London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202220737)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220737

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

11 October 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 the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Heating and hot water repairs.
    2. The resident’s service charge queries.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident was a leaseholder of the landlord, a housing association, between 2016 and 2023. The property was a 1 bedroom flat, which was part of a heat network, meaning the heating and hot water was supplied via the landlord.
  2. The resident was a joint leaseholder of the property, with his partner. For the purposes of this report, unless it is necessary to distinguish between them, all communications from the resident and his partner, are referred to as coming from the resident.

Summary of events

  1. In March 2021, the resident made enquiries about the level of service charge in comparison to the previous year. He said the grounds maintenance had not been carried out for most of the year due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
  2. On 4 July 2021, the resident reported that his property was excessively hot due to being located above the communal boiler room. He had recently spoken with a heating engineer who had attended and told him the room was not properly insulated. His child had overheated the previous night and despite using a fan and air conditioning unit, the property was still too hot. He asked the landlord to contact him urgently to discuss this and to visit the property to investigate.
  3. On 2 occasions in July 2021, the resident asked the landlord for a response to his concern that the property was too hot. The landlord replied on 15 July 2021 that it would inspect the boiler room (although it has subsequently advised this did not happen).
  4. In October 2021, the landlord responded to the resident’s service charge queries of March 2021. It apologised for the delay and provided explanations for how it calculated some of the charges. There is no evidence that it responded to the resident’s concerns regarding the grounds maintenance service.
  5. In early January 2022, the resident reported that there had been no grounds maintenance carried out over the lockdown period. He said that redecoration works in the communal area had been done poorly and left incomplete. Eight days later, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s report.
  6. In April 2022, the resident said that he spoke to the landlord about his concerns about the service charge. He said that the landlord agreed to clear his service charge arrears of around £700 at that time, as a gesture of goodwill due to the lack of services provided.
  7. On 9 June 2022, the resident made a complaint to the landlord. He said that he had spoken to someone 2 months previously about his service charge concerns, but heard nothing back despite chasing this up.
  8. In June and July 2022, the resident asked for a response to his complaint. He said he had been ignored by the landlord and it had failed to keep promises made. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 3 August 2022.
  9. The resident reported a fault with his heating and hot water on 24 August 2022, which meant very hot water was going through the pipes and the toilet was flushing hot water. The same day, the landlord raised this internally with its repairs team and around 2 weeks later, it advised that the issue needed to be reported to its energy team. This was done on 14 September 2022. The next day, the landlord raised a job in relation to the hot water repair, with a target timescale for completion of 5 working days.
  10. On 21 September 2022, the resident again reported that the property was excessively hot and he believed this was caused by the communal boiler room below his flat. The landlord suggested it await the outcome of the hot water repair and then review what, if anything, further was required.
  11. The landlord attended the property on 29 September 2022, regarding the hot water repair. It identified a faulty sensor and a temporary fix was carried out, but a new sensor was needed. It reattended on 7 October 2022 and replaced the sensor. The same day, the resident reported that the operative who attended identified that boiling hot water had been running through the pipes constantly. This would have created a lot of heat and he believed this had been happening since he moved in.
  12. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 20 October 2022 it apologised for the handling of the complaint and advised that it had reviewed its complaints process and provided staff training. Prior to April 2022, its contractor had completed works and there were no complaints or issues raised regarding this; although it noted the standard of work could have been improved. It offered £700 compensation (£500 for its handling of the service charge queries and £200 for its complaint handling).
  13. Eight days later, the resident asked to escalate his complaint. He said he did not feel the compensation offered was acceptable. He asked for the debt on his service charge account to be written off and an additional amount of compensation offered to the value of 1 years worth of service charges. He had recently received a notice that he was due a refund of £429 for service charges for 2021/2022. He asked for this to be paid to him directly and not added to his account, as the arrears were in dispute. He reported that the issue with the property being too hot was outstanding and the communal redecoration had been done poorly and left incomplete. There had been no estate inspections since January 2020 according to the noticeboard in the communal lobby area.
  14. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 escalation request on 3 November 2022. On 15 November 2022, the resident chased the stage 2 response and the landlord advised there was a backlog but agreed to chase it up for him, which it did.
  15. Following the Ombudsman’s intervention in December 2022, the landlord apologised to the resident for the delay and confirmed it would respond to his complaint by 3 January 2023.
  16. On 23 December 2022, the resident reported that he had no heating or hot water. He said he was told the landlord would attend within 4 hours. The next day, he reported that he had received a call from the out of hours contractor, who said there was nothing they could do and told him to contact the landlord’s energy team when it reopened on 28 December 2022. This meant he would be without heating and hot water until then.
  17. Five days later, the landlord raised a job for the heating and hot water repair. It told the resident it had booked this as a 24 hour callout, but the contractor was running a skeleton staff. He could buy 2 heaters to the value of £80 and it would reimburse him the cost and compensate for the running costs.
  18. The next day, the landlord noted that its contractor attended and completed works to reinstate the heating and hot water supply.
  19. In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 3 January 2023, it said:
    1. It apologised for the delayed response. It had considered issues raised in 2021, which was more than 6 months before the complaint had been made as it felt they were relevant.
    2. There had been a lack of consistency in the grounds maintenance contractors. When the contractor had changed, the contract was not fulfilled. There had been several property managers over the years at the development and this meant there was not an adequate point of contact for residents.
    3. As part of the handling of this issue, staff had been given conflicting and at times, incorrect information. When they asked for help, they did not receive the support needed. This added to the delays, misinformation and service failure.
    4. There were delays in repairs being completed to the hot water system. Its contractor had not followed through with inspecting the plant room as requested and the landlord had not properly monitored the works. It had asked its contractor to inspect the plant room and provide a report on whether there was any evidence that warm air from this room was causing the property to be excessively warm. The same day, the landlord raised a job to inspect the plant room, this was subsequently recorded as closed but no evidence has been provided that it was completed.
    5. It offered £2,040.69 compensation (£775 for time, effort, distress and inconvenience; £700 offered in June 2022 in relation to a lack of services provided; £250 for the delays to the heating and hot water repairs; £20 for a missed appointment; and £100 for complaint handling failures).
  20. The same day, the resident asked if the £429 refund that had been credited to his account would be paid back to him. The landlord replied that any final reconciliation payments due were added to the account and not credited to a resident’s bank account, if the account is in arrears, which his had been at the time.
  21. In January 2023, the resident escalated his complaint to this Service. He said he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s offer of compensation, in respect of the £775 for time, trouble, distress and inconvenience as this did not reflect the impact on him. He had repeatedly raised issues with the landlord about the lack of services and not received a response. When he did speak to someone, promises were made but not followed up. Due to the extreme heat in the property and having a young child, they moved out in September 2021 and stayed with family over 200 miles away. He had since moved back for work and to sell the property but his partner and child continued to live away.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident raised concerns about communal cleaning and grounds maintenance services not being provided during the COVID-19 lockdown, which began in 2020. Complaints should be brought to the attention of the landlord within a reasonable time of the problem occurring, usually within 12 months. This is so that the landlord has an opportunity to resolve the issues while they are still ‘live’ and the evidence is available to properly investigate them (reflected at paragraph 42.c of the Scheme).
  2. As the resident made a formal complaint in June 2022, the scope of this investigation would normally only extend back to June 2021. However, as the landlord considered events from March 2021, the Ombudsman has done the same. Anything that happened before that date has not been assessed as part of this investigation.
  3. The resident raised concerns with the landlord about the amount being charged for some communal services compared with previous year. Paragraph 42.d of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which concern the level of service charge or the amount of service charge increase. Therefore, these concerns fall outside of the scope of this investigation and would be more appropriately considered by the First Tier Tribunal.
  4. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, it offered compensation for a lack of services in 2022/23, which was calculated based on the charges applied. If the resident wishes to dispute these amounts, he must raise this with the First Tier Tribunal, as this falls outside the scope of this Service.
  5. While the Ombudsman cannot make an assessment on the level of service charge or refunds offered, we can assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries and whether it communicated effectively and provided timely and understandable responses.
  6. The resident has also raised concerns about his energy usage charges and the energy meter settings. Paragraph 42.j of the Scheme says the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman. An investigation into these issues would be better dealt with by the Energy Ombudsman and, as a result, these matters are not considered further in this report.

Heating and hot water repairs

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy at the time confirmed that the landlord was responsible for repairs in leasehold properties to shared and communal heating systems.
  2. When the resident reported the hot water issue in August 2021, the landlord incorrectly raised this with its repairs team, as opposed to its energy team. While understandable that errors can occur, it did not identify this until more than 2 weeks later, which resulted in a delay in the repair being raised.
  3. When the repair was raised, it was done so on a 5 working day priority. The landlord’s repairs policy at the time made no reference to this timescale and only referred to emergency repairs that would be attended within 24 hours and routine repairs, which would be completed at the earliest convenient time, so it is unclear how the landlord categorised this repair. Considering that the resident had reported that very hot water was running through the system and he had a young child in the property, this posed a health and safety risk and should have been categorised as an emergency.
  4. The landlord attended 10 working days after the repair was raised, which was over the committed timescale for emergency repairs. It then reattended 7 working days later to complete the full repair. As it had been able to complete a temporary fix on the first visit and a part was required, this was a reasonable timeframe.  
  5. When the resident reported that he was without heating and hot water in December 2022, there was a delay of 5 days in the landlord raising this repair. This is a concern as this type of repair should be categorised as an emergency and attended within 24 hours. While the landlord attended within 24 hours of raising the job, it was 6 days since the resident had reported the repair.
  6. This is particularly concerning as this was over the Christmas period and resulted in the resident and his family having to leave the property to stay with family. It is noted that the landlord offered to reimburse the resident costs for buying additional heaters. While this showed it was taking the matter seriously, these would not have addressed the lack of hot water in the property.
  7. The delay in raising the repair appears to have been due to the job needing to be raised by the landlord’s energy team. However, it is not clear if this was because there were not correct processes in place for this to happen, or that staff dealing with the matter were unaware of the process. Either way, this was unacceptable, as the landlord should have processes in place to ensure emergency repairs can be raised at any time and staff should be aware of these.
  8. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to review its process for raising emergency out of hours repairs for communal heating systems, to ensure it has arrangements in place to do so without delay. Staff guidance on this process is to be provided to all customer facing staff.
  9. When the resident told the landlord in July 2021 that the property was too hot, it agreed to investigate this. However, there is no evidence that it did so and it subsequently confirmed that it had not progressed this. Considering that the resident told the landlord this had caused his young child to overheat, it should have taken this more seriously and followed up to ensure it was done. This left the resident feeling let down by the landlord.
  10. In the stage 2 response, the landlord committed that an investigation in to this issue would be done. However, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that it was. The resident sold the property in August 2023, which meant he was living in an excessively hot property for more than 2 years, with little or no action being taken to investigate or address this. This repeated failure resulted in the resident losing all faith in the landlord.
  11. Overall, the landlord acknowledged there were service failures in its handling of the heating and hot water repairs. It offered £270 compensation in recognition of these failures, which was reasonable and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
  12. In addition to this, the landlord offered £775 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble in respect of all issues raised by the resident. However, it gave no breakdown of how this was split between the issues. Considering the full circumstances of this matter and in consultation with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, £500 is reasonable for the distress and inconvenience caused in respect of this issue.
  13. As this amount is covered by the total amount offered, this Service finds that the landlord has provided reasonable redress to the resident. A recommendation is made for the landlord to pay the resident the £770 compensation, if not done so already, as this recognised genuine elements of service failure as identified above.

Service charge queries

  1. The resident is required to pay a service charge under the terms of the lease, which includes repair and maintenance of communal functions and essential block services.
  2. When the resident raised service charge queries in March 2021, the landlord did not respond until 7 months later and failed to address all of the issues. Similarly, when the resident raised further concerns in January 2022, including about the communal redecoration works, the landlord acknowledged this but there is no evidence that it actually responded to or investigated his concerns. This amounts to maladministration.
  3. The resident said he spoke to the landlord at length in April 2022 about the lack of services during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, there is no evidence of this contact, or any subsequent action taken, which amounts to maladministration and left him feeling ignored.
  4. From the evidence provided, the landlord did not take any real steps to investigate or address the resident’s concerns regarding the delivery of communal services until he raised his formal complaint in June 2022. This was 15 months after his first enquiry and only after he had raised this with the landlord on at least 3 previous occasions. This delay amounts to maladministration and left the resident feeling that the landlord did not care about the concerns he had raised.
  5. As part of its stage 1 investigation into the resident’s concerns about a lack of grounds maintenance services, the landlord received an internal update confirming that services did not stop during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, there is no explanation of how it reached this conclusion or evidence provided to support this, such as inspection records or attendance reports. When the Ombudsman asked for this information, the landlord said that it could not provide this due to a system change.
  6. The landlord’s stage 1 and 2 responses in respect of the grounds maintenance service differ, with one saying that services continued but the standard could have been improved, and another saying there were inconsistencies in the service. Again, it is not clear what evidence the landlord used to reach these conclusions and so the Ombudsman is unable to assess whether the its responses were reasonable.
  7. It is important that records of attendance for communal services are kept, as well as records of landlord inspections to monitor this. These records allow the landlord to properly monitor contractors and ensure residents are receiving the services they are paying for. It is concerning that the landlord has been unable to provide these records in this case. This, along with other missing records and inconsistencies in the information provided, has impacted the Ombudsman’s ability to fully investigate this complaint.
  8. An order has been made below for the landlord to review how it records staff/ contractor attendance to deliver communal services, as well as how it records landlord inspections to monitor this. The review is to include how it can access this information and provide it in an accessible format to residents and this Service, where required.
  9. The resident raised his concerns about the communal redecoration works as part of the stage 1 and 2 complaints; however, neither of the responses gave any detail about the landlord’s investigation into these issues. The stage 2 response said it would review this, but as the resident had raised this almost 1 year earlier, this should have been done sooner. The landlord’s lack of action to investigate this issue amounts to maladministration.
  10. The resident was dissatisfied that the landlord credited a service charge refund for 2021/22 to his account, rather than paying directly to him. The landlord explained the reasons for this and, while frustrating for the resident, this was reasonable. The resident was responsible for paying the service charge under the terms of the lease and if the account was in arrears, it was reasonable that the landlord used this to clear them. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident was disputing the charges and, in these circumstances, a refund or compensation can be paid to reflect any amounts already paid. 
  11. In its final response, the landlord offered the resident £700 compensation, which was the amount the resident said was in dispute in relation to services not being provided. As no evidence has been provided that the services were provided consistently and to the required standard, it was reasonable that the landlord offered this amount in compensation. An order has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident the £700 already offered, if not done so already.
  12. In addition to the £700 for service failure, the landlord offered a total of £775 for the distress and inconvenience for all issues, but with no set breakdown (as noted above). As £500 has been awarded for the heating and hot water repairs, that leaves £275 remaining.
  13. Considering the full circumstances of this matter and in consultation with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, this amount is considered insufficient. Therefore a finding of reasonable redress cannot be made and a finding of maladministration is appropriate. An order has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident £400 compensation for the distress and inconvenience of its handling of his service charge queries, inclusive of the £275 already offered, if not done so already.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint in 40 working days. This was significantly over the committed timeframe of 5 working days, set out in its complaints policy at the time, and only after the resident had chased it on at least 2 occasions. This amounts to maladministration and left the resident feeling ignored.
  2. The landlord provided the stage 1 response in 94 working days. This was, again, significantly over the committed timeframe of 10 working days set out in its complaints policy at the time, and amounts to maladministration.
  3. The evidence shows that between August and October 2022, the landlord was in regular contact with the resident about the stage1 complaint investigation. While positive that it was keeping him updated, this did not include an estimated deadline for the response to be provided, as was committed in its complaints policy. This also said that the landlord would not take longer than 20 working days to respond to a stage 1 complaint, which it failed to adhere to.
  4. The landlord provided the stage 2 response in 45 working days, which was again, over the committed timescale of 20 working days set out in its complaints policy, and only after intervention from this Service. This amounts to maladministration and left the resident feeling that the landlord was not taking the complaint seriously.
  5. The landlord acknowledged service failure in its complaint handling, apologised and offered compensation. This was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles to put things right and learn from outcomes.
  6. The landlord offered £100 compensation, which is insufficient considering the full circumstances of the case and in consultation with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. Therefore, a finding of reasonable redress cannot be made and a finding of maladministration is appropriate. An order has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident £300 compensation for its handling of the formal complaint, inclusive of the £100 already offered.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of heating and hot water repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s service charge queries.
    2. The formal complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £1,400 compensation, made up of:
      1. £700 already offered for the failure in delivery of communal services, if not done so already.
      2. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of his service charge queries, inclusive of the £275 already offered, if not done so already.
      3. £300 for its complaint handling, inclusive of the £100 already offered, if not done so already.
  2. The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders, to this Service, within 4 weeks.
  3. Within 8 weeks, the landlord is ordered to review how it records staff/contractor attendance to deliver communal services, as well as how it records landlord inspections to monitor this. The review to include how it can access this information and provide it in an accessible format to residents and this Service, where required. Evidence of compliance to be provided to this Service within 8 weeks.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to pay the resident the £770 compensation already offered for its handling of the heating and hot water repairs, if not done so already. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord.
  2. The landlord to review its process for raising emergency out of hours repairs for communal heating systems to ensure it has arrangements in place to do so without delay; and provide staff guidance on this to all customer facing staff.
  3. The landlord to notify this Service of its intentions regarding the above recommendations, within 4 weeks.