walls and plaster blown and broken extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom. The resident expressed concern that she had used annual leave for appointments, but operatives had failed to attend. Further complaints were submitted in January and September 2020. A surveyor’s report in April 2020 said that whilst work was halted due to the national Covid-19 lockdown, the property had major damp issues and would need the kitchen removed.
In October 2020, the landlord apologised for the lack of communication. Some work began on the house in March 2021 and the resident and her daughter were moved to a temporary apartment.
A further complaint was submitted in July 2021, by which time the resident had been without a kitchen for 16 weeks. A stage one response was issued in March 2022 which offered £40 for missed appointments and £1,000 compensation for inconvenience, distress, delays, time, and effort. This was increased over the course of three further complaint responses to a total of £4,386.29, which included £700 for a month’s rent, as well as sums for takeaway food, and redecoration. During this time, the resident had been decanted to two temporary flats and issues arising from the repairs, including damage to the resident’s white goods, had resulted in the landlord replacing some items. The landlord directed the resident to its insurance department to make a claim for other damaged personal possessions.
Following the bulk of the repairs, ‘making good’ work was still ongoing in June 2022. The landlord said that all repairs had been completed in September 2022, although the resident has listed items which she states had not been completed, including several rooms yet to be painted and repointing of brickwork.
The resident remains unhappy about the time taken to resolve the repairs and that some remain outstanding, as well as the landlord’s decision not to award the resident any extra compensation for time taken off work to accommodate appointments. The resident seeks at least a further £1,300 to reflect the 26 days of annual leave she has lost, as well as for all works to be completed, a rent refund for March to August 2021 as she was only able to use two bedrooms, and further compensation for the inconvenience of being unable to cook at home.

The landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

Section 3 of the tenancy agreement states that the landlord must keep in good repair the structure including (d) internal walls, (e) chimneys, chimney stacks, (f) pathways and (g) plasterwork. Section 4 covers installations including (b) electric wiring (sockets and switches) and (c) central heating installation.
The landlord’s repairs policy effective 2021 says at section 4.1 that the landlord’s responsibilities include the structure and exterior of the home, including walls, roofs, windows, drains, gutters, boundary fences and gates as well as fixtures and fittings for water gas electricity and sanitation. The policy says at section 4.8 that the landlord will aim to complete day to day repairs “at the earliest mutually convenient appointment”.
The landlord’s compensation policy at section 4.1 covers circumstances where compensation or reimbursement may be offered and includes where the landlord fails to follow its policies procedures or guidelines, and this has a negative impact on the customer. The policy also lists instances such as failing to attend a booked appointment, failing to complete repairs it is responsible for to agreed response times, or when the customer is continuing to live in poor conditions longer than is necessary.

Assessment and findings

The evidence provided to this Service shows that the resident had been reporting issues with leaks and water entering the property dating back to 2016. In 2017, the records show that several repairs were carried out to the guttering, the roof and the front of the property. While several repairs were attempted, the resident continued to report that water was entering the property into the front bedroom and living room throughout 2018 and 2019.
As detailed above, at the end of December 2019, the resident contacted the landlord to raise a complaint. She said that she had (then) recently paid for the property to be decorated. However, there had been a further leak and the decoration was all “ruined”. The resident expressed concern that she had spent a lot of money in decorating the property, and she wished for the source of the leak to be investigated.
The landlord raised the matter as a formal complaint and confirmed that it would investigate the issues that the resident raised. The landlord issued its final response to the complaint in June 2022.
In recognition of the delays, time and effort and distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, the landlord offered a total of £2179.76 compensation in June 2022. This was comprised of:
1. £100 for the delay in responding to the complaint.
2. £180 for the time and effort expended by the resident.
3. £250 under the Right to Repair scheme.
4. £360 for the distress and inconvenience.
5. £1289.76 for the loss of amenities.
This was subsequently increased in August 2022 by £980, broken down as follows:
1. £640 for distress and inconvenience.
2. £180 for missed appointments.
3. £160 for a lack of communication.
The landlord also added that the resident had received £75 to purchase paint for redecorating, £700 for the initial loss of amenities and £451.53 reimbursement for food costs. This brought the total amount of compensation to £4386.29. The landlord acknowledged that the resident wished to be reimbursed for 26 days of missed pay, totalling £2600. However, it advised that it was unable to compensate for a loss of earnings. The landlord did explain that this had been taken into consideration when deciding on the compensation for distress and inconvenience that had been caused.
The resident responded to the landlord on 11 September 2022. She advised that:
1. She had not asked to be reimbursed £2600. Rather, she was explaining that she had used her annual leave so that the repairs could be completed within the property. She said that if the repairs had been managed properly, she may not have needed to have taken so many days and could have used her annual leave to do things for herself or with her family.
2. She also wished to add that the £75 for purchasing paint, and the reimbursement for food and loss of amenities was to cover out of pocket expenses. She therefore did not feel that this could be included as part of the compensation. She therefore considered that the total compensation that had been offered was £3559.76, and not £4389.26.
3. She was not happy for the complaint to be closed as works remained outstanding – including painting.
4. There were also some jobs which had not been addressed. The damp survey had recommend repointing works, and the front bedroom window required sealing. The resident therefore asked if the outstanding works could be raised, if they had not been done so already.
5. She would be contacting this Service for assistance.
The evidence provided to this Service shows that the landlord has not disputed that it delayed in carrying out the repairs required within the property and to the roof. The landlord has also acknowledged the distress and inconvenience that was caused to the resident during the period that the repairs were outstanding.
The resident remains unhappy with the level of compensation that was offered, and has also expressed concern that repairs remain outstanding. It is unclear from the evidence provided to this Service whether all recommended repairs have now been completed. As such, an order has been made for the landlord to carry out an inspection and to raise work orders as necessary. In doing so, the landlord should consider when the repairs were first identified/reported, and consider whether it is necessary for any further compensation to be awarded for any delay.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s offer of compensation and assessed whether it was proportionate based on the evidence that is available. With regards to the compensation offer, it is unclear what period the landlord has taken into consideration. As detailed above, within the complaint correspondence, the landlord acknowledged that the issues with the roof dated back to 2017. In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to clearly set out what it considered the delays to be, and which period it had taken into consideration. Providing a breakdown in such a manner would have demonstrated that the compensation had been fairly calculated and that all the circumstances relating to the case had been fully considered. That it did not was a failing; and a missed opportunity to demonstrate that it had fully understood how the resident had been affected as a result of its handling of the required repairs.
The evidence provided to this Service shows that the issue of water entering the property reoccurred throughout 2018 and 2019. While there were periods of no reporting, the same internal areas of the property continued to be affected by a water ingress. This suggests that either the repairs which were being carried out were ineffective, or that the source of the problem had not been identified. It is not clear whether the landlord had taken this into consideration when investigating the resident’s complaint and deciding on the figure of compensation.
When the issue was reported again at the end of 2019, the landlord arranged for further repairs and a survey. The survey was raised in February 2020 and the notes read – “please carry out inspection to whole property… Multiple issues relating to damp, external roofing/rendering issues and bathroom tiles blown”. It is unclear why the landlord did not consider commissioning a wider survey sooner given that the water ingress was recurring. That it did not suggests poor repairs management and was a missed opportunity to try to resolve the problems for the resident sooner. The landlord failed to acknowledge this when responding to the complaint. It follows that the inconvenience caused by this was not taken into consideration when reaching its figure of compensation. A further amount has therefore been ordered accordingly.
In 2020, following the survey, the landlord assigned the works to a contractor. However, owing to the outbreak of Covid-19 and the need for the resident to be decanted, the works could not commence until 2021. While it is acknowledged that between March and June 2020 only emergency repairs could be carried out – in line with Government guidance. It is not clear why no action was taken from June 2020 when the lockdown restrictions were lessened. Government guidance issued at the time stated that landlords could recommence visits to properties to conduct both routine and essential inspections, repairs and planned works, so long as appropriate personal protection was worn, and a safe distance could be maintained. As such, in the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to explain why despite the lessening in restrictions, it was unable to commence the required works to the property. That the landlord did not provide such an explanation was a further failing in its complaint handling.
Nevertheless, the works commenced in 2021. The roofing works were finalised in September 2021 – almost four years after the ingress was first reported. While the major works in the kitchen were also complete by June 2022, the internal repairs and decoration in the bedroom and bathroom remained outstanding. The resident has also advised that some of the works are yet to be completed.
As such, the evidence suggests that the resident had continued to be inconvenienced after the landlord’s final offer was made. In addition, there is no evidence to demonstrate that the landlord has taken steps to ensure that all works are completed, or that the resident has been offered a remedy for any of the further time and trouble or inconvenience caused as a result of its handling of works at the property. It follows that the landlord’s offer of compensation has not taken into account all of the circumstances relating to the complaint, and this has been reflected in the orders below. We have also made an order to ensure that any outstanding repairs are completed without further delay.
The evidence provided to this Service shows that the landlord’s management of the repairs at the property was disordered, for example the order for the kitchen fans was forgotten for many months and there was confusion over what asbestos reports were required. It is understood that there were several different contractors involved in this extensive work, and it is recorded that contractors were asked to arrange appointments with the resident directly, which left the resident in the position of having to inform the landlord that work was being booked in the wrong order. However, it would be reasonable to expect the landlord to retain some overall control of the situation and to ensure that the repairs were progressing smoothly. It is unclear whether the landlord identified these issues when investigating the resident’s complaint. However, it would be reasonable for it to now review its repairs management processes and ensure that they enable it to satisfactorily monitor the progression of works whether or not they have been assigned to contractors.
It is also noted that at one stage it had been agreed that the landlord would call the resident every Friday to discuss progress, but this was not maintained. This was a failing in the landlord’s communication with the resident, and would reasonably have compounded her belief that the repairs were not being handled appropriately. It does not appear that this was acknowledged by the landlord when investigating the complaint. In addition, the decision to decant the resident and her daughter was taken with little notice and transpired to be inappropriate due to the condition of the property and the lack of parking for both the resident and her daughter, particularly given the health issues reported by the resident at that time.
The landlord did acknowledge that the decant property was inappropriate during the course of the complaints procedure, and did appropriately try to put things right. The landlord advised that it had offered £700 to cover “one month’s rent”. While this was appropriate, the same amount had been referred to by the landlord as “compensation” and ‘’lack of amenities’’ elsewhere. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to ensure that it was communicating its offers clearly, and that the terminology it was using to describe its awards was consistent. This would have helped to ensure that the resident understood the offer that was being made, and what it was intended to reflect. The landlord should ensure that training is provided to its complaints handling staff around this accordingly.
As detailed above, the resident has explained that she had used the equivalent of 26 days annual leave to facilitate the works at the property, and that the landlord should make some payment towards this. In response, the landlord advised that it would not normally pay compensation for “loss of earnings”, but that it had considered this when deciding on the level of compensation it awarded for distress and inconvenience. It is acknowledged that the resident did not ask for her loss of earnings to be reimbursed; however, the landlord’s response was appropriate in the circumstances.
In general, the Ombudsman would not propose a remedy of compensation to reimburse a resident for their time off work, loss of wages or loss of employment whilst repairs are conducted. Whilst such works will inevitably cause some inconvenience to residents, their occupancy agreement will require them to give access for repairs to be conducted as needed, and it would not be fair or reasonable for the Ombudsman to order a landlord to pay a resident reimbursement for loss of earnings for necessary repairs. However, there may be circumstances when the Ombudsman decides that it is appropriate to make an order that a landlord pays compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused, for example where repairs appointments are repeatedly missed or fail to resolve the repair issue. This has been taken into consideration when assessing the compensation that was offered by the landlord and the circumstances of the complaint.

Complaints handling

The landlord’s complaint policy says that stage one complaints will be responded to within 10 working days, and stage two within 20 working days.
The landlord recorded the resident as having raised a complaint on 29 December 2021. However, a stage one response was not provided until 11 March 2022. The landlord did apologise for poor communication in October 2020; however, the stage one response was issued over two years later than as set out in the landlord’s complaints policy.
It is also noted that the stage one response that was issued was brief. The landlord failed to set out what the issues were or what investigation it had undertaken. In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to set out what action it had taken in respect of the repairs, and whether it considered that it had complied with its duties and obligations as a landlord. Rather, the stage one response simply set out that the resident could make an insurance claim for damage to her personal belongings, that further repairs would be carried out on particular dates, and that some compensation would be offered. This was inappropriate and a poor response in the circumstances, especially given that the resident had been waiting over two years for a response to her complaint.
The resident requested escalation of her complaint on 11 March. However, the stage two response was issued more than three months later. This was a further departure from the landlord’s complaints policy. As issues progressed there were two further responses from the landlord in August 2022. While it is acknowledged that the landlord was taking further steps to see whether it could resolve the complaint, the decision to issue further responses was also a departure from the complaints policy.
When the landlord issued its stage two response, it acknowledged that it had delayed in responding to the complaint. This was appropriate. However, the landlord’s offer of £100 compensation for the inconvenience that was caused as a result of the delay was significantly disproportionate. The landlord also failed to acknowledge that it had not kept the resident updated about her complaint while the responses were outstanding, and that this would have been the cause of further inconvenience.
The Ombudsman has therefore ordered a sum of compensation that reflects that delay, and the further complaint handling failures which have been set out above. The Ombudsman has also ordered that the landlord’s complaint handling staff undergo further training, and be reminded of the provisions contained in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, to ensure similar errors are not made in the future.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs at the property and associated offer of compensation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified by this investigation.
2. Pay the resident the £4386.29 compensation that was offered during the course of the complaints procedure.
3. Pay the resident a further £1250 comprised of:
  1. £750 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to demonstrate that it had fully considered all of the circumstances of the complaint when reaching its figure of compensation.
  2. £500 for the complaint handling failures identified by this investigation.
4. Arrange an inspection to assess any repairs that are outstanding. Once the inspection has been undertaken, the landlord should:
  1. Create a schedule of any works detailing target completion dates. A copy of the schedule should be shared with this Service and the resident within two weeks of the inspection taking place. If no repairs are identified, the landlord should write to this Service and the resident confirming as such.
  2. Once the works have been completed, the landlord should consider when they were first reported/raised and whether any further compensation is warranted as a result of any delays.
5. Carry out a review of its repairs management processes and ensure that the systems that it has in place allow it to monitor the progression of works undertaken by its own operatives and contractors.
6. Provide complaints handling staff with a reminder of the timescales for response as set out in the landlord’s policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. The landlord should also ensure that staff are reminded of:
  1. The importance of ensuring that all complaints points have been investigated and responded to within both stage one and stage two responses.
  2. The need to set out how compensation offers have been considered and the period of time that has been taken into account when calculating the figure.