London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202224694)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224694

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

30 August 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 response to the resident’s reports of required repairs to the property staircase.
  2. We have also looked at the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been a tenant of the landlord under an assured shorthold tenancy agreement since 2005. The property is a 2 bedroom house where she lives with her daughters. The resident says the landlord is aware that she is vulnerable, suffering from mobility and mental health issues.
  2. On 12 August 2021 the resident raised an emergency call out, reporting that her daughter’s foot had gone through a floorboard at the top of the stairs. An engineer attended. The landlord reported that they said, “the stairs [had] cracks and movement and [would] need replacing.” An appointment was arranged for repairs to be completed on 5 October 2021.
  3. On 5 October 2021 the repairs were delayed. The landlord says this was because it could not gain access. The resident says it was because she was told the landlord would have to complete an asbestos test first.
  4. On 25 January 2022 the landlord attended to complete repairs to the stairway. Following the visit the resident complained, on 26 January 2022, about the works. She did not feel the stairs were safe.
  5. The landlord responded on the same day at stage 1 of its complaint process. It upheld the resident’s complaint and said it had arranged for a surveyor to assess the repairs.
  6. In March 2022 the landlord attended the property again. There are conflicting reports from the resident and the landlord about why the works were not completed on that date.
  7. On 16 May 2022 the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint’s process. She recounted her history of events and asked for the issue to be addressed as soon as possible.
  8. In late June 2022 the resident provided some video footage of the stairs, showing how they bent when pressed and that they appeared to be coming away from the wall.
  9. On 27 February 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 response to the complaint. It upheld the resident’s complaint again. It said there had been communication issues “on both sides” and it had now arranged for the works to be completed on the same day. It offered the resident £150 to acknowledge the “extended time and inconvenience” caused to the resident and £50 for the delay in responding to her stage 2 escalation request.
  10. The resident has told the Ombudsman that the works were not completed properly. She says that even so, she had to lay carpet down as she had paid a deposit and is concerned that if the landlord now raises the carpet, this will incur costs for her.

 Assessment and findings

On the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of required repairs to the property staircase.

  1. The landlord confirmed that the earliest inspection of the stairs showed they needed replacing. The tenancy agreement sets out that the landlord is responsible for repairing the property stairs. However, except for a temporary measure on the day the resident’s daughter put her foot through a floorboard, the landlord did not take further action until 25 January 2022. This was almost 4 months after the original incident. The landlord’s repairs policy in use at the time did not set out response times. However, repairs, especially those that concern the safety of residents, should be completed within a reasonable timeframe. This did not happen and was inappropriate.
  2. In its stage 1 response to the resident, the landlord said it tried to visit the property on 5 October 2021 but had not been able to gain access. The resident said the appointment was cancelled because it was considered that an asbestos test might be necessary before works could go ahead. Later, internal records show that when the landlord was preparing to repair the stairs in February 2023, it considered a further asbestos test was necessary. It said it had only tested the hallway walls and not the stairs. As it again considered this was a necessary step before repair work could begin, the resident’s evidence that the original appointment had been stalled for similar reasons, is likely correct.
  3. In any event, the records do not show that any effort was made to arrange a further appointment until 17 November 2021 and the appointment was not arranged until 25 January 2022. Although the floorboard that the resident’s daughter had gone through had been temporarily attended to in August 2021, as the engineer had reported on that day that the stairs needed replacing, the resident should not have had to wait so long for the work to be done.
  4.  When the landlord attended on 25 January 2022, the resident was unhappy with the work done and complained the next day about her concerns. However, although, internally, the landlord arranged for a survey, this did not happen. Internal emails show the landlord reported that the resident had “…assumed she was going to get her staircase replaced” and when she chased a survey of the staircase, it was reported, in May 2022, that she was “…still persisting with this issue.” This does not demonstrate that the issue was being taken seriously and is an unreasonable approach.
  5. Nevertheless, this contact seems to have prompted the landlord to ask a surveyor to assess the situation again. On 31 May 2022 a surveyor reported that he had phoned the resident but she did not want him to visit. He reported that she had said the landlord had already visited and had taken photographs. The surveyor asked the landlord to forward the photographs to him.
  6. The resident provided the landlord with videos of the staircase in June 2022. She told it she had been waiting for the job to be completed for almost a year and that the issue was “…becoming dangerous”. She said the landlord had told her that it would address the matter but it had “…not kept to [it’s] word.” However, again, this did not prompt any action. During stage 2 of the complaints process the landlord examined the videos again. Internally, the landlord noted that the videos showed, “…there is a clear safety issue here.” It noted that a new inspection would be required as it had been over a year since the resident had raised the issue and the staircase wood could have further degraded.
  7. Another member of landlord staff said that he did not see what another inspection would achieve. He said that looking at the June 2022 videos, the “…stairs need to be glued and pinned and also new supports braced under the staircase.” A job was arranged for 27 February 2023.
  8. In the landlord’s stage 2 response to the resident it referred to communication issues from both sides. While there may have been some confusing messages from the resident, as she apparently did not want the landlord to complete repairs on 17 March 2022, on the whole, any communication issues appear to have been brought about by the landlord’s approach. For instance, when the landlord asked internally why a survey or follow up work had not been completed, it was told that the job had been closed on 25 January 2022 following the works. The landlord responded, internally, that the resident had complained the very next day about those works. This was a clear indication that resolution had not been achieved.
  9. Further, when the landlord reviewed the resident’s videos, 8 months after the resident provided them, it said there was a clear safety issue at the property. It is inappropriate that this had not been attended to effectively since August 2021 and especially so after the resident had provided video evidence. Even if the resident had at points said she did not want any more surveys done as she had provided videos, the video evidence was enough for the landlord to realise that there was a safety issue with the stairs. In any event, there is no evidence that the landlord pressed the resident to allow a further inspection. Given that there was a safety issue at the property, it would have been reasonable to do so.
  10. Taken together, the landlord’s approach to the resident’s reports of issues with her staircase was inappropriate and warrants a finding of maladministration. The resident did not ‘assume’ she would get a new staircase. The initial engineer’s report to the landlord noted that the stairs would need replacing.  The work that was completed in January 2022 was likely not sufficient to remedy the issue long-term as the resident’s video evidence, 5 months later, revealed a “clear” safety issue.  The resident was therefore right to ‘persist’ with the issue. However, the landlord still failed to take effective steps to address the matter. The resident is understandably concerned about the works completed in February 2023. Given the history, we have ordered that the landlord re-inspect the property staircase. If it has to remove any carpeting to do so, it will be responsible for any costs incurred in replacing it.
  11. In the landlord’s stage 2 response to the complaint, it offered the resident £150 for the extended time and inconvenience caused by its approach to the matter. When there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether any redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress (an apology and compensation), was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. We do not consider the sum of £150 sufficiently acknowledges the impact of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident over the prolonged period of time of around 18 months, where she was worried about the safety of using her staircase.
  12. We have made an order for the landlord to make a further payment of £800 for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of its response to the resident’s reports of required repairs to the property staircase. The sum is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for cases such as this where there was maladministration which had a significant impact on the resident.

 On the landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will take 20 working days to provide a stage 2 response to a complaint. It took 199 working days. This was not in line with its policy and inappropriate. The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation, in acknowledgement of the delay. However, given that the resident’s complaint was about a safety issue, the adverse impact of having to wait for resolution to her complaint warrants a greater award than granted. This delay was significant, and we have made an order that the landlord should pay a higher sum to the resident, in acknowledgement of the distress caused by having to wait so long for resolution to this issue. 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of required repairs to the property staircase.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £1300 in compensation. (This sum replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £200. If that sum has already been paid it should be deducted from the above sum.) The payment should be made within 4 weeks, comprising:
    1. £1000 to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of required repairs to the property staircase.
    2. £300 to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
  2. The payment is to be made direct to the resident and not used to offset any monies that the resident may owe to the landlord. The landlord must update this Service when payment has been made and provide evidence.
  3. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must contact the resident and arrange an inspection of the property staircase. Within 2 weeks of the inspection the landlord is to provide the resident and this Service with a copy of the report of the inspection, setting out a timetable for the completion of any necessary works. For the avoidance of doubt, if the landlord causes the resident to incur any costs due to a necessity to replace her carpets, it should cover those costs.

Recommendation

  1.  The resident says the landlord bore holes in the property hallway when conducting the asbestos test. This was not part of her original complaint but is related to the issues relayed in this report. The landlord should consider if any reparation works are necessary to remedy any damage done.