London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202207520)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207520

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

4 January 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:
1. External window cleaning and the associated service charges.
2. The resident’s concerns about the fire alarm system and procedure.
3. The resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a joint leaseholder with his partner. For ease of reading, both are referred to as the resident in this report. The landlord is a housing association, which has a headlease for the block and manages the block, although is not the freeholder. The property is a 2-bedroom, 8th floor flat.
Under the lease, the resident covenants, or agrees, to pay a service charge for services provided by the landlord. The lease does not specify which services the landlord is to provide.
The landlord has an estate management policy which says it will inspect its estates once a month, which will include checking that windows are “visibly clean”. The landlord has told this Service that it does not have a separate policy for window cleaning.
The landlord’s fire safety policy says it will provide and maintain active fire protection within blocks it owns or manages, including fire alarms. The policy says fires or fire alarm activations should be reported to the landlord’s health and safety team using an internal form; from context this applies to the landlord’s staff only. The landlord will investigate the cause of alarm activations to allow it to make improvements, such as relocating detectors, or giving advice to occupants.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Under its complaints policy it defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of actions by [the organisation], its own staff, or those acting on its behalf.” The landlord will try to resolve complaints “there and then” but, if it cannot, it will acknowledge the complaint within one working day. It will then respond within 10 working days to explain the outcome, how it will resolve the complaint and the timescale for this. If the resident is dissatisfied, they can ask for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2. An independent member of the landlord’s staff will review the complaint and provide a response within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out when it will consider paying compensation to a resident. Payments can be made as consolatory or goodwill gestures for inconvenience, distress and the time and trouble in making a complaint. A set £10 compensation is payable for failure to respond or to respond within complaint timeframes.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out how a landlord should respond to complaints. Under paragraph 5.1 a landlord should respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days and should address all elements of the resident’s complaint within its response (paragraph 5.8). The landlord should escalate the complaint if asked to do so by the resident (paragraph 5.10) and should respond within 20 working days (paragraph 5.13).

Summary of events

The resident’s lease started in October 2020. On 6 May 2021 the resident called the landlord to complain that the windows had not been cleaned since he had moved in, despite him paying a service charge for this. He said he wanted a refund of his service charge.
The landlord provided its response the following day by email. It did not treat the matter as a complaint but as a request for information. It explained how the resident’s variable service charge worked. It said if it had no invoices for window cleaning within the financial year, it would add a credit to the resident’s service charge account once reconciled. It also said it would provide a further response about the failure to deliver the window cleaning service.
On 18 May 2021 the landlord emailed its contractor to arrange a quote for window cleaning. The contractor provided its quote to the landlord, to clean the communal windows, on 27 May 2021.
The landlord’s records state that the fire alarm in the block activated on 16 June 2021, which caused the communal lifts, heating, and hot water systems to stop operating as per their design. The facilities were not restored until the following day.
Between 24 June 2021 and 16 July 2021, the landlord and the contractor exchanged emails to arrange window cleaning. This was scheduled for 26 July 2021, but was later rescheduled by the contractor for 31 July 2021. The cleaning of the communal windows took place on that date.
On 8 August 2021 the landlord emailed the resident to answer questions he had asked following a residents’ meeting on 29 June 2021. In relation to window cleaning the landlord said communal windows would be cleaned twice a year, with a clean to take place on 14 July 2021. By the time the landlord sent the email that date had passed, and cleaning did not take place on that date. Regarding the fire alarm activation on 16 June 2021, it said a meeting had been held to make the out of hours process more “robust” so that the response time “will be dramatically decreased.” On 9 August 2021 the landlord’s records state that the fire alarm was activated again.
The resident responded to a survey carried out by the landlord on 9 December 2021. He said that cleaning was “seriously substandard” and that the external windows had not been cleaned. He said that was an issue as his windows were non-opening.
On 14 March 2022 the resident completed the landlord’s online complaints form to make a stage 1 complaint (the first complaint). The complaint was about the landlord not having cleaned the private and communal windows twice a year as stated within the service charge. He said the windows were dirty and could not be reached from inside to clean.
The landlord emailed the resident the same day to acknowledge the complaint, but included incorrect details from a different resident’s complaint, within its email. The resident replied and pointed this out to the landlord. The landlord also emailed its contractor on 14 March 2022 to arrange a quote for it to clean all the windows for the block. The contractor provided the quote on 16 March 2022.
On 1 April 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to say that he had not received a response to correctly acknowledge his complaint or a response to his complaint. The landlord’s records state that it responded to the first complaint on 24 March 2022, but the landlord has not provided a copy of its response to this Service. The landlord’s notes state that the response said that it had been working to arrange cleaning of all external windows for the block. The contractor emailed the landlord on 5 July 2022 and 8 July 2022 to ask if it wanted to go ahead with the window cleaning it quoted for.
On 10 July 2022 into 11 July 2022 the landlord’s records show the fire alarm activated. This led to the communal lifts, heating and hot water being turned off as per their design. The records say that the fire brigade was not able to reset the alarm.
The resident used the landlord’s online complaints form to make a further stage 1 complaint on 11 July 2022 (the second complaint). He also called the landlord to provide more information. His complaint was about:
1. The fire alarm being activated and left alarming all night, which meant no lifts, heating or hot water were available.
2. He had called the landlord but it did not know what to do and told him to call the fire brigade, who were unable to reset the alarm. He called the landlord again and was told someone would attend, but the 4-hour response time passed without anyone coming.
3. The fire alarm having been activated 10 times since he moved in 18 months before. The fire alarm buttons were installed near the entrance doors and were only covered by a plastic flap which could be easily lifted, making it easy for someone to activate the fire alarm.
4. Wanting the alarm button to be changed to a break-glass type to make it harder to activate the alarm by mistake. He also wanted the landlord to have a process in place for when the alarm was activated.
The landlord emailed the same day to acknowledge the second complaint. On 20 July 2022 it provided its stage 1 response by email, when it stated that:
1. The fire alarm had been activated on 10 July 2022 by “misuse” of a fire alarm button. This caused the gas supply to be turned off and the lifts to stop working.
2. It had raised an order for a contractor to attend within 4 hours but the contractor did not, and it apologised for this.
3. There is a stay put policy in place when the fire alarm is activated. Residents are to call the landlord, which should attend within 4 hours to check the alarm system and reset it. It also must check whether it is safe to turn the gas supply back on to restore communal heating and hot water.
4. The resident could escalate his complaint if he was not satisfied with the response.
On 22 July 2022 the resident emailed the landlord and asked to escalate his complaint. He said the landlord had set out what had happened but did not provide a resolution to his complaint.
The resident contacted this Service for assistance and, on 3 August 2022, the Ombudsman emailed the landlord to ask it to provide its complaint response. In an internal email the following day the landlord said it had failed to action the stage 2 request. It then emailed this Service and said it would escalate both of the resident’s complaints to stage 2. The Ombudsman emailed the landlord again on 12 September 2022 to ask for a stage 2 response. The landlord emailed the resident the same day to acknowledge the stage 2 complaint.
On 20 September 2022 the landlord provided its stage 2 response letter to the resident by email. In its response it:
1. Apologised for the delay in escalating the complaint and said this was due to “a backlog”.
2. Said in relation to the first complaint regarding window cleaning:
  1. It apologised for sending incorrect information to the resident on 14 March 2022.
  2. The last window cleaning was arranged for July 2021 but the contractor only partially completed the works and did not return to complete the clean. Since that time, it had been trying to arrange for the contractor to clean all windows for the block.
  3. The delay had been due to “contractor availability, capacity and this included the ongoing impact from the covid period…[and] a backlog of works”.
  4. No service charge had been applied for window cleaning. There was an estimated cost for the current financial year which would be reconciled at the end of the year and a credit would be applied if due.
3. In relation to the second complaint regarding the fire alarm:
  1. Repeated its stage 1 response on what had happened following the fire alarm activation on 10 July 2022 and that this caused the lifts and gas supply to be automatically turned off.
  2. Repeated its stage 1 response on what to do if the fire alarm is activated. It included telephone numbers the resident could call and apologised that it had not included this in its stage 1 response. It also apologised that it took longer than 4 hours to restore the lifts, heating, and hot water on that occasion.
4. Offered £300 compensation (£50 for inconvenience and distress for both complaints, £50 for delay in escalating to stage 2, and £200 for lack of communication and incorrect information having been given at stage 1 of both complaints). The landlord raised a cheque the same day for the resident.
5. Gave details on how to contact this Service if the resident remained dissatisfied.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

The landlord wrote to all residents of the block on 11 October 2022 to say that window cleaning had been scheduled for 1 November 2022.
On 16 October 2022 the fire alarm activated, causing the lifts, heating, and hot water to stop. The resident called the landlord on 26 October 2022 about the fire alarm and asked for a call back. The landlord sent an internal email to say it had contacted the resident and arranged to meet at the block the following week to discuss his concerns. The landlord said the “fire contractor will be on 4-hour emergency call out notice…In relation to any false alarms, [it was] working…to add an extra layer of protection with a cover of the emergency exit points”. On 3 November 2022 the landlord raised a job for its contractor to investigate whether the fire alarm buttons could be moved and fitted with better covers. The fire alarm activated again the following day.
The window cleaning did not take place on 1 November 2022 as per the landlord’s letter. The landlord and the contractor exchanged emails between 15 November 2022 and 16 November 2022 to agree a date for the windows to be cleaned. This was scheduled for 25 November 2022.
On 29 November 2022 the resident completed the landlord’s online complaints form to make a new complaint. He said the fire alarm had activated and been alarming for 5 hours. Once it stopped, heating and hot water had not been restored, and the manual the landlord’s staff had contained incorrect information about this.
The landlord raised a job for its contractor to relocate the fire alarm buttons in the block and fit them with better covers on 5 December 2022. The same day it also exchanged emails with its contractor which did not clean the windows on 25 November 2022. It rescheduled the clean of all external windows for the block for 6 December 2022, when it ultimately took place.
The resident has told this Service that the fire alarm buttons were relocated and covered in mid-2023 and that this has made a significant impact with no false alarm activations having taken place since. However, he is still concerned that if the alarm is activated not all the landlord’s staff know the procedure that an engineer must attend to turn the gas back on after the alarm is reset. He also said, in the past when calling the landlord’s out of hours call centre, it did not know the procedure for the block. The resident has also told the Ombudsman that no window cleaning was carried out in 2023 and he has made further complaints to the landlord about this. He said the landlord told him it did not have a contractor to carry out the cleaning.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of external window cleaning and the associated service charges

Although not stated in the resident’s lease, the landlord accepted that it was responsible for window cleaning. It did this by obtaining quotes and instructing its contractor to clean the windows. It also said in an email to the resident on 8 August 2021 that it would clean the windows twice a year. The landlord’s estate management policy also said that checking windows were clean was part of the checks it was meant to carry out.
When the resident first raised the issue on 6 May 2021 the landlord explained how the variable service charge worked and that if it did not provide the service, it would credit the resident’s account for the service charge paid, which was the correct approach. The landlord did then obtain a quote and arrange for window cleaning, which happened on 31 July 2021. However, the landlord failed to request a quote for all windows to be cleaned and so the resident’s windows remained uncleaned. The landlord also gave incorrect information to the resident about the window cleaning on 8 August 2021, which was a failing.
The resident raised the issue again on 9 December 2021, but the landlord failed to act. This led to the resident’s first complaint being made on 14 March 2022. Positively, the landlord did then request and received a quote to clean all windows within 2 days. However, it failed to agree the works and so the contractor had to chase the landlord twice in July 2022. The landlord could and should have agreed the works sooner.
In its stage 2 response of 20 September 2022, the landlord incorrectly said that the contractor only partially completed the window cleaning in July 2021 and failed to re-attend. The contractor had carried out the works quoted for, and it was the landlord’s error in not specifying that all windows needed to be quoted for. It also incorrectly said it had been trying to arrange window cleaning since that time. In fact, the landlord had only asked for a quote following the resident’s complaint on 14 March 2022 and it then failed to accept the quote or arrange the works. It blamed the delay on the contractor but again this was not true as the delay was caused by the landlord’s inaction. The landlord’s stage 2 response on this issue was false and misleading. There is no evidence the landlord agreed the quote or tried to arrange a date for window cleaning until November 2022 and that was a failing.
The landlord confirmed through telling the resident, and its actions, that it was responsible for window cleaning as part of the services it provided. It said the windows would be cleaned twice a year, but it failed to do this. In its stage 2 response it offered compensation for both complaint elements equally, meaning it offered £125 compensation for inconvenience and distress, lack of communication and incorrect information.
In relation to the failures identified, 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, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The landlord did not provide the agreed window cleaning service. It gave misleading and incorrect information in its stage 2 complaint response and had the opportunity to resolve the issue much more quickly than it did. It did not show it wanted to put things right or that it had learnt from the complaint, as it did not explain how it would ensure the windows were cleaned twice a year going forwards.
There was maladministration, which caused frustration, inconvenience, time and trouble to the resident. He had described his windows as filthy, and he had no physical way to clean them as they do not open and he lives on the 8th floor. To reflect the impact this had on the resident, an order has been made that the landlord pay further compensation of £400.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the fire alarm system and procedure

The resident raised the issue of the fire alarm procedure at a residents’ meeting in June 2021, although the landlord did not provide a response to his concerns until 8 August 2021 when it said it would improve its response times. However, in its response to the resident’s second complaint it accepted that its contractors had failed to attend within its stated timeframe when the fire alarm activated on 10 July 2022. It failed to explain why or say how it would prevent such a failure from reoccurring.
In its stage 2 response it repeated its stage 1 response to this element of the complaint. The landlord did not say how it was going to improve the situation, try to prevent further false fire alarm activations or improve its response time in resetting the alarm and restoring the facilities. This is despite its fire safety policy stating that it would investigate and learn from reported fire alarm activations and that was a failing. The landlord had investigated the activation but had failed to follow its policy to prevent further false activations.
Only after the end of the landlord’s complaints process, following further fire alarm activations, and with the resident’s perseverance in raising the issue, did the landlord agree to consider what it could do to remedy the situation. It finally took action by raising a job to relocate and better cover the fire alarm buttons in December 2022. This was nearly 18 months after the resident first raised the issue which was an unreasonable delay in trying to solve the problem. In addition, on 29 November 2022, the resident reported that the landlord’s staff had incorrect information about the fire alarm procedure and restoring the facilities.
In its stage 2 response it offered compensation for both complaint elements equally, meaning it offered £125 compensation for inconvenience and distress, lack of communication and incorrect information in relation to the resident’s concerns about the fire alarms. The Ombudsman has considered whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily and there was maladministration.
The landlord was slow to act on an issue of great importance. The frequency of false alarms was causing distress to the resident, concerns over what would happen if there was a real fire, and the inconvenience of not having lift access to the 8th floor, heating, or hot water for long periods of time. While stating the fire alarm procedure within its complaint responses, it is not clear all the landlord’s staff knew the procedure for the block or acted upon it, which caused further delays in restoring the facilities. The landlord had not demonstrated that it had learnt from the outcome of the complaint or that it wanted to put things right. To reflect the impact on the resident an order has been made that the landlord pay a further £400 compensation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord’s complaints policy definition of a compliant is compliant with the Code. However, when the resident expressed dissatisfaction about the lack of window cleaning on 6 May 2021 the landlord failed to treat this as a stage 1 complaint, which it should have. It treated it as an enquiry and said it would contact him further about the window cleaning, which it then also failed to do. The resident expressed dissatisfaction again about the lack of window cleaning on 9 December 2021 and again the landlord failed to raise this as a complaint, which it should have.
When the resident raised the first complaint on 14 March 2022 the landlord did acknowledge it within its policy timeframe of 1 working day, but with incorrect complaint information, which was a failing. The resident pointed this out to the landlord immediately, and it then failed to respond or provide a correct acknowledgement. On 1 April 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to say he had not received a response; but, the landlord’s records say it sent a response on 24 March 2022. As the landlord has not provided a copy of its response to this Service the Ombudsman cannot say whether this was sent or not.
The landlord correctly acknowledged the second complaint the day it was made in line with its policy. It provided its response on 20 July 2022, which was within its 10-working day timeframe, however it failed to fully address the complaint as required under paragraph 5.8 of the Code. It recounted what had happened, but did not say how it would resolve the situation or prevent future issues with the fire alarm, which was a failing.
The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 22 July 2022 but the landlord failed to acknowledge this. Once the Ombudsman contacted the landlord, on 3 August 2022, it accepted in an internal email the following day that it had failed to escalate the complaint. However, the Ombudsman had to chase the landlord again on 12 September 2022 for its stage 2 response.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response 41 working days after the resident’s request to escalate, which was an unreasonable delay against its 20-working day timeframe and a breach of paragraph 5.13 of the Code. While it did apologise for this its reason of it having a backlog did not excuse this. It offered £50 compensation for the delay.
Having considered the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles and our guidance on remedies, there was maladministration without redress. The landlord’s offer did not compensate the resident for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its complaints handling failures. The landlord did not act fairly, put things right or show that it had learnt from outcomes. An order has been made that the landlord pay additional compensation of £400 to the resident to reflect the impact on him.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of:
1. External window cleaning and the associated service charges.
2. The resident’s concerns about the fire alarm system and procedure.
3. The resident’s complaint.

Reasons

There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the window cleaning as the landlord did not provide window cleaning twice a year as it said it would. It gave incorrect and misleading information to the resident and failed to act within a reasonable time to resolve the issue. It also failed to say how it had learnt from the complaint.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the fire alarm system and procedure as it took an unreasonable amount of time before it took action to try to prevent false alarm activations. It told the resident the fire alarm procedure, but it appears not all its staff knew the procedure for the block, which led to incorrect information being given and further delays in restoring the facilities.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint as it failed to raise a stage 1 complaint on 2 occasions when the resident expressed dissatisfaction. It did not evidence that it responded to the first complaint and its stage 1 response to the second complaint failed to fully address the issues raised. It delayed in escalating the complaint and providing a stage 2 response.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident from a senior member of the landlord’s staff for the failures detailed in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident further compensation of £1,200 made up of:
  1. £400 to reflect the impact on the resident of its failing in handling the window cleaning.
  2. £400 to reflect the impact on the resident of its failures in addressing his concerns about the fire alarm system and procedure.
  3. £400 to reflect the impact on the resident of its complaints handling failures.
3. Produce a written fire alarm activation procedure document for the block; display this within the block and provide a copy (on paper or electronically) to its call centre and out of hours call centre staff. The landlord is to ensure that all staff are aware of the need to attend fire alarm activations within 4 hours, including an engineer to check and if safe recommence the gas supply to restore communal heating and hot water.
4. Draw up a plan to carry out window cleaning to all external windows for the block twice a year, including approximate months for the cleans, and display a copy within the block or provide a copy to every resident of the block, and to this Service.
5. Confirm compliance with these orders to this Service.