London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202212849)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212849

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

28 February 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 complaint concerning its handling of her bathroom repairs, and its offer of compensation.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy that began on 2 December 2011. The property is a 1 bedroom third floor flat.
The resident had described her specific needs that meant she was unable to wash at a basin, and considered a shower to be essential. The landlord advised that it had no vulnerabilities on the resident’s record.

Rehousing policy

The landlord’s policy explained the expenses that residents may be eligible to claim where hotel accommodation had been approved for temporary rehousing. It said that a meal allowance of up to £10 per day could be claimed where receipts were provided.

Complaint policy

The landlord’s policy stated that it operated a 2 stage process. It said that it would aim to provide a full response to complaints with 10 and 20 working days, at stages 1 and 2 respectively.
The policy said that where the landlord was unable to meet those timescales, it would explain the reasons why to the resident, and write to them again within a further 10 working days.

Summary of events

In November 2021 the resident reported to the landlord that her bathroom tiles, and bath were coming away from the wall, and causing a leak. On 9 November 2021 the landlord raised unspecified bathroom works.
On 6 and 17 December 2021 the resident chased the landlord for progress on her bathroom works, and expressed her concern that her bath was not secure. The landlord’s record stated that it had chased its contractor to complete the works as soon as possible.
On 3 January 2022 the resident reported to the landlord’s out of hours service that a tile had fallen onto her foot while she was showering. She said that an emergency repair was attended within 4 hours, and that the operative had advised her that she should not use the bath. She said that she had explained to the operative the reasons she was unable to wash using only her basin. She said that she later received a text message advising of a repairs appointment for the following day, but that no one called or attended for it.
On 7 January 2022 the landlord’s internal email to its maintenance team stated that follow on works to replace the resident’s bath and floor were booked for 24 February 2022. It said that it had advised the resident that in the meantime she would need to wash at the basin, but that she had stated that her specific needs made that impossible. It asked if the works could be brought forward.
On 15 February 2022 the landlord’s internal email to its maintenance team referred to its conversation with the resident, and queried the status of her bathroom works. It said that the works had been chased on 18 January, and that someone had promised the resident an update the previous week, but that she had heard nothing further.
On 23 February 2022 the landlord’s internal email queried why the resident’s follow on bathroom works had been cancelled on 21 January 2022. It stated that the resident’s understanding was that the works were still booked for the following day. The landlord called the resident the following day, and rebooked her bathroom works for 15 March 2022.
On 25 March 2022 the resident made her complaint to the landlord. The key points were as follows:
1. She said that she had chased the landlord for updates regarding her bathroom works, and was repeatedly told that they were booked for 24 February 2022.
2. She said that, after the works were further delayed, a carpenter had attended on 15 March 2022, but that the plumber who was due to attend on 18 March 2022 did not turn up.
3. She said that the plumber turned up unexpectedly on 25 March 2022, but that she had been in a work call, and was unable to let him in.
4. She explained again the reasons she could not use the basin to wash, and how her lack of facilities, and the time she was having to take off work, was impacting her physical and mental health.
On 25 March 2022 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint, and agreed to call her to discuss it on 30 March 2022.
On 6 and 14 April 2022 the resident told the landlord that there had been no progression of her bathroom works, and that she had had no further contact from it.
On 4 May 2022 the resident chased the landlord for an update, and was advised that her bathroom works were booked to begin on 26 May 2022.
On 26 May 2022 the resident told the landlord that its contractor had advised that her bathroom floor needed to be taken up, and the water supply isolated. She said that the work was not scheduled to restart before 6 June 2022, and that she could not stay in the property without washing or toilet facilities. The following day the landlord arranged a hotel, which the resident moved into.
On 29 May 2022 the resident told the landlord that the hotel bed was giving her severe back ache, and that she could not remain there. The following day the landlord arranged a ‘service apartment’ for the resident but on arrival the resident realised that she would not be able to manage the stairs to it. The resident said that she made various unsuccessful attempts to contact the landlord, and returned home.
On 2 June 2022 the resident said that having made further unsuccessful attempts to contact the landlord, she arranged her own hotel room.
On 20 June 2022 the resident called the landlord to chase a response to her complaint. She spoke to the landlord’s investigating officer, who apologised that no one had advised the resident that they had been on leave. Later the same day the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident, which advised that it had upheld her complaint. It said that the resident’s bathroom works were due to finish that week, and apologised for the delays the resident had experienced. It offered £400 compensation for the distress and inconvenience, and asked that the resident confirm her acceptance.
On 28 July 2022 the landlord told the resident that it had not heard from her, and repeated its £400 offer of compensation. It accepted again that its repairs service had not been acceptable. It advised that the resident’s complaint had been closed, but advised how she could escalate it if she remained dissatisfied.
On 4 August 2022 the resident told the landlord that the delay in her responding was due to the impact of the “accommodation stress” that she had experienced. She said that she was having difficulty responding to emails, as her laptop had been water damaged during the period of moving back and forth. The landlord asked the resident to confirm her acceptance of its compensation, and provided contact details for its insurance team.
On 12 August 2022 the resident told the landlord about the physical and mental distress and injuries that she had suffered from the start of January 2022 until her bathroom works were completed. She detailed her experiences of the landlord’s repairs service, and the difficulties she had with the alternative accommodation that the landlord had booked for her. She explained how the issues had lost her pay and holiday. She asked that the landlord reconsider its offer to her. The landlord advised the resident of the reasons any claims for damages or personal injury would need to be made via its insurance team. It reiterated that its compensation offer covered the inconvenience and delays the resident had experienced.
On 20 September 2022 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its process, and repeated the points from her 12 August 2022 email.
On 23 November 2022 the resident highlighted to the landlord that it had been over 2 months since she had asked for her complaint to be escalated, but that she not had any further response.
On 28 November 2022 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint. It said that it would call the resident to discuss her complaint, and issue its final response by 23 December 2022.
On 5 December 2022 the resident told the landlord that it had recently refused to reimburse her hotel costs, which she wanted added to her complaint.
On 23 December 2022 the landlord issued the resident its stage 2 complaint response. Its key points were as follows:
1. It said that, further to the resident’s email on 5 December 2022, it had liaised with its property manager about the resident’s expenses claim.
2. It summarised what it had partially reimbursed the resident, the need for her to provide receipts, and what remained in dispute. It said that the outstanding payments would be reviewed when its relevant manager returned from leave.
3. It apologised for the standard of service the resident had received. It stated that it had upheld its £400 stage 1 offer of compensation for service delivery failure. It offered an additional £120 compensation, broken down as follows:
  1. £40 – poor communication;
  2. £50 – 3 month delay in issuing its stage 1 response;
  3. £30 – time and effort.
4. It referred the resident to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.

Summary of events after the conclusion of the landlord’s complaint process

On 26 February 2023 the resident sent the landlord copies of her expenses receipts. The landlord queried some of the costs, explaining that it would only reimburse food costs within reason, but confirmed that it would fully reimburse the £977.40 that the resident had spent on her own hotel.
During February 2024 this Service asked the landlord how the resident’s claim for expenses, additional to the hotel cost, had concluded. The landlord provided copies of its internal emails and spreadsheet, which stated that the resident had claimed £681.62 in costs for what it said was the 1 month that she was decanted. The landlord’s emails stated that the resident’s claim included some large restaurant bills, and other costs beyond what it could agree to. Its internal email on 21 February 2024 asked that a £432.52 payment be made to the resident in settlement of her expenses claim.

Assessment and findings

Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether its subsequent actions and offer of redress were fair and proportionate in all the circumstances of the case. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account our Remedies Guidance, and whether the landlord acted in line with its own policies and the Dispute Resolution Principles; Be fair, Put things right, and Learn from outcomes.
The landlord readily accepted its repairs handling failings, and appropriately apologised to the resident. It also apologised for the delays at stage 1 of its complaint process, and offered the resident compensation.
Nevertheless, it is the view of the Ombudsman that the landlord’s offer of compensation was not proportionate to the additional impact its failings had with regard to the resident’s specific needs. The distress the resident experienced would also have been further compounded by the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
While the landlord apologised to the resident for its stage 1 complaint delays, it failed to demonstrate any learning, and its repeat of those delays at stage 2 would have caused further frustration to the resident. As such, the landlord did not act in line with its own policy, nor the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, and Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Ombudsman has therefore found maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling, and made an order of compensation.
Following the resident’s initial bathroom repair reports to the landlord in November 2021, she reported a related out of hours emergency on 3 January 2022, which the landlord attended within 4 hours. The landlord told this Service that it had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident, and some of the resident’s correspondence to the landlord suggested that that may have been in line with her wishes.
Nevertheless, from the landlord’s 3 January 2022 attendance to the resident’s property, it was aware that her bath was unusable. It was also aware from that time of the resident’s specific needs, which meant that she was unable to wash using only her basin. The landlord’s internal email on 7 January 2022 did acknowledge the resident’s situation, and it was appropriate that it asked if her bathroom works could be brought forward to reflect it.
However, it is unreasonable that the Ombudsman has seen no further evidence that the landlord considered the resident’s specific needs, and appropriately prioritised her works, which were not scheduled to begin until 24 February 2022. The resident chased the landlord for progress through this period, and its failure to provide her with timely updates would have caused her further distress.
The records provided by the landlord to this Service were not clear, but it appeared that later in January 2022, it had inadvertently cancelled the resident’s bathroom works arranged for 24 February 2022. It would have been distressing to the resident that the landlord did not make her aware of this until the day her works were due to begin, when it advised her that the works had been delayed until 15 March 2022.
The resident said that the landlord’s carpenter had attended her property on 15 March 2022, but that its plumber had then failed to turn up on 18 March 2022. She made her complaint to the landlord on 25 March 2022, and it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge, and agree to discuss it with her in a timely manner.
It was however unreasonable that the resident then received no further engagement from the landlord on her complaint, nor updates on her works, despite chasing it during April 2022. It was only after the resident further chased the landlord on 4 May 2022, that it advised that her bathroom works had been arranged for near the end of the month.
The landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property on 26 May 2022, and identified that more extensive works were needed than those instructed to it. It was appropriate for the landlord to book a hotel for the resident for the duration of the works, and to arrange a service apartment when the hotel proved to be unsuitable for her needs.
When the service apartment also proved to be unsuitable for the resident’s needs, the resident said that she had been unable to contact the landlord to report it, and so had booked her own hotel room. From the records provided to this Service, it appeared that the resident had tried to contact the specific member of the landlord’s staff who had arranged the accommodation, and was then on annual leave. It was unclear whether the resident had made other attempts to contact the landlord.
Either way, it was reasonable for the landlord to agree to reimburse the cost of the resident’s hotel in February 2023. It was unclear why the resident’s additional expenses claim was not progressed for a further 12 months. However, the landlord’s offer of £432.52 towards the resident’s claimed costs was over and above the allowance allowed for by its rehousing policy, and therefore reasonable.
The resident chased the landlord for a response to her complaint on 20 June 2022. The landlord apologised to the resident that it had not previously advised her that its investigating officer had been on annual leave, and it issued its stage 1 response the same day. However, the landlord’s explanation in no way addressed why its stage 1 response had taken 47 working days longer than the timeframe stated in either its policy, or the Code.
It was appropriate for the landlord’s stage 1 response to apologise that its repairs delays had been unacceptable, and to offer compensation (further considered below). It confirmed that the resident’s bathroom works were due to finish that week, around 24 weeks after they had been reported. However, the landlord’s response offered no explanation of why the resident had experienced such a lengthy delay, nor demonstrated any learning from it. As such its stage 1 response was neither reasonable, nor in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles.
During August 2022 the resident told the landlord why she did not consider its offer of compensation to be adequate. She also explained her physical pain, and the damage sustained by her laptop during the period she was staying at the hotel. It was appropriate for the landlord to explain the reasons why any claims for personal injury or damaged property would need to be made via its insurer, and to provide the resident with contact details.
However, the resident had clearly expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage 1 response. While the resident did not at that time specifically ask for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s process, it would be expected that the landlord would recognise and handle it as such. Its failure to do so was neither in line with the Code, nor reasonable.
The resident formally asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 on 20 September 2022. It is unreasonable that the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord acknowledged, nor otherwise progressed the resident’s request until after she had chased it 2 months later. The resident had experienced several months of distress and inconvenience from the repairs delays, which would have been further worsened by the landlord’s complaint handling failures. The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s escalation request until 28 November 2022, almost 10 weeks after she had made it.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident on 23 December 2022. As with its stage 1 response it did not dispute its repairs handling failures, and appropriately apologised. However, it was a failing that the landlord again offered little in the way of explanation or learning. Its response stated that it had upheld the £400 compensation offer made at stage 1 for its repairs service delivery failures. It offered a further £120 for what it said were its poor communications, the resident’s time and effort, and the delay at stage 1 of its complaint process.
The landlord’s stage 2 response referred to the resident’s contact on 20 September 2022. However, it did not acknowledge that that was when she had requested for her complaint to be escalated. It did apologise for general delays in its complaint handling, which it said had been caused by a backlog. Nonetheless, it was unreasonable that its compensation offer only considered its stage 1 delay, and did not reflect that it had taken 48 working days longer than the timeframe stated in either its policy, or the Code, to issue its stage 2 response.
As above, it is the view of the Ombudsman that the landlord’s offer of compensation was not proportionate to its service failings, nor their impact on the resident. The Ombudsman has therefore considered all the failings identified above against our Remedies Guidance. Our Remedies Guidance recognises the fact that ‘aggravating factors’ will make the emotional impact experienced by an individual resident unique to them. This was particularly relevant in this instance, as the landlord was aware that the resident’s specific needs meant that she could not properly wash using only a basin.
It is not disputed that the resident first reported the issues with her bathroom in November 2021. However, the earliest evidence the Ombudsman has seen that the landlord advised the resident that it was unsafe for her to use her bath, was from its out of hours attendance on 3 January 2022. The resident was left without the use of her bath or shower, so in effect without washing facilities, until she moved into a hotel 21 weeks later, on 27 May 2022.
The resident’s current rent is £631.15 per month, or £145.65 per week based on a 52 week year. The resident’s lack of washing facilities would have severely curtailed her use and enjoyment of her 1 bedroom property, and the resident had also described the impact on her employment and overall wellbeing.
In light of the maladministration identified, an amount of £764.66 compensation has been ordered to reflect the impact that the landlord’s delays had on the resident’s use and enjoyment of her home (i.e. loss of amenities), being 25% of the resident’s rental liability, for the 21 weeks she was without washing facilities as a result of the unreasonable delays detailed in this report.
This amount is in addition to £450 awarded for the time, trouble and inconvenience the resident experienced from the significant delays in the landlord’s complaint handling. A total of £1214.66 compensation is therefore ordered, inclusive of the landlord’s offer of £520.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint concerning its handling of her bathroom repairs, and its offer of compensation.

Reasons

The landlord did not dispute the failings and delays in its repairs handling. However, the resident’s specific needs made those failings especially impactful, which was not reflected in its offer of compensation.
The landlord apologised, and offered compensation for the 47 working day delay at stage 1 of its complaint process. However, it then repeated this failing with a further 48 working day delay at stage 2, for which it offered no redress.
The Ombudsman published a report on 27 July 2023 detailing the findings of its special investigation of the landlord’s services. The report is available on our website, and made recommendations further to the landlord’s existing action plan. The Ombudsman’s report and recommendations included reference to the type of issues detailed above with regards to the landlord’s repairs and complaint handling. The landlord has subsequently updated the Ombudsman on its progress against the recommendations and action plan. As such, related orders and recommendations have not been repeated below.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that the landlord:
1. Writes to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pays the resident £1214.66 compensation, made up of:
  1. £764.66 for the impact its service failings and delays had on the resident’s use and enjoyment of her home (i.e. loss of amenities);
  2. £450 for the time, trouble and distress caused by the failings and delays identified in its complaint handling.
3. This amount is separate from the resident’s expenses claims, and replaces the landlord’s own compensation award totalling £520 (if that award was paid to the resident, it should be deducted from the £1214.66).
It is the Ombudsman’s position that compensation awarded by this Service should be treated separately from any existing financial arrangements between the landlord and resident and should not be offset against arrears where they exist.
The landlord should evidence compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.