London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202218260)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218260

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

26 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 

1. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of a leak in the resident’s property.
   2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a water tank in the loft leaking and his request for it to be replaced.
   3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident lives in a 1-bedroom flat and holds a secure tenancy with the landlord.
3. The resident contacted the landlord on 11 July 2022 about a leak from his property which was affecting his neighbour’s property.
4. On 5 September 2022 the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord. He advised that he had identified the source of the leak and was dissatisfied at the landlord’s repair service. He said he would complete the repair himself. The resident advised he was a builder and had completed several previous repairs in the building.
5. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 5 September 2022. It apologised that the resident was unhappy with its service and offered to raise a repair to rectify the leak. It explained that if the resident completed the repairs himself, he would be liable for future repairs. It recommended he allowed the landlord to complete the repair.
6. The resident escalated his complaint on 6 September 2022. He advised that he paid to complete previous repairs and did not want to pay for further repairs.
7. On 11 October 2022, the resident advised the landlord that he had stopped the leak in his property and completed repairs.
8. On 10 January and 15 January 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to add a new issue to his complaint. He advised that a water tank in the loft was weeping. He raised damp and mould repair issues in his neighbour’s property.
9. On 20 January 2023, the landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response. It said:
   1. It appreciated that the resident had assisted with the maintenance of his and neighbours’ properties but said that residents should raise their own repairs with the landlord.
   2. Following the resident’s contact, it arranged an appointment for a plumber to assess the water tank on 9 February 2023. It also said its neighbourhood housing lead and maintenance supervisor would attend on the same day to discuss any outstanding repair issues.
   3. The repair which the resident raised for his neighbour was cancelled as the neighbour would need to raise the matter themselves.
   4. It offered the resident £130 compensation comprised of £50 for delays at stage 2, £50 for time and effort to resolve the matter, and £30 to account for distress and inconvenience caused.
10. The landlord replaced the water tank in the loft on 16 May 2023.
11. The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman in 2023 and provided further information on 16 February 2024. He remains dissatisfied at the level of compensation and does not feel it is reflective of the distress and inconvenience incurred. He was dissatisfied at the time taken for the landlord to replace the water tank. To resolve the complaint, he wants a higher level of compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

12. Paragraph 42g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, “concern the terms and operation of commercial or contractual relationships not connected with the complainant’s application for, or occupation of, a property for residential purposes”. During the resident’s complaint, he raised issues about repairs in neighbour’s properties. As these matters did not directly affect the resident or his occupation of the property, the Ombudsman will not consider this as part of the investigation.
13. The resident reported issues with the water tank leaking into his property in 2021. However, this leak was responded to within a separate complaint by the landlord in September 2021. As this complaint was not referred to the Ombudsman, we will not consider the landlord’s response to this. However, the resident subsequently raised a new complaint about a further leak from the water tank in January 2023 which the landlord responded to within its final response. The Ombudsman will consider the landlord’s response to this report.

The landlord’s handling of a leak in the resident’s property.

14. The landlord’s repairs policy outlines that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior of the home, leaking pipework, and internal walls.
15. It aims to complete routine repairs at the earliest mutually convenient appointment with residents. Emergency repairs will be attended to within 24 hours, and out of hour emergency repairs will be attended to within 4 hours.
16. The resident reported a leak in his property on 11 July 2022. He advised that the leak was causing the electrics in the flat below to trip. The landlord logged the report as an emergency call out, but there is no evidence that the landlord attended to this. The repair was marked as cancelled with no further information recorded. The resident advised the Ombudsman that the landlord took no action until he followed up to raise a formal complaint on 5 September 2022. This lack of action would have caused considerable frustration to the resident.
17. The resident did not report damage to his property as a result of the leak. As such it is unclear what the effect on his property was. However, the landlord had a responsibility to assess the damage and extent of the leak within its published timescales and subsequently complete repairs. It is concerning that the landlord failed to respond to the emergency call out.
18. Further, the landlord did not communicate with the resident to provide an explanation for its lack of action, as the Ombudsman would expect it to do. The resident advised that this contributed towards him losing confidence in the landlord.
19. When the resident phoned the landlord on 5 September 2022, he advised that he had identified the source of the leak from a pipe and noted the water was entering his neighbour’s flat through the wall. Although the landlord should have taken action sooner, it was appropriate for it to offer a repair appointment during the call as the repair was the landlord’s responsibility. Records suggest that the leak was ongoing. However, the resident refused to allow the landlord to complete the works and said he would carry out the repairs himself. As such, the landlord cancelled the work order.
20. It was appropriate for the landlord to set the resident’s expectations when he advised he would complete repairs himself. During the phone call, it said that if he completed the repair himself, he would be liable for future repairs to the pipe. To avoid this happening, it re-offered in its stage 1 response to raise a repair to address the leak and asked for the resident to contact it as soon as possible. It was appropriate that the landlord attempted to engage with the resident to carry out the repair and resolve the leak.
21. The resident did not follow the matter up or ask the landlord to complete the work. In such circumstances, the landlord would not be expected to raise a further work order against the resident’s wishes. However, it was appropriate for the landlord to offer repair appointments and encourage him to accept these. The resident advised the landlord on 5 October 2022 that he had repaired the leak and the wall himself.
22. Overall, the landlord’s initial response to the reported leak fell short. It is noted that the resident did not report damage caused to his own property from the leak during his initial report. However, it was unacceptable that the landlord failed to take any action in response to the resident’s emergency call out on 11 July 2022. This would have caused inconvenience to the resident. Further, the landlord did not acknowledge this failing in its complaint responses.
23. Following 5 September 2022, the landlord took reasonable actions. It offered to book an appointment to address the repair on occasions. Further, the landlord set the resident’s expectations about his position if he decided to complete repairs which were not his responsibility. As the resident refused to allow the landlord to complete the repair, it was unable to take further action.
24. It is not clear how the £80 compensation the landlord initially offered was divided between the landlord’s complaint points. However, it is not considered sufficient to put things right for the landlord’s failure to respond to the emergency call out following the resident’s initial report of the leak. As such, the Ombudsman has identified service failure, and the landlord is ordered to compensate the resident a total of £150 for the inconvenience caused to the resident and lack of communication.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a water tank in the loft leaking and his request for it to be replaced.

25. The resident reported that a water tank in the loft belonging to his neighbour was seeping water and often overflowed. He informed the landlord that he frequently cleared up the water and was not willing to spend more money completing jobs which were the landlord’s responsibility. The resident believed that the tank required replacing to resolve the issue. In such circumstances, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to assess the tank’s condition and the risk of a leak into the resident’s property as it was located above his property.
26. The resident advised the Ombudsman that the water tank leaked into his living room below. However, records do not evidence that the resident reported this to the landlord when he made the report on 10 January 2023. As such, the Ombudsman would consider it appropriate for the landlord to log the matter as a standard repair.
27. Based on the information available to the landlord, it was appropriate for it to arrange an appointment for a plumber to attend and assess the water tank on 9 February 2023. It informed the resident that even though he had explained what he believed the issues with the tank were, it would need to attend and verify any required works itself. This was reasonable, particularly as the tank did not belong to the resident.
28. The Ombudsman notes that following its final response, the landlord failed to attend its appointment on 9 February 2023 as arranged in the stage 2 response. Following this, internal landlord emails on 13 February recorded that the water tank might be leaking into the resident’s property. At this point, the landlord should have prioritised attending to assess the matter.
29. Records show that the landlord attended the property to assess the tank on 15 March 2023, and replaced the water tank on 16 May 2023. It is noted that 2 appointments were marked as no access which would have caused some delays outside of the landlord’s control. However, the landlord failed to keep its commitment as per its stage 2 complaint response to attend on 9 February 2023. Further, it did not arrange to replace the water tank for 2 months after identifying the required repair. Although the impact to the resident’s property was unclear, there was a suggestion that the water tank was leaking into the resident’s property. As such, these delays were unacceptable.
30. Overall, the landlord’s response to the overflowing water tank was appropriate through the landlord’s complaints process. However, following its final response, the landlord failed to adhere to its commitment to attend on 9 February 2023. Further, the landlord evidenced a lack of urgency to replace the water tank. As such, the Ombudsman has identified service failure. The landlord is ordered to compensate the resident £100 for not adhering to its timescale to assess the water tank, and for delays between March 2023 until May 2023 to replace the water tank.

The landlord’s complaint handling. 

31. The landlord’s complaints policy outlines that the landlord will issue a stage 1 decision within 10 working days of the complaint being logged. If a resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision, they can request to escalate the complaint. At stage 2, the landlord will issue its final decision within 20 working days of the request to escalate. It adds that if the landlord requires longer, it will explain why, and write again in a further 10 working days.
32. At stage 1, the landlord issued its response on the same day the complaint was logged. The response contained escalation details should the resident remain dissatisfied with the response. This was in line with the landlord’s complaints policy.
33. On 6 September 2022, the resident expressed dissatisfaction at the stage 1 response, and the landlord responded swiftly to say it would escalate the complaint to stage 2. This was appropriate.
34. The landlord did not contact the resident again to acknowledge his escalation request or to update him on the progress of his complaint. Due to the lack of contact, the resident chased up his complaint with the landlord on 5 October 2022. It responded that the complaints team were experiencing a backlog of complaints which impacted its response time. It was appropriate for the landlord to provide an explanation for the delays. However, the landlord should have updated the resident earlier given the 20-working day timeframe to issue its decision had elapsed. Further, it failed to provide an amended response timeframe, leaving the resident unclear on when he would receive the final complaint response.
35. Following this, it was insufficient that the resident did not receive any further updates. This was not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy. He subsequently incurred further time and trouble enquiring about his complaint on 22 December 2022 and 3 January 2023. During his contacts the resident expressed frustration at the lack of response. He contacted the Ombudsman for assistance. The landlord failed to communicate with the resident to explain what caused the continued delays.
36. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 6 January 2023 to request it respond to the resident’s complaint at stage 2. The landlord issued an acknowledgement letter to the resident shortly after on 9 January 2023. The final response letter was issued on 20 January 2023.
37. The landlord acknowledged its delays in responding at stage 2 within its final response and apologised for the way the complaint had been handled. To put things right, it offered the resident £50 compensation for its delays.
38. Although the landlord acknowledged some of its failings and attempted to put things right, the Ombudsman does not consider that the compensation offered goes far enough to account for the failings. The resident experienced significant delays of over 4 months to receive his stage 2 response. In addition, the compensation offer was not reflective of the time and trouble incurred by the resident chasing for updates. As such, the Ombudsman has identified service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord is ordered to award the resident a total of £100 compensation (inclusive of the £50 already offered).

Determination

39. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. service failure regarding the landlord’s handling of a leak in the resident’s property.
    2. service failure regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a water tank in the loft leaking and his request for it to be replaced.
    3. service failure regarding the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

40. The landlord is ordered to compensate the resident a total of £350 compensation (inclusive of the £130 already offered) comprised of:
    1. £150 for the inconvenience caused to the resident and lack of communication following the landlord’s failure to respond to the emergency call out for a reported leak on 5 September 2022. This is inclusive of the £80 offered by the landlord.
    2. £100 for the landlord’s failure to adhere to its timescales in its complaint response to assess and repair the water tank leak in the loft.
    3. £100 for the landlord’s delays to issue a stage 2 response, and for the time and trouble incurred by the resident chasing the landlord. This amount is inclusive of the £50 offered by the landlord.
41. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above order to the Ombudsman within the next 4 weeks.