London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202223738)

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223738

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

27 March 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s various concerns around the death of a neighbour.
2. Response to the resident’s reports of boiler and sink repairs.
3. Complaint handling.
The Ombudsman also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant. The property is a 1 bedroom ground-floor flat in a block with 4 flats and a shared communal hallway. The resident has asthma and an autoimmune disease. In its case evidence to the Ombudsman, the landlord told us it had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The landlord was unable to provide the resident’s tenancy agreement. Instead, it supplied a sample document with its standard tenancy terms. It shows the resident must keep the property in “good and clean condition”. The landlord will provide alternative accommodation if the property needs repairs that cannot be completed with the resident in situ.
The landlord’s repairs policy shows that, in the first instance, residents are expected to deal with pest issues using easily available tools such as insect sprays. If they are unable to deal with the problem, they should notify the landlord. However, it also shows the landlord will assume responsibility for infestations that involve a risk of harm or a health and safety issue. It will also assume responsibility for certain hazardous pests such as rats (that carry a risk of infection for example).
The landlord has a standard operating procedure (SOP) that covers the death of a tenant. Broadly, it details the landlord’s responsibilities in relation to the emergency services and the deceased’s next of kin. The SOP does not contain any information about the landlord’s approach to impacted neighbours. Nor is there any information about its approach to related cleaning issues.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. Its complaints policy shows it aims to respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1. At stage 2, it aims to respond within 20 working days. The policy does not cover legal liability issues such as insurance claims.

Summary of events

On 26 August 2022 the resident reported welfare concerns about a neighbour. This was on the basis there were maggots near their home. Later that day, emergency services discovered the neighbour’s body. Corresponding records show the landlord initially raised an antisocial behaviour (ASB) case in response to the resident’s report. In addition, the landlord was liaising with another neighbour because it did not have the resident’s contact number.
On the following day, the landlord’s cleaning contractor attempted to clean the block’s communal hallway. In an email update to the landlord on 29 August 2022, the contractor said its operatives tried to clean the maggots but more kept appearing through gaps and cracks. The contractor felt the block was infested and treatment works were needed before it could complete a full clean.
On 2 September 2022, the landlord raised a works order to the contractor for further cleaning. The repair notes said all communal areas needed deep cleaning because maggots were still being seen. The order was marked complete 3 days later. The landlord later agreed, in its stage 2 response, that the completed works were inadequate.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 26 September 2022. Call records show she had been away from the property for 3 weeks. However, she returned to find “a blanket of dead flies throughout her property where maggots had got in”. The call notes show the resident was “very upset” about the situation. They said she was concerned that the neighbour’s home had not been cleaned yet.
The call was transferred to the landlord’s tenancy team. Records show the landlord raised a formal complaint soon afterwards. They said the resident reported the neighbour’s body had been left to rot. Further, her home had been impacted by the resulting infestation. The resident advised she would have to dispose of her mattress and bedding, and deep clean her appliances.
Two days later, the resident reported a boiler issue. A repair order was raised the same day. The notes said the property had hot water but there was no heating.
On 30 September 2022 the resident chased the landlord. Records show she: was unhappy a neighbour had been decanted, was in the process of arranging her own cleaner, and declined to provide a contact phone number. The records said she would call the landlord later that day for updates. However, if there was no update by 1pm then she would book a hotel and seek compensation from the landlord.
The resident called back several hours later. Records show she was “more annoyed” because a heating engineer had been due to attend the same day. However, the landlord’s contractor rescheduled the appointment due to a shortage of engineers. The landlord subsequently reinstated the appointment in a later timeslot. However, the resident advised the evening appointment was unnecessary as she had checked into a hotel.
From the information seen, it was unclear when the resident returned to the property. However, she later supplied the landlord with invoices that suggest she checked out of her hotel on 5 October 2022. The landlord’s records suggest the property’s heating was also repaired on this date.
On 6 October 2022 the landlord issued a stage 1 response. This was 8 working days after the resident’s complaint. It said that, sadly, the neighbour’s body had not been discovered for around 2 weeks. Further, this had caused the infestation. The landlord also said delays had occurred because it was unable to contact the resident directly. The landlord’s other points were:
1. Before it could consider a decant, a surveyor’s inspection was needed. This would determine if the property was habitable. While it was unable to discuss the neighbour’s decant, the landlord could confirm it was “unrelated to this matter”.
2. A surveyor’s inspection had been scheduled for 10 October 2022. The resident had confirmed her availability. If necessary, the surveyor would submit a decant request to facilitate remedial cleaning works.
3. The resident should provide photographic evidence of any damage incurred due to the infestation. Once received, the landlord could process a compensation claim.
The next day, a repair order was raised to address the property’s kitchen sink. Corresponding notes said the resident felt it was blocked by dead flies. The order was subsequently marked complete on 12 October 2022. Both parties agree an operative attended on this date but they declined to complete any works.
The landlord created a related case note on the day of the operative’s visit. The note referenced flies and maggots. It said the resident reported a plumber was unable to clear the sink due to health and safety issues. Further, they advised her they would raise the situation with the landlord. It also said the resident wanted a decant. The Ombudsman has not seen any corresponding notes from the operative. In contrast, the landlord later provided a different rationale in its stage 2 response.
The parties agree the scheduled inspection did not take place on 10 October 2022. In her later correspondence, the resident said the landlord subsequently told her it attended as agreed on the day. However, she disputed this version of events on the basis it did not leave a calling card. Ultimately, the Ombudsman was unable to clarify matters from the landlord’s repair and other records.
Records show the resident chased the landlord for updates on 14 and 18 October 2022. The information seen shows the landlord’s local representative met the resident the following day during a visit to the block. The landlord later said it completed a partial inspection of the property at this point. However, it did not provide any inspection records from this time.
The resident emailed the landlord on 20 and 21 October 2022. Her emails acknowledged the recent meeting. They included invoices for hotel accommodation between 30 September and 5 October 2022. The resident’s correspondence said her related expenses amounted to £510.91. It also said she would supply a contractor’s quote for cleaning services, and escalate her complaint in due course.
Around the time of the resident’s emails, the landlord raised a cleaning repair order to a different contractor. The repair notes said dead flies and maggots needed cleaning from light fittings in the communal area. The relevant works order was marked complete on 24 October 2022.
On 26 October 2022, the resident emailed her cleaning contractor’s quote to the landlord’s local representative. In her email, the resident said she felt the property was uninhabitable due to the infestation. Further, the situation had caused personal injury and aggravated her existing health conditions. As a result, the landlord should decant her to a hotel immediately. It should also arrange storage for her items in the property. The resident also asked the landlord to revert to postal communication. This was partly due to delays.
On 2 November 2022 the landlord created a case note in relation to the partial inspection. This was around 14 days after the inspection took place. The note said there was no evidence of maggots or flies during its visit to the property. It also said the resident reported taking matters into her own hands (in relation to disposing of items and arranging a hotel) because the landlord failed to progress matters. In addition, the note said the resident was told the landlord needed to seek approval in relation to her cleaning quote.
The resident escalated her complaint on 5 November 2022. Her escalation letter was sent by recorded delivery. The Ombudsman has seen a copy with an ink stamp that shows the landlord received it 4 days later. The resident said she continued to suffer ongoing loss, distress, and hardship due to the landlord’s irresponsible and negligent actions. In addition, the landlord had breached its duty of care and the situation was foreseeable. Her main points were:
1. The landlord initially declined to send cleaners until the neighbour’s body was removed. Subsequently, its cleaning works to the communal hallway were inadequate. Maggots remained in the light fittings for around 2 months afterwards. Neighbours could evidence the extent of the infestation.
2. When the resident returned to the property on 24 September 2022, there were dead flies in every room. Further, they covered the resident’s furniture and belongings. The resident notified the landlord about the problem 2 days later.
3. At this point, she asked it to inspect the damage. She also told the landlord that the local authority would collect her mattress and bedding within days. However, the landlord did not respond or inspect the items as requested.
4. There was no heating when the resident returned to the property. She reported the problem on 28 September 2022 and an appointment was scheduled. However, the resident chased the landlord several times on 30 September 2022 because an engineer failed to attend within the allotted time.
5. Though she suffered badly from cold, the resident did not initially notice the lack of heating. She felt this was because she was “working on adrenaline” whilst clearing flies out of the property. This process had taken days.
6. On 7 October 2022 the resident tried to rearrange the upcoming surveyor’s appointment. The landlord later told her it was unable to gain access on 10 October 2022. The resident did not agree because no calling card was left. Ultimately, due to staff changes, no inspection had taken place to date.
7. The property was still contaminated and the landlord had not taken any action. There was a “pungent” smell in the air. It was also on the resident’s clothes, furnishings, and carpet. She was unable to air the property by leaving windows open.
8. The resident had lost the use of her bedroom and she had little use of the bathroom. Her bedding and mattress were removed and she had not used the bath since finding flies in it. She had not used the kitchen sink for similar reasons. Since cupboards and countertops were contaminated, the resident was unable to use the kitchen.
9. The resident paid £104 to have the cooker professionally cleaned. However, she was “mostly eating outdoors” due to the smell. This was expensive and unsustainable. She had not used any utensils or cutlery since she returned. Overall, the resident felt she could only use 10% of her home.
10. The infestation should have been apparent to the landlord. In addition, specialist cleaning should have taken place immediately. Nevertheless, “flies still covered” the neighbour’s flat 2 months after the body was removed. Overall, the landlord had allowed the infestation to spread.
11. The landlord should address these substantial and urgent issues. If it did not make an acceptable proposal within 7 days, the resident would address the resulting damage to her “health, personal life, work and finances” in a separate “letter before action”.
Records show the landlord raised a complaint case on 20 December 2022 in relation to the kitchen sink. The notes said the resident was unhappy because an attending operative refused to complete plumbing works on the basis the resident “has had the work done herself”. They also said a new repair order had been raised for the works and feedback had been raised internally. Repair records show a corresponding works order was marked complete the same day. The landlord later said the works were completed in early January 2023.
The resident wrote to the Ombudsman on 31 December 2022. In addition to reiterating her previous concerns, she said she had been traumatised by the situation and there was ongoing disrepair. In addition, the contamination exacerbated her asthma and the “stench” was overwhelming at times. She also said she was using rent money to cover her ongoing expenses and the landlord was seeking to evict her. As a result, she was worried about losing her home. Her other new points were:
1. The resident raised a verbal complaint about infestation on 26 September 2022. She was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 response and it had not responded to her escalation request.
2. On 19 October 2022, the landlord’s local representative promised to call the resident and arrange a surveyor’s inspection. The landlord had not fulfilled this commitment.
3. The resident wanted to be rehoused. It was distressing that 2 of her neighbours had died in “suspicious circumstances”. In the meantime, the landlord should complete urgent cleaning works. To facilitate them, it should decant the resident and place some of her belongings in storage.
4. The property was uninhabitable. For example, the bath had been full of dead flies and there were still related marks and stains on it. Though she had soaked the bath with bleach overnight, the resident was still unable to use it.
5. The resident suffered greatly from the effects of her autoimmune disease, which included diarrhoea. Related health concerns prevented her from using various facilities at the property.
6. To date, the resident’s hotel and food expenses were around £2,000 each. The landlord should also compensate the resident for damages, delays, and lost use of the property (in the form of a rent refund).
We contacted the landlord on 25 January 2023. We said, if stage 1 was already complete, it should respond at stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord issued a stage 2 acknowledgement on the same day. It said the landlord would respond by 22 February 2022.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 21 February 2023. This was 20 working days after the Ombudsman’s correspondence. The landlord apologised for a delay in providing the response. It also acknowledged its overall service fell below required standards. It awarded the resident a total of £820 in related compensation. It said the compensation would be offset against the resident’s current arrears. The landlord’s key points were:
1. It recognised the neighbour’s death was distressing and it was grateful the resident raised concerns about them. This allowed it to take the necessary actions and inform their next of kin. It understood returning to an infestation would also have been upsetting and inconvenient for the resident.
2. Its repairs and communication should have been managed better. Communications were delayed because its local representative changed during the timeline. Since there were no contact details on the resident’s account, its stage 2 handler had been unable to discuss the complaint with her. Instead, they had spoken to the representative for an overview.
3. The communal area was deep cleaned on 26 August, 2 September, and 27 October 2022. The landlord accepted the first 2 cleans were inadequate. It ultimately used a different contractor, which was now the landlord’s preferred cleaning supplier.
4. The landlord was sorry an inspection did not take place on 10 October 2022. Its representative visited the resident on 19 October 2022, but they were unable to view all of the property’s rooms. However, they noted there were flies in the kitchen sink. The landlord closed the resident’s decant enquiry on 2 November 2022 based on the partial inspection.
5. This was because, apart from flies in the light fittings, there were no signs of infestation in the property. The landlord also felt the resident would not have been staying at the property if maggots were present. Her neighbour’s decant was not related to the circumstances of the resident’s complaint. No other block residents were decanted.
6. The landlord was “unable to accept works from non-contractor companies”. This was confirmed to the resident in writing (it was assumed the above referred to the resident’s cleaning costs). If a deep clean was still needed, the resident could call the landlord on the number provided.
7. It operated a reactive repairs service, which relied on residents to report issues promptly, allow access, and provide an opportunity for the landlord to resolve matters. These expectations were set out in its standard tenancy terms.
8. The landlord was aware the resident hired a private contractor to unblock the kitchen sink. It was also aware that, when it first attended, its operative declined to complete a repair on that basis. Feedback was given to the operative. The landlord was pleased the work was ultimately carried out on 4 January 2023.
9. The landlord was sorry about the heating fault and related appointment issues. The resident was offered a new appointment on 5 October 2022 and a repair took place on that date. Its compensation included an award based on a lack of heating for 7 days (between 28 September and 5 October 2022).
10. The resident’s damaged items were an insurance matter which fell outside of the landlord’s complaints process. To make a claim, the resident should contact the landlord’s insurance team with details of the loss incurred. This would allow its insurer to investigate accordingly.
11. The compensation comprised: £50 for a delay at stage 2, distress £240, inconvenience £240, lack of communication £60, loss of heating £30, and service failure £200. The service failure calculation was based on £100 each for a delayed stage 1 acknowledgement, and failure to escalate the resident’s complaint.
On 8 March 2023 the landlord issued the resident a brief complaint update. It said she had not replied to its recent decision. However, her rent account had been adjusted in line with the landlord’s compensation award. As a result, the resident’s complaint would be finalised and closed.
In late March 2023 the resident updated the Ombudsman by letter. She said the smell and contamination were ongoing. Further, the property was still impacted by the infestation because dead flies were dropping through extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom. Similarly, there were still dead flies in the communal light fittings despite the landlord’s cleaning works. She also said her health was severely impacted by the situation. This was on the basis she was suffering from hair loss in addition to her existing conditions. Her other points were:
1. The resident’s hotel costs amounted to £1,707.28. Amongst other items, her damaged belongings included £750 in bedding and a £400 carpet. The landlord had failed to assess the damage or put things right.
2. As a result, the resident would have to arrange her own cleaning works. This would include storage and a decant. She felt her total expenses would eventually amount to about £4,500.
3. The bedroom was inaccessible because there was no mattress or bedding. Similarly, the resident did not use the bath or cook in the kitchen. Given the circumstances, she felt a rent refund was due.
4. Overall, the landlord’s negligence had put the resident’s health and home at risk. Given the situation, it was difficult for the resident to keep up with her rent payments.

Assessment and findings

It is recognised the situation is distressing for the resident. The timeline shows she has several concerns about the landlord’s activities. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress, inconvenience, and loss of amenity. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. As a result, we cannot determine if the landlord was responsible for any damage to the resident’s health or personal belongings.
The resident’s comments about another neighbour’s death were noted. However, in line with the Ombudsman’s remit, our assessment considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s formal complaint. As a result, previous events (around 2019) were beyond the scope of our assessment. Similarly, since she brought an individual complaint to the Ombudsman, our assessment focused on the resident. We have seen limited information about the other neighbour’s decant.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s various concerns around the death of a neighbour

The landlord accepted there were issues with its response to the resident’s concerns. It’s stage 2 findings referenced inadequate communal cleaning works and related communication delays. From the response wording, we assumed half of the compensation the landlord awarded for distress, inconvenience, and communication issues was linked to this complaint point. This was on the basis some of its compensation clearly related to the separate boiler and sink issues. The above approach suggests the landlord’s related compensation was £270.
Given the above, the Ombudsman considered if the landlord acted fairly and did enough to put things right. We began by checking whether it overlooked any related failures. If it did, the landlord’s response would likely be unfair. We were mindful that the circumstances of the neighbour’s death were beyond the landlord’s control. On the other hand, the resident was also impacted by an unpleasant and potentially hazardous infestation through no fault of her own.
In an email on 29 August 2022, the landlord’s cleaning contractor reported treatment works were needed before it could complete a full clean. This was on the basis, “many more maggots” kept appearing in the areas it had already cleaned. Nevertheless, no information was seen to show the landlord acted on its contractor’s recommendation. In contrast, the block’s repair history suggests the landlord only arranged additional cleaning works afterwards. The landlord later accepted these works were inadequate.
Given the contractor’s report, the landlord should have reasonably engaged a pest control contractor at this point. Since the maggots were impacting the communal area, the landlord could have also contacted the block’s other residents to improve its understanding of the situation. In other words, it could have proactively asked them whether their homes were impacted. Overall, it is reasonable to conclude adopting a proactive approach at an early stage would have helped the landlord to contain any infestation and manage the situation.
Similarly, it was noted the information the resident provided on 26 September 2022, during her interaction with its tenancy team, should have prompted a more proactive response from the landlord. For example, even if they were not stated directly, the landlord could have reasonably inferred there may be health implications given the nature of the resident’s report. As a result, it should have raised an urgent inspection at this point. However, the timeline shows it took another 8 days before the landlord attempted to establish the conditions in the property.
If it felt the resident’s report did not warrant an immediate response, the landlord should have set her expectations accordingly. It is reasonable to conclude this may have prompted the resident to provide further information about her circumstances. Overall, the evidence shows the landlord’s initial response to the resident’s report was inappropriate. Broadly, it failed to consider the related safety implications or show sufficient proactivity. It also failed to address the resident’s report of damaged personal items at this point.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord eventually advised the resident to contact its insurance team in relation to her damaged belongings. Since its complaints policy did not cover liability issues, this was appropriate advice. It was also in line with the Ombudsman’s expectations in cases where a resident alleges damage occurred due to a landlord’s activities. However, based on the period between 26 September 2022 and 21 February 2023, the timeline shows it took the landlord around 5 months to provide a full explanation.
This was an inappropriate timescale. It is reasonable to conclude the landlord’s tenancy team should be capable of signposting residents to its relevant department, or setting basic expectations around its insurance process. However, no information was seen to show the landlord adopted either approach during the above referenced interaction. The timeline suggests that, within days, the resident disposed of her damaged bedding. Given the timeline, it is reasonable to conclude the landlord could have influenced her decision.
It is also reasonable to conclude the resident will now have difficulty evidencing a claim through the landlord’s insurer. Further, this situation could have been avoided if the landlord had promptly inspected the property, and the resident’s damages, in response to her report on 26 September 2022. Given the above, the landlord failed to respond appropriately to the resident’s report of damaged items. It subsequently failed to recognise, or redress, the above identified delay of around 5 months. This was both unfair and inappropriate.
It was also noted there were similar proactivity issues later in the timeline. For example, the landlord’s partial inspection on 19 October 2022 was not completed by a surveyor. This was not consistent with its stage 1 resolution. Afterwards, the resident said she felt the property was uninhabitable due to infestation. Given her concerns were safety related, the landlord should have done more to reassure the resident. For example, it could have arranged a full surveyor’s inspection, a pest control visit, or cleaning works by its contractor.
Again, the timeline shows it took several months before the landlord offered to complete a deep clean for the resident. As a result, its approach to her correspondence around 26 October 2022 was insensitive given the circumstances. Ultimately, the timeline points to multiple missed opportunities to address matters, a lack of proactivity, and a lack of sensitivity. It also shows a surveyor’s inspection has not taken place to date. Based on the timing of this assessment, this represents an inappropriate delay of around 18 months.
It was noted the landlord’s deceased tenant SOP did not explain how the landlord should approach subsequent cleaning issues, or related impacts to nearby residents. The above points to flaws in the landlord’s existing SOP. It is reasonable to conclude these flaws were a contributory factor in any related impact to both the resident and the property. The timeline suggests the SOP should include practical guidance around dealing with related hazards, and supporting affected neighbours. This includes signposting to bereavement support services if necessary.
Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns was inappropriate. While it attempted to put things right, the landlord failed to recognise the full extent of its delays and failures, or their impact to the resident. Its offer of £270 in related compensation was disproportionate given its inappropriate lack of proactivity and sensitivity. Significantly, it failed to give due consideration to the safety implications of the resident’s report on 26 September 2022. Had it done so, the landlord should have recognised an urgent surveyor’s inspection was warranted. This would have established if an emergency decant was required.
Given the circumstances, there was severe maladministration in respect of this complaint point. The Ombudsman will order proportionate compensation to put things right for the resident based on the information seen. Our compensation will include elements to address: the resident’s distress and inconvenience, her ongoing loss of enjoyment of the property, her damaged items, and her related expenses. Given the resident’s health and safety concerns, we will also order the landlord to complete a surveyor’s inspection.
Our loss of enjoyment calculation will reflect the resident’s comments to the landlord and the Ombudsman in November 2022 and March 2023 respectively. At these points, the resident broadly described a lingering smell, ongoing contamination in the kitchen and bathroom, and a lack of bedding. It was noted no information was seen to show the resident engaged with the landlord’s offer to deep clean the property (included in its stage 2 response on 21 February 2023). It is reasonable to conclude these works could have improved her situation.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of boiler and sink repairs

The evidence suggests the landlord awarded the resident £330 in compensation related to this complaint point. Again, we considered if it acted fairly and did enough to put things right for the resident.
The timeline shows the resident reported a lack of heating on 28 September 2022 (the first month of autumn). In general, landlords should treat heating outages during winter months as emergency repairs. Based on the landlord’s repairs policy, no information was seen to suggest an emergency response timescale applied in this case. The timeline suggests the repair was ultimately completed on 5 October 2022. Given the above, 8 days was not an unreasonable timescale. It was also noted the landlord would have responded on 30 September 2022 (within 2 days).
However, the landlord was right to compensate the resident given what went wrong. This is because the timeline shows an engineer cancelled a scheduled appointment at short notice. It is reasonable to conclude this was inconvenient for the resident, along with the associated lack of heating. It was noted that the £30 compensation the landlord awarded for a lack of heating exceeded the rate set out in the Government’s Right to Repair Scheme (for council tenants). Overall, the evidence suggests the landlord’s award was reasonable given the circumstances. It was also in line with the landlord’s compensation policy.
The timeline shows it took the landlord 3 months to repair the kitchen sink. This was based on the period between 7 October 2022 and 4 January 2023. The resident has not disputed this repair date. Since the Ombudsman considers 1 month a reasonable timescale to complete routine repairs, there was an unreasonable delay of around 2 months. There was also a failed appointment in October 2022. Again, it is reasonable to conclude the situation was both avoidable and inconvenient for the resident.
As a result, it was appropriate for the landlord to raise the sink operative’s behaviour internally. The evidence suggests feedback was given accordingly. It also suggests the landlord’s offer of £330 in total compensation was sufficient to address any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the boiler and sink issues. Following the repairs, no information was seen to show the resident made any further reports to the landlord about related boiler or sink issues.
Overall, the evidence shows the landlord acted fairly in relation to the above repair issues. Since it did enough to address matters for the resident, the landlord provided reasonable redress in respect of this complaint point.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The stage 2 response shows the landlord awarded the resident a total of £250 in related compensation to address various complaint handling issues. This included £100 for failing to escalate her complaint in November 2022, and £50 for a delay at stage 2. The timeline shows the corresponding delay was around 12 weeks. Further, the Ombudsman’s intervention was needed to progress the complaint. It is reasonable to conclude approaching the Ombudsman at this stage was both unnecessary and inconvenient for the resident.
Given the above, it was appropriate for the landlord to compensate her. Its compensation was reasonable given the length of the delay and its impact on the resident. The landlord also awarded £100 in compensation to address a delayed stage 1 acknowledgement. The timeline shows its stage 1 response was issued within its relevant timescale. The above shows the landlord considered its own complaint handling and it awarded proportionate compensation in relation to the failures it identified.
However, as mentioned, the landlord overlooked various delays and failures along with their resulting impact to the resident. For example, the landlord did not recognise a surveyor’s inspection had been promised at stage 1 but was ultimately not completed. This points to an inappropriate lack of follow up by the landlord, which should have monitored its agreed resolution through to completion. At stage 2, the landlord failed to recognise the property’s habitability, or otherwise, had not been established by a suitably qualified specialist.
The above information was of key importance to the complaint outcome. On that basis, the evidence points to an inappropriate lack of thoroughness in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling. This was evident from the disparity between the landlord’s compensation award and the failures that occurred. Overall, it is reasonable to conclude the landlord missed an opportunity to resolve matters through its own internal complaints procedure. The resident was impacted since she had to wait for a thorough review of the complaint.
In addition, the landlord missed opportunities to learn from the resident’s negative experience. For example, there was no indication that it attempted to extract any broad learnings from a situation that was unusual but likely to recur. This was contrary to the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principle: Learn from outcomes. It is reasonable to conclude the landlord could have launched its own review of its death of a tenant SOP given the circumstances of the case.
Overall, there was maladministration in respect of this complaint point. The landlord overlooked key issues. It failed to follow up on an agreed complaint resolution and its stage 2 response lacked thoroughness. As a result, the landlord missed an opportunity to address matters through its own internal complaints process. This involved an additional delay for the resident. Finally, the landlord failed to make a reasonable effort to learn from her experience.

The landlord’s record keeping

The evidence highlighted various issues with the landlord’s record keeping. Significantly, there were no records relating to the surveyor’s inspection that was scheduled for 10 October 2022. As a result, the Ombudsman was unable to clarify what happened on this date. It is reasonable to conclude there should have been a corresponding inspection order in the property’s repair history. If access was a problem, this should have been captured in the record. For example, the operative could have left a brief comment about the visit.
Similarly, the timeline shows there was a delay of around 2 weeks before the landlord recorded its findings from the partial inspection on 19 October 2022. Further, its corresponding note lacked detail in relation to the property’s condition. For example, it did not record which rooms the representative was able to access or detail what they had seen. The resident later told us she was promised a surveyor’s inspection during this visit. In contrast, there was no reference to this in the landlord’s notes.
The were also accuracy issues around the completion dates for several repairs. For example, the repair history suggests the landlord eventually completed the kitchen sink works on 20 December 2022. This information was subsequently contradicted by both parties. The landlord’s stage 2 response said the works were ultimately completed on 4 January 2023. This represents a discrepancy of around 2 weeks. It was noted the landlord’s cleaning works and boiler repair orders were affected, to a lesser extent, by similar inaccuracies.
It was also noted there was conflicting information about the landlord’s initial sink repair visit. For example, notes made on the day of the visit show the resident reported the operative declined to complete the works on health and safety grounds. However, the landlord later said they refused to carry out the works because the resident previously arranged her own repair. In any case, it is reasonable to conclude the landlord’s records should provide a clear account of the operative’s rationale.
A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repairs, reports, responses, inspections, and investigations. The Ombudsman’s May 2023 Spotlight On: Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report confirms good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that a landlord’s complaints processes are not operating effectively. Staff should be aware of the landlord’s record management policies and procedures and adhere to them, as should contractors or managing agents.
Given the above, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s various concerns around the death of a neighbour.
2. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s:
  1. Complaint handling.
  2. Record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of boiler and sink repairs.

Reasons

The landlord did not recognise the extent of its delays and failures, or their impact to the resident. Its related compensation was disproportionate given its inappropriate lack of proactivity and sensitivity. It failed to give due consideration to the safety implications of the resident’s report on 26 September 2022. Had it done so, the landlord should have recognised an urgent surveyor’s inspection was warranted. This would have established if an emergency decant was required.
The landlord overlooked key complaint handling issues. It failed to follow up on an agreed complaint resolution and its stage 2 response lacked thoroughness. As a result, it missed an opportunity to address matters through its own internal complaints process. This involved an additional delay for the resident. Finally, the landlord failed to make a reasonable effort to learn from her experience.
There were various problems with the landlord’s record keeping. For example, there were missing and partial inspection records, delays recording information, and accuracy issues around repair completion dates. The landlord should be able to evidence the action it has taken and its rationale where applicable.
The landlord’s boiler and sink related compensation was sufficient to fairly address its associated delays and failures. The landlord also took appropriate steps to address issues around an operative’s behavior following a failed repair visit.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders a relevant member of the landlord’s executive team to apologise to the resident within 4 weeks. The apology should recognise the landlord’s lack of proactivity and sensitivity, along with its failure to give due consideration to the situation’s safety implications. It should also acknowledge the resident was impacted by an infestation through no fault of her own. The landlord should share a copy of its relevant correspondence with the Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £5,610.91 in compensation within 4 weeks. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
1. £730 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s response to her various concerns around the neighbour’s death.
2. £2,250 for any loss of enjoyment the resident was caused by the landlord’s inappropriate response to her concerns (calculated at £125 per month over 18 months based on the period between September 2022 and March 2024).
3. £510.91 for the resident’s hotel accommodation between September and October 2022.
4. £1,150 for the resident’s damaged bedding and carpet (additional damages and the resident’s meal expenses will be addressed by a separate order below).
5. £150 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the additional complaint handling failures identified above.
6. £820 which the landlord previously awarded at stage 2. The landlord is free to deduct any amount it has previously paid from this figure.
The landlord’s surveyor to address the resident’s safety related concerns by completing a full inspection of the property. The landlord should share its inspection report with the resident and the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
The landlord to contact the resident within 4 weeks to gather information about any other damaged personal items. This is with a view to refunding the resident accordingly. Since it failed to follow the correct procedure within a reasonable timeframe, the landlord should avoid onerous evidence requirements in relation to the damages. It should also gather information about the resident’s meal expenses between September 2022 and February 2023. The landlord can ask the resident for supporting bank statements or other evidence.
The landlord’s executive team to review its death of a tenant SOP in conjunction with this report. This is to identify any flaws in the landlord’s existing process. This case shows cleaning and neighbour related issues can arise if a body has not been discovered for some time. The landlord should share the review’s findings with the Ombudsman within 8 weeks.
The landlord to ensure its records accurately reflect the resident’s vulnerabilities. It may need to contact her to establish the correct information before updating its records. The landlord should evidence its actions to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
The landlord to share the report’s key findings with its relevant staff for learning and improvement purposes. It should share a copy of its relevant internal communication with the Ombudsman within 8 weeks. The communication should cover: how to raise an urgent inspection in response to a reported health issue, details of the landlord’s insurance process, and the landlord’s death of a tenant SOP (an ASB case was initially raised in error).
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within the relevant timeframes.