London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202213796)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213796

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

15 February 2023

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report about dog fouling in front of her property.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The resident’s property is situated in a block of flats.
  2. On 28 March 2022, the resident raised a complaint as she had found dog excrement on the doormat outside of her property. She later added that she believed it had been done purposefully due to her previous reports of dogs barking in 2021. She was also concerned about the potential impact on her health due to bacteria.
  3. In the landlord’s stage one response on 4 April 2022, it apologised for the distress which had been caused by the incident. It stated that it did not know who the perpetrator was, but would write a letter to all tenants in the block regarding animal fouling in communal areas.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 6 April 2022. She said it did not make sense to write to all tenants when not everyone had pets, which she said the landlord should know given that tenants had to ask for permission to keep pets. She stated that an apology was not enough for the incident which had occurred. Following this, the landlord made several attempts to speak to the resident about her complaint.
  5. On 6 July 2022 the landlord offered the resident £20 to replace the doormat. It stated that the doormat should be placed inside the resident’s home, rather than in the communal area outside of the property. The resident declined the offer and asked for her complaint to be escalated.
  6. The landlord provided its stage two response on 6 September 2022. It stated that the resident had told it not to communicate with other tenants about the incident. It apologised for the delay in its complaint handling at stage two, and stated this was due to a backlog of complaints. It upheld its stage one response, but increased its compensation offer. It stated that £20 would be provided as a cheque to replace the resident’s doormat, and £60 for the delay in its complaint handling at stage two, which would go towards the resident’s arrears. In addition, it provided the resident with a point of contact if she had any further issues with communal areas in the building.
  7. Following this, the resident escalated her complaint to this Service. She was dissatisfied that she was told her doormat should be placed inside her property, and believed it was discrimination. In addition, she was unhappy that the landlord applied the compensation to the arrears on her account, and wanted a statement to show the compensation had been correctly applied. She was seeking further compensation for being told she cannot have a doormat outside of her property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. After receiving the landlord’s stage two response, the resident stated that she was dissatisfied that she was not permitted to keep a doormat outside of her property in the communal area. No evidence has been provided to show that the resident raised this matter as part of her stage two complaint and the landlord did not address this matter in its complaint responses. Therefore, this is not a matter that this Service can adjudicate on at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to the resident first. It is therefore recommended that the landlord raises a new complaint about this matter and responds in accordance with its complaints procedure.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report about dog fouling

  1. The landlord’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy confirms that reports about dog fouling will be treated as ASB. It also confirms that the landlord will use whatever powers and remedies are available and appropriate, and will take prompt action to prevent the problem from escalating, for example the use of warning letters and mediation.
  2. The landlord did not have evidence of who the perpetrator was but nevertheless attempted to take action in line with its ASB policy as it stated that it would write a letter to all tenants about dog fouling in the communal area. The resident queried whether it was appropriate for the landlord to write to all tenants in the block and in response, the landlord attempted to contact the resident to discuss the matter further. The landlord stated in its stage two response that the resident had asked for the letter not to be sent out. Overall, the landlord provided a reasonable response to the resident’s report about dog fouling as it was limited in the action it could take in order to resolve the situation. This is because there was no evidence to confirm who the perpetrator was and no further incidents had occurred.
  3. The ASB policy states that if the landlord is unable to take action following a report, it will point residents towards agencies or information which may be able to offer advice and support. This is evidenced when the landlord provided the resident with a direct point of contact for any future issues she experienced within the communal area of the property. In addition, it provided the resident with information on how she could deal with future dog-nuisance concerns such as; calling the police if a dog was off the lead and she felt at risk, or by reporting noise nuisance to the local authority.
  4. Furthermore, the landlord was under no obligation to compensate the resident for the doormat as a third party was responsible for the damage caused. Therefore, it exceeded its obligations in offering to do so. This also demonstrates that the landlord understood how the incident had impacted the resident and that it tried to minimise the distress and inconvenience caused to her.
  5. In addition to her reports, the resident was concerned that tenants were keeping dogs in neighbouring flats due to her understanding of the landlord’s pet policy. The landlord informed the resident that the pet policy had been updated in August 2021 and that tenants were allowed to keep pets but must seek permission from it first. It acted appropriately by providing the resident with a copy of this policy when she raised her concerns. The landlord is entitled to update its policies and it appropriately considered the resident’s reports in line with the new guidance, which had been updated prior to receiving the report about dog fouling.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that a stage one response should be sent within 10 working days and a stage two response should be sent within 20 working days. This Service’s Complaint Handling Code sets out our expectations for a landlord’s complaint handling. It states that if a landlord is not able to respond to a complaint within the appropriate timeframe, it should provide the resident with an explanation and the date by which the response will be received.
  2. The landlord responded promptly to the resident’s initial complaint raised on 28 March 2022, as it provided a stage one response on 4 April 2022. This was provided within six working days, and was therefore in line with the landlord’s complaints policy. However, it would have been more appropriate for the landlord to have treated the complaint as a service request as this was the first time the resident had reported dog fouling outside her front door, and she had not complained about the landlord’s service delivery.
  3. Following this, the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 6 April 2022. In response, the landlord stated that it wished to speak to the resident before escalating the complaint and agreed it would call her the week commencing 18 April 2022. There is no evidence the landlord called the resident as promised and it next called her about her complaint in early June but was unable to get through to her. Therefore, there was an unreasonable delay in the landlord progressing the complaint. The landlord made further attempts to contact the resident and on 12 July 2022 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint.
  4. The landlord subsequently issued its stage two response on 6 September 2022, significantly exceeding the target timescale of 20 working days. It is acknowledged that the landlord informed the resident this was due to a backlog of complaints. However, in such a situation, the landlord would be expected to appropriately manage the resident’s expectations by providing a holding response with the date it did expect to reply by, as set out in the Complaint Handling Code. In this case, it is clear that this did not happen.
  5. The landlord acknowledged that the delay was inconvenient and provided compensation in view of this. However, it did not identify the unnecessary delay in progressing the complaint between April and June 2022. The remedies guidance provided by this Service recommends compensation of £50 to £100 in cases where there is a minor failure in the landlord’s service delivery and the landlord did not fully put the failure right. It is therefore the opinion of this Service that compensation of £100 would provide adequate redress for the failings outlined above. This is inclusive of the £60 previously offered.
  6. The resident is dissatisfied that the landlord intended to offset the £60 compensation it offered against the arrears on her rent account and has said that when the landlord did this previously, the compensation had never been credited. The landlord’s position on this matter was in line with its compensation policy which states that where customers have rent arrears, it will offset a compensation award against this debt (except reimbursements for out of pocket expenses). Accordingly, there are no grounds to criticise the landlord’s approach in this case but it should be noted that compensation awarded by this Service should not be offset against arrears. Therefore, the compensation ordered as a result of this investigation should be paid directly to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s report about dog fouling in front of her property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in the way it handled the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation in view of its complaint handling failures. This is inclusive of the £60 compensation previously offered, if it has not yet been paid. This should be paid within four weeks of the date of this report.
  2. It is the Ombudsman’s position that compensation awarded by this Service should be treated separately from any financial arrangements between the landlord and the resident and should not be offset against any arrears.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord does the following within the next four weeks:
    1. Opens a new complaint to address the resident’s concerns about not being allowed to have a doormat outside of her property.
    2. Provides the resident with the £20 cheque to replace her doormat, if it has not already done so.
    3. Provides staff training about the importance of keeping clear records for complaints and effectively managing any escalation requests.