London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202204588)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204568

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

4 April 2024

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 the resident’s:
1. Reports of problems with her front door.
2. Associated complaints.

Scope of investigation

Between January 2023 and June 2023, the Ombudsman carried out an investigation of the landlord under paragraph 49 of the Scheme. The investigation reviewed 103 determinations made by the Ombudsman during the period, identified common points of failure and made recommendations for improvement. The landlord provided the Ombudsman with its improvement plan and the Ombudsman is monitoring its progress in making the changes that were needed.
Some of the events in this case took place over the same period as some of the cases determined in that investigation and some of the findings of the special report are relevant to this case. Whilst we have referred to these in this report, we have not made any orders or recommendations that would duplicate those made to the landlord in the Ombudsman’s special report.
During our investigation, the resident asked us if we could order the landlord to fit a door entry system that has a video facility so she can see who is at the door before opening it. She explained that she was concerned that her ex partner may try to enter her home.
We note that an Occupational Therapist (OT) assessment dated 2 August 2023 included a recommendation for a door entry system to be installed but did not specify that it should have a video facility. After considering the OT’s report and speaking with the resident we understand that the door entry system was recommended due to the resident’s mobility difficulties. She uses a stair lift to go up and down the stairs between her front door and her flat. The door entry system is intended to enable the resident to give access to visitors without having to go downstairs to the door.
Whilst we understand the resident’s concerns, we cannot order the landlord to install a door entry system with a video facility. This is because her request for a video entry facility is not part of the complaint that we have investigated and the landlord has not had the opportunity to consider its position through its complaints process. We have made a recommendation that the landlord help the resident to get a target hardening assessment to identify how her safety at home can be increased.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant at the property, a 1 bedroom first floor flat, from 2014. The landlord is a housing association which owns and manages the property. The tenancy had originally been with another social landlord which merged with the current landlord in 2016.
At the start of the tenancy, the original landlord had recorded that the resident has mobility issues which we understand are caused by osteoporosis. The landlord had also recorded that the resident has a personality disorder which causes anxiety and stress to arise from some situations. In July 2022, the current landlord recorded that the resident had experienced domestic abuse and that a restraining order was in place against her ex partner.
The evidence shows that the original landlord had replaced the front door in 2015. In 2018 the resident had reported to the current landlord that the door was draughty. In 2019 she reported that rain was coming in under the door. The landlord raised orders but it is not clear what work was done from the evidence we have seen.
Between 7 February 2020 and 9 April 2020, the resident reported rain coming in under the door 3 times. The landlord inspected and raised an order to replace the door. The landlord suspended the order in May 2020 due to the UK Government’s Covid-19 restrictions in place at the time. The landlord later notified the resident that her door would be replaced on 13 January 2021.
The resident made a formal complaint on 11 January 2021. She said that she had been reporting problems with draughts and rain coming in for several years. She said the door was due to be replaced but she wanted compensation for the time it had taken, for her increased heating costs and damage to her carpet. The resident said she was vulnerable and trying to get the landlord to resolve the door issues had been distressing. The landlord said it would respond to her complaint by 22 January 2021.
The landlord gave its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 21 January 2021. It said:
1. It was sorry that her door replacement had been delayed. The replacement planned on 13 January 2021 had not gone ahead because the landlord needed to do a survey first. Its contractor would contact her to arrange an appointment for the survey.
2. It would contact her when it received the survey results but cautioned that there were delays in it completing non emergency repairs because operatives were still having to isolate.
The evidence suggests that the front door was replaced around April 2021 but the resident was dissatisfied with the work. She had reported that the handle was too close the frame, her doorbell had not been refitted, the weatherboard had fallen off the bottom of the new door and cement was crumbling around the frame. In June 2021, she reported that rain was coming in again.
The landlord’s contractors made several visits in August and September 2021 to refit the door, fix the weatherboard and replace the resident’s doorbell. However, the contractor could not change the position of the handle and the resident told the landlord she still had difficulty in using the door.
From 14 September 2021, the resident chased the landlord for an offer of compensation. On 10 December 2021 the landlord offered her £2,075 compensation for the delays in replacing and repairing her door, and for her distress and inconvenience. We understand that the resident asked the landlord to revise its compensation offer.
The resident reported further issues with the door on at least 3 occasions between 10 December 2021 and 2 February 2022. She said that previous repairs had made the door worse as there was a gap under it and it was hard for her to lock it. She asked the landlord to replace the composite door with a wooden one.
On 8 February 2022, the resident chased the landlord for its revised compensation offer. The landlord emailed the resident on 28 February 2022 saying it had escalated her complaint and would let her know when it was able to investigate it. It later confirmed it would respond by 13 July 2022 and then extended the response timescale to 27 July 2022.
At some point the landlord replaced the door again but it is not clear from the evidence seen when this happened.
Between 5 May 2022 and 14 June 2022, the resident told the landlord she was still having problems using her front door on at least 3 occasions. She complained about the second new door being difficult to use on 20 June 2022. The landlord logged this as a new complaint and gave its response the same day. It said that no repair was needed and the resident should arrange for an OT to give recommendations on any adaptations needed.
The resident continued to report difficulties in using the door between 26 June 2022 and 20 July 2022.
The landlord gave its stage 2 response to the resident’s first complaint on 20 July 2022. It said:
1. It acknowledged there had been delays in her front door being replaced some of which was due to an asbestos test being needed first. It had also been following Government guidelines for Covid-19 and non-essential repairs had been paused.
2. It had attended to the problems she reported with the new door. It had fitted a new doorbell, adjusted the door and fixed the weatherboard.
3. It could find no problem with the door lock or handle and felt her osteoporosis was the reason she was having difficulty with it. It had told her she should arrange an assessment for adaptations.
4. There was an outstanding order to repair her lock. Its contractor had attended on 14 July 2022 but she had not been home. It would call again on 26 July 2022.
5. It had offered compensation but she had not been satisfied with the amount offered. It increased its offer to £2510 and advised her to seek independent legal advice regarding responsibility for compensation prior to the merger.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaint process

The resident was dissatisfied with the outcome of her complaint and the landlord increased its compensation offer to £3,000 on 27 July 2022. We understand that this sum was paid to the resident in August 2022.
The resident continued to report difficulty in using her door between 25 July 2022 and 29 November 2023. The landlord attended several times to adjust the door and lock but maintained that the issue was not repair related and the resident should get an OT assessment for the door to be adapted.
The resident made a further complaint to the landlord on 5 April 2023. She said that an order to repair the door had been postponed and that the issues had been ongoing for several years. The landlord logged this as a new complaint.
On 25 May 2023, the resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate her complaint. She said that the problems with the door had been going on for 6 years and were still not resolved. The situation had affected her mental health and she did not feel the compensation given by the landlord was sufficient.
The resident complained to the landlord again on 6 September 2023 saying that she was having problems accessing her home because keys did not turn easily in the lock. She said issues with the door had been going on for several years and had not been resolved. The landlord logged this as a new complaint.
In September 2023 the landlord received an OT’s report recommending that an automatic door entry system be installed. We understand that a specialist inspection was done in October 2023 and the landlord was advised that the current door was not compatible with such a system.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s special report of July 2023 highlighted the following common points of failure which are relevant in this case:
1. Policies and procedures documented but not adhered to.
2. Poor knowledge and information management leading to delays and inadequate complaint responses.
3. Excessive and unexplained delays in responding to service requests and complaints.
4. Residents not being kept informed of progress leading them to chase for responses and raise complaints.
5. Inadequate responses at stage 1 leading to complaint escalation.
6. Delays in responding to complaints meaning residents had to chase progress and ask the Ombudsman to intervene.
The presence of the above common points of failure and their impact on the resident in this case are explained further in the findings below.

Handling of reports of problems with the resident’s front door

It is not disputed that the landlord is responsible for repairing the resident’s front door. The dispute is whether the landlord has fulfilled its obligations and responded in a timely way.
The landlord’s obligation under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 is to complete repairs within a “reasonable” timescale and to a standard that keeps the property fit for occupation. There is no statutory definition of a reasonable timescale but relevant factors include the extent of the repair, availability of parts and the impact on the resident.
The landlord’s repair policy in 2020 did not include specific timescales for responding to non emergency repairs. We note that the landlord’s revised policy effective from July 2023 says it will respond to non emergency repairs within an average of 25 days.
We understand that the Covid-19 pandemic caused significant disruption to the landlord’s services. Various Government restrictions were in place between March 2020 and July 2021 which caused landlords to suspend “non essential” services including many types of repair work. When restrictions were lifted, it took time for landlords to restart affected services and work through backlogs of repairs.
In this case, although the landlord had planned to replace the resident’s door in May 2020, the work was suspended. This was reasonable given the Covid-19 restrictions in place at the time.
However, the rescheduled replacement planned for 13 January 2021 did not happen because the landlord had not had an asbestos test done beforehand. The landlord should have arranged the asbestos test when it rescheduled the replacement. Its failure to do so caused a delay of approximately 3 months in it replacing the door which could have been avoided. It also caused frustration to the resident who had already been waiting almost a year for it to be replaced.
The evidence shows the resident raised concerns about the standard of the repair when the new door was fitted. On 12 April 2021 she had told the landlord’s surveyor that the handle was too close to the frame, her doorbell had not been refitted, the weatherboard had fallen off and cement was crumbling around the frame. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have inspected the door to check the standard of the work and ensure any follow on work was done promptly.
The resident later told the complaints handler that the surveyor had not responded to her. The evidence shows the complaint handler emailed the surveyor on 10 June 2021, 26 June 2021 and 1 July 2021 explaining the issues with the new door and asking for it to be inspected. We have seen no evidence of a reply to any of those emails. This suggests a lack of responsiveness.
Although the complaint handler attempted to escalate the matter to a supervisor, it still did not result in the landlord inspecting the new door. Instead, the complaint handler arranged for the contractor to inspect the door it had fitted. Not only did this cause a delay because the door was not inspected until 2 September 2021, but it also meant the landlord missed the opportunity to check the work its contractor had done.
Our special report identified a theme of poor knowledge and information management which undermined the landlord’s ability to manage repairs and complaints effectively. We have found this to be a factor in this case where the landlord’s repair records for the property did not include clear information on what work was done during repair visits or why some orders were cancelled. For example, there are no orders for the resident’s front door to be replaced on the landlord’s repair log despite the landlord replacing it twice during the events in this case.
The inadequate repair records would have made it difficult for the landlord’s staff to understand the history of the issues the resident was reporting and to take appropriate action. For example, in August 2021 when the complaint handler tried to recall the contractor after the first new door had been fitted. She was not initially able to do so as there was no record of its replacement on the landlord’s system.
Despite the contractor attending several times during August and September 2021, the resident reported further issues of the new door being draughty. The evidence shows that the contractor attended on 29 December 2021 to refit the door but suggests that this left a gap at the bottom and the resident found it hard to turn her key in the lock. The resident asked the landlord to replace the door on 10 January 2022 and asked for a wooden door to be fitted on 2 February 2022.
There were some instances where the landlord’s repair records appear to be contradicted by other evidence we have seen. For example, the repair records show that the landlord raised an order for the contractor to inspect the door on 31 January 2022. However, a contact note made on 2 March 2022 referred to that order being to replace the door.
Whilst it is not clear from the landlord’s records when the door was replaced for the second time, the resident told us that from that point she had difficulty in locking her door. She explained that she had found it difficult to turn the key in the lock, especially from the outside. The evidence shows the resident had reported problems with the lock on the second new door multiple times from April 2022. The landlord’s records show the resident told it that she had to ask passers by to lock and unlock her door for her from the outside. In August 2022, she had told the landlord that she had been unable to leave her home for 3 days because she could not unlock the door from the inside.
In addition to its repair responsibilities, the landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by the Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties.
It would have been appropriate for the landlord have considered whether the resident’s difficulties in locking and unlocking her door were hazards that it was obliged to remedy. For example, it should have considered the resident’s ability to evacuate her home in the event of a fire and her ability to secure her home against intruders. Further, the landlord was aware of the resident’s experience of domestic abuse from 27 July 2022 and her concerns about her ex partner entering her home. This was an additional safety factor that the landlord should have considered.
Although the landlord’s contractors attended at least 8 times between 4 May 2022 and 29 November 2023, the landlord concluded there was no repair issue that it needed to resolve. This was not an adequate response given landlord knew the resident needed help to lock and unlock her door and had been unable to exit her home. The landlord should have considered what else it could do to resolve the issues.
The landlord also has obligations under the Equality Act 2010 to make reasonable adjustments to remove, or reduce as far as possible, disadvantages faced by people with a protected characteristic. Protected characteristics are specified in the Act and include disability. Disability is defined as conditions that have a substantial, and long term, negative impact on a person’s ability to do normal daily activities.
The landlord knew about the resident’s osteoporosis before it replaced the door. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered whether this was a disability and whether the resident had any specific needs that it should consider when replacing the door. For example, the resident had asked for a wooden door to be fitted before the landlord replaced the door the second time. The landlord should have considered whether this was a reasonable adjustment that it could make and we have seen no evidence that it did so.
From 20 June 2022 the landlord’s position was that the resident needed to have an OT assessment and apply for a disabled facilities grant to have her front door adapted. The resident’s OT had written to the landlord on 27 June 2022 saying the problem was the design of the door handle and not the resident’s abilities. She said the landlord had “disabled” the resident by not checking she was able to use the door furniture. This should have prompted the landlord to reconsider its position but we have seen no evidence that it did so.
Similarly, an email sent by the complaint officer to colleagues on 18 July 2022 should have prompted the landlord to reconsider its position. It said the complaint officer had increased the compensation offer but felt providing a door that the resident could use was a more “suitable” solution. The landlord’s response to this was to repeat that the resident needed to have an OT assessment.
The resident did have an OT assessment and the OT’s report dated 2 August 2023 included a recommendation for the installation of a door entry phone system. As explained in paragraph 5. the door entry system is intended to enable the resident to give access to visitors without having to go downstairs to the door. As such we do not consider the recommendation for the door entry system to be a solution to the problems the resident is continuing to have in using her door lock and handle.
The landlord’s repair policy and its vulnerable residents policy acknowledge its obligations under the Equality Act. Both policies say that putting arrangements in place that apply to everyone but put those with a protected characteristic at a disadvantage may be discriminatory. However, neither policy explain how the landlord will meet its obligations, avoid unintended discrimination, or consider reasonable adjustments. The landlord should consider revising its policies.
In our special investigation, we found the landlord’s failings in managing repairs were a common cause of complaints. In this case, the landlord’s failure to effectively manage the replacement of the resident’s front door resulted in her making 4 complaints between 11 January 2021 and 6 September 2023. The landlord could have avoided the later 3 complaints if it had managed the initial door replacement adequately.
From the evidence we have seen, the landlord has not demonstrated that it adequately met its obligations to consider the resident’s needs. Nor has it responded adequately to the issues reported to it. The landlord’s failings amount to maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports of problems with her front door.
The landlord gave the resident £3000 compensation in August 2022. We consider this to be sufficient redress for the failings up to that point. However, it does not reflect the ongoing issues the resident has had with her front door since then. We have made orders for the landlord to replace the door and pay additional compensation.

Handling of the resident’s complaints

The landlord has a two stage complaints process. Its complaints policies over the period said it would respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. The policies said the landlord may extend the timescales by 10 working days and would explain its reasons for extending. The landlord says it will monitor progress after a complaint to make sure all agreed actions are completed.
The landlord’s complaint policies complied with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. However, in our special investigation, we found that the landlord did not consistently follow its policies and procedures. We have found that to be the case in the landlord’s handling of this resident’s complaints.
The landlord responded to the resident’s first complaint within its policy timescale at stage 1. However, part of the resident’s complaint was that she wanted compensation for the delay in her door being replaced. Notes of telephone conversations between the complaint handler and resident suggest the landlord had said it would consider compensation after the door had been replaced. This was not reflected in the landlord’s response letter which did not address the resident’s request for compensation at all.
The door was replaced around April 2021 and we acknowledge that the complaint handler was instrumental in getting the follow on repairs done. The work was done by 10 September 2021 and it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have resolved the resident’s request for compensation promptly after the work was finished.
The landlord’s later stage 2 complaint response referred to the landlord’s initial compensation offer being £1,995 but we have seen no evidence of this offer or when it was made. This is an example of inadequate record keeping by the landlord.
We have seen evidence that the landlord offered £2,075 compensation on 10 December 2021. This was over 10 months after the landlord’s stage 1 response and 3 months after the follow on repairs had been completed. The evidence suggests that part of the delay was due to internal debate over whether the landlord should include compensation for the period before the merger took place. The landlord did decide to include compensation for that period.
Further delay was caused when the landlord told the resident it intended to offset part of the compensation payment against her rent arrears. The resident disputed that she had arrears and made enquiries with the landlord’s rent team and the council’s housing benefit department to resolve the matter.
The landlord’s compensation policy did allow it to offset the compensation payment if there had been arrears. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have established the accuracy of the resident’s arrears position before deciding to offset part of the compensation payment. It was not reasonable that it fell to the resident to establish that the arrears were due to the cycle of her housing benefit payments.
The landlord’s handling of the compensation offer caused additional frustration to the resident. Further, the landlord may have avoided the need to escalate the resident’s complaint if it had dealt with the matter of compensation promptly and reasonably at stage 1.
In our special investigation we found a common theme of the landlord not keeping resident’s updated with progress causing them to have to chase it for updates. In this case, the landlord did not keep the resident updated after it acknowledged it had escalated her complaint on 28 February 2022. The evidence shows that the landlord often failed to respond when she chased for updates. For example, the resident called the landlord on 21 April 2022, 6 May 2022 and 20 May 2022, and she emailed the landlord on 25 May 2022. We have seen no evidence that the landlord replied to any of those contacts.
The resident had called again on 14 June 2022 disclosing that she had attempted to end her life. The landlord took reasonable action in arranging a welfare call to the resident and establishing that she was not at risk of further harm.
The following day the landlord assigned her complaint for investigation. However, this was almost 4 months after the landlord had acknowledged it had escalated it and it should not have taken the resident’s disclosure to cause the landlord to progress her complaint.
The resident made another complaint about her front door on 20 June 2022. This complaint was about the second new door being difficult to use, an issue that had only arisen from the work done to resolve the resident’s original complaint. The landlord could have included this issue in its stage 2 investigation of the resident’s original complaint.
The landlord gave its stage 1 response to the second complaint on the same day that it had logged it. It’s response repeated the advice that it had already given that no repair was needed and the resident needed to get an OT assessment. This suggests that the landlord had not spent much time investigating the complaint before responding, had not considered the historical issues with the door or that the existing complaint was still open. The landlord’s handling of the second complaint was inappropriate.
The landlord’s stage 2 response of 20 July 2022 to the resident’s original complaint said that it had escalated her complaint on 14 September 2021. This date was not reflected in the landlord’s records and it did not acknowledge the resident’s escalation until 28 February 2022. This is another example of inadequate knowledge and information management on the landlord’s part.
The stage 2 response did not adequately respond to the issues that the resident was complaining about. For example, the response said that the initial door replacement had been delayed by the need for an asbestos test. The landlord did not explain why a test had not been arranged when the door replacement had been scheduled. It also referred to the landlord not being able to review matters over 6 months old but did not explain which matters had been excluded from its investigation.
The stage 2 response also repeated the same advice that the resident needed to get an OT assessment for adaptations to her door as the landlord had given in its response to her second complaint.
It was reasonable that the landlord considered the full period that the resident had been having problems with her front door when considering its revised compensation offer. This included the time that had elapsed since its last offer on 10 December 2021 and the ongoing issues with the door and its delay in responding to her complaint at stage 2.
It increased its offer again on 27 July 2022 increasing the amounts it had offered for distress and inconvenience and including an amount for service failure. It was reasonable that the landlord sought to reach a compensation amount that the resident felt was fair and reasonable. However, the landlord should also have done more to resolve the issues being complained about.
Overall, it took the landlord over 18 months (from 11 January 2021 to 20 July 2022) to complete its complaint process with the resident’s original complaint. The landlord did not meet the requirements of its complaints policies and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in respect of timescales. Nor did its complaint process put things right for the resident because the issues with the second front door remain unresolved to date.
The landlord sent us its evidence for this investigation on 11 January 2024. It included its case records for the complaints made by the resident on 6 April 2023 and 6 September 2023. However, there was no evidence that the landlord had responded to either of those complaints. This means that the landlord has not demonstrated that it complied with the requirements of its policy or the Code in its handling of those complaints.
The failings amount to maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints about her front door.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of problems with her front door.
2. Associated complaints.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide evidence that it has paid the resident total compensation of £1,800. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. It is comprised of:
1. £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports about her front door from August 2022.
2. £800 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s complaints.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide evidence that it has replaced the resident’s front door. It must have due regard to its obligations under the Equality Act 2010 in installing a door which is suitable for the resident’s needs and which she is able to lock and unlock without needing assistance. The landlord should also have regard to the recommended adaptation to install a door entry system and ensure the new door is compatible with such a system. The landlord should seek advice from the resident’s OT if needed.
The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
1. Supports the resident with her concerns about her ex partner accessing her home. The landlord should help the resident to have a target hardening assessment to identify how her home security can be increased.
2. Amends its repairs and vulnerable resident’s policies when they are next reviewed to explain how the landlord will meet its obligations under the Equality Act 2010.