London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202225494)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225494

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

28 June 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. Repairs to the balcony door.
2. Repairs following a bathroom leak.
3. Repairs to communal windows
4. Overflowing bins and grounds maintenance.
5. The associated complaint.
6. Repairs to the communal entrance door.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom flat. The tenancy commenced on in April 2022.
The resident lived with her young child.

Landlord responsibilities

The tenancy agreement required the landlord to keep in repair common entrances, and other communal areas (where not managed by a separate managing agent). It also was required to keep in ‘good repair’ all fixtures and fittings for sanitation and space heating. This largely mirrored its repairing obligation at section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that, for routine day to day repairs it aimed to complete the repair in an average of 25 working days. For emergency works, where there was an immediate danger to the resident or members of the public, it would attend within 24 hours or if it was out of hours it would attend within 4 hours to make safe the repairs.
The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 implied a term into the resident’s tenancy agreement that the landlord ensures its dwelling was fit for human habitation. The existence of a hazard as defined by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is one of the factors that may be considered when assessing fitness. Hazards arise from faults or deficiencies that could cause the occupant(s) harm and include issues with damp and accidents including falls, burns and scalds.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy allows for it to reimburse any relevant out-of-pocket expenses that had been incurred due to its service failures.

Events prior to the resident’s tenancy

The landlord’s repair history log for the property recorded:
1. Reports of a leak under the bath on:
  1. 23 April 2018
  2. 13 December 2018
  3. 14 and 18 January 2019
  4. 4 February 2019.
The landlord’s communal repair history log for the apartment block recorded:
1. Reports of communal front door repairs on:
  1. 3 April 2020
  2. 4 May 2020
  3. 7 May 2020
  4. 3 June 2020
  5. 15 July 2020
  6. 11 to 14 August 2020
  7. 16 November 2020
  8. 8 December 2020
  9. 28 January 2021
  10. 18 February 2021
  11. 2 March 2021
  12. 10 May 2021

Summary of events

On 2 February 2022 the landlord’s void inspection identified the balcony door required repair. It logged a work order with its contractor. Its records marked the repair as ‘complete no action’ on 16 March 2022.
On 28 March 2022 and 20 April 2022, the landlord again logged a repair request for the balcony door. It noted an issue with the lock which needed replacement. The repair was marked ‘complete’ due to no access on 31 March 2022 and 28 April 2022.
On 4 May 2022, the landlord raised a further repair request for the balcony door to be repaired following the resident’s report. The repair was marked ‘complete’ on 10 May 2022.
Between 16 June and 6 July 2022:
1. The resident reported the communal entrance door would not close. The landlord raised a repair order which was marked complete on 29 June 2022.
2. The resident contacted the landlord to advise it had not yet fixed her balcony door following a previous report. The landlord raised a new repair order with its repairs team to inspect and repair the balcony door. The repair log noted the job was marked ‘complete’ on 6 July 2022.
On 8 July 2022 the resident reported the communal entrance door would still not close. The landlord raised a repair order, and it was marked ‘complete’ on 15 July 2022.
On 26 July 2022 the landlord raised a new repair order to its contractor to repair the balcony door.
On 31 August 2022 the resident chased the landlord for an update on the balcony door repairs. She explained she wanted the repairs urgently ahead of the winter months approaching. The landlord advised its contractor had until 21 September 2022 to complete the works.
Between 14 and 16 September 2022:
1. The landlord informed the resident its contractor would contact her to book an appointment to repair the balcony door when it had obtained the parts.
2. The resident reported the communal entrance door would not close. The landlord raised a repair order on the same date. It was marked complete on 20 January 2023.
On 22 November 2022 the resident asked for the communal windows to be closed as it was contributing to the cold temperature in her property. The landlord raised a works order to fix the ventilation system as the windows would not close. The works order was marked ‘complete’ on 20 December 2022.
On 6 January 2023 the resident reported a leak from under her bath and the landlord raised a repair request.
On 11 January 2023 the landlord chased its contractor for an update on the balcony door repairs. It was advised the contractor had been searching for the required parts to complete the repair and it was unable to source these at present.
On 13 January 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. She stated:
1. The balcony door would not shut properly causing heat loss and she had been waiting almost 1 year for repairs. She and her daughter were cold in the property despite using the heating unit. Draught excluders she purchased did not resolve the issue.
2. There was a communal window which would not shut nearby her property. This added to the heat loss.
3. There were overflowing bins in the communal areas and the communal gardens had untrimmed hedges which blocked the footpath, causing her to walk in the road.
4. The communal entrance door was broken and did not lock.
5. Her bath was leaking, and repairs had not been completed.
On 16 January 2023 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint.
On 20 January 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and informed it the leak was affecting her bathroom flooring.
On 25 January 2023:
1. The landlord chased its contractor for an update on the balcony door repairs. It was advised the contractor could still not locate parts to complete the repair. The landlord asked the contractor to provide a timescale as it was urgent.
2. The landlord inspected the communal windows. It confirmed they were open due to a smoke vent but could not locate the switch to close them. It raised a repair order with its electrical team to inspect the system.
On 26 January 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It stated:
1. Its contractor had difficulties obtaining parts to fix the balcony door. It acknowledged the delay to complete the repair and apologised. It would update the resident when it had received a further update from its contractor.
2. It would attend to inspect the leak under her bath on 3 February 2023.
3. It arranged for a heat loss survey to be completed in the property. This would take place on 9 February 2023.
4. It inspected the communal windows and believed the windows were open due to a smoke vent. It had raised the concerns with its health and safety team and would inspect what actions it could take to close the window.
5. It visited the communal grounds and did not see evidence of overflowing bins. However, it would continue to monitor the issue. It also provided a direct contact to the resident to report any future communal bin issues.
6. The responsibility for the hedge maintenance was with the managing agent. It asked the resident to provide photographs of the concerned areas and it would provide these to the managing agent to resolve.
On 1 February 2023 the landlord raised a further works order for the communal windows to be inspected and closed. It was marked ‘complete’ on 13 April 2023.
On 2 February 2023 the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. She explained:
1. She took 2 days off work for repair appointments on 24 and 27 January 2023 where repair staff did not attend.
2. She wanted compensation for the length of time her balcony door had been broken and the communal windows had been left open, as she incurred additional costs of heating her home.
3. There had been standing water under her bath from the leak. It had caused mould to develop.
4. The communal entrance door had not been repaired.
On 7 February 2023 the resident reported the presence of damp and mould underneath her bath and on the bath panel. She also reported a damp smell.
On 22 February 2023 the landlord’s contractor advised it had sourced parts to repair the balcony door. It would raise an order for the landlord to approve and order the parts once finalised.
On 27 February 2023 the landlord confirmed the order for the balcony door parts was approved.
On 9 March 2023 the landlord arranged for a damp and mould survey of the property. It confirmed:
1. There were loose tiles on the back wall of the bathroom which needed replacement to prevent water ingress.
2. The hot water pipe was exposed due to previous repairs to fix a leak. It needed replacement as it was a health and safety risk.
3. A mould clean was completed at the visit to the affected areas of the bathroom.
On 22 March 2023 the landlord’s electrical team advised the communal window repair should have been logged with the landlord’s fire safety team. This was amended and a new order was raised on 27 March 2023.
On 24 March 2023 the landlord chased an update from its contractor for confirmation of when the parts would arrive to complete the balcony door repairs.
On 27 March 2023 the landlord arranged for its contractor to trim the hedges due to the delay of its managing agent. It advised its managing agents of its future upkeep responsibilities for the hedges and grounds maintenance.
On 29 March 2023 the landlord’s contractor confirmed it would receive the parts on 3 April 2023 to complete the balcony door repair.
On 30 March 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It explained:
1. It raised a works order for the hedges to be trimmed, despite this being the responsibility of the managing agent.
2. It contacted the local council regarding the issue of bin collections. It inspected the communal bin areas and could not find evidence of overflowing bins; however, it confirmed it had provided a direct contact for future incidents to be reported by the resident.
3. It acknowledged the resident reported the balcony door would not shut when she moved into the property in March 2022. It responded to the report on 31 March 2022 to inspect however, it could not gain access. It rescheduled the appointment for 10 May 2022. The operative confirmed repairs were required. The balcony door would be repaired on 3 April 2023. It explained the delay was due to issues obtaining replacement parts which required its contractor to source parts abroad. It apologised for the delay.
4. It acknowledged there had been a long delay between the resident’s report of the communal window repair and works being completed. It explained a repair order was raised to its contractors to close the window. It had approved its contractors quote and further works would be scheduled to resolve the issue.
5. It recognised the resident had experienced damp and mould because of the delay to repair the bath leak. It arranged for a damp and mould survey however, had not received the final report at the time of its complaint response. It would consider any recommended repairs once in receipt of the survey report.
6. It acknowledged service failing in its handling of the repairs. It apologised and offered £710 compensation comprised of:
  1. £260 (£20 per month x 13 months) for repair delays
  2. £150 distress
  3. £150 inconvenience
  4. £50 service failure
  5. £50 time and effort
  6. £50 complaint handling.

Events post complaint

On 4 April 2023 the resident confirmed the repairs to the balcony door were completed. However, she was waiting for the landlord to complete repairs to the bath and clean the mould under the bath.
On 13 April 2023 the landlord replaced the resident’s bath panel.
On 1 May 2023 the landlord secured the loose bathroom tiles and replaced the grout which had become mouldy.
On 2 August 2023 an engineer inspected the electrical panel to close the communal windows. It advised the landlord the panel was beyond repair and an upgrade was required. On 14 November 2023 the repair work was still outstanding.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman considers its dispute resolution principles. This is good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes
2. put things right
3. learn from outcomes.

Repairs to the balcony door

The landlord’s repair history confirmed it identified repairs were required to the resident’s balcony door during its void inspections on 2 February 2022. The resident also reported the repair several times since moving into the property in April 2022. Despite the repair records marking the repair as complete, the evidence confirmed the door remained in disrepair. There was no evidence the landlord inspected the balcony door to verify the repair was completed ahead of commencement of the resident’s tenancy. Furthermore, had it been aware of the outstanding repair to the balcony, there was no evidence it communicated effectively with the resident or advised her of the expected timescales to complete the repair and manage her expectations. This was unreasonable and evidence of a service failure.
Following the resident’s reports of the broken balcony door since moving into the property, the landlord did not raise a new repair request until 26 July 2022. This was a delay of approximately 5 months from when it was first on notice of the void repair in February 2022. The repair was completed on 3 April 2023, 14 months after it was on notice of the required repair. The delays were not in line with the landlord repairs policy timescales of 25 working days. This was evidence of a service failure.
The landlord explained the reason for the delay was due to its contractors having difficulty sourcing the required parts from the manufacturer to complete the repairs. While the evidence provided by the landlord does suggest it had initially been in contact with its contractor and provided a completion date of 21 September 2022 to the resident, it did not appear to take its responsibility to manage the repair seriously until the resident considered making a formal complaint on 13 January 2023. This was seen following an update from its contactor on 16 September 2022 that it would contact the resident once it had obtained the required parts to arrange an appointment. However, the landlord did not make further contact with the contractor until 11 January 2023when it was advised the delay was due to issues sourcing parts. This was approximately a 4-month period where it failed to actively manage the repair or obtain updates, which was not proactive or solution focused.
On 31 August 2022, the resident reported concerns about the approaching winter period if the repair was not completed. In her complaint dated 13 January 2023 she reported she and her young child were cold despite heating the property and had incurred a significant cost due to increased electricity usage.
The evidence is unclear as to whether the parts required were specialist and only supplied by the manufacturer. While the landlord cannot be held responsible if the parts were not available, the issue should have been escalated to a senior member of staff to investigate, not only after the resident complained to the landlord. This Service has also seen no evidence that the contractor or landlord investigated whether this was the only supplier available or why the part was taking so long to source, or whether the balcony door could be replaced. Had it been possible to replace the door, this could have avoided the resident living in an insecure and cold property for longer than was reasonable. This should have been a priority because the resident and her child were living without suitable balcony doors to keep heat in the property at the coldest time of the year. This caused them considerable distress and inconvenience and is evidence of a service failure.
The landlord is obliged by the Decent Homes Standard to provide the resident with a reasonable degree of thermal comfort at the property. Social landlords are exempt from the regulations governing minimum energy efficiency requirements and would not be obliged to make improvements to improve energy efficiency. The landlord would, however, be responsible for ensuring that there were no repair issues which meant that the standard was not being met. The HHSRS offers landlords a risk-based tool to enable them to consider potential hazards. This is useful as landlords have a responsibility to keep properties free from category 1 hazards, which includes excess cold. Guidance for the HHSRS sets out that a healthy indoor temperature is approximately 21°C and that temperatures below 16°C, may pose serious health risks, particularly for elderly or more vulnerable residents.
Given that the resident had raised concerns about the impact of the cold on her and her child, as well as the affordability of her energy bills, the Ombudsman would have expected to see evidence that the landlord had assessed whether the temperature/heating efficiency was suitable enough for the resident to wait until the contractor could obtain the required parts for repair. Failing which, whether some form of intervening action to increase the temperature/efficiency was required. This may have included providing and contributing to the costs of additional temporary heaters until the balcony door repairs could be carried out, or consideration of a full replacement of the balcony door.
While the landlord did take steps to ensure that the heating was working within the property through a heat loss survey on 9 February 2023, this was several months after it had been on notice of the resident’s concerns of keeping the property warm and did not address the cause of the heat loss, which was the delayed repair to the balcony door. Additionally, it remains unclear from the evidence provided as to whether the temperature of the property was checked to determine whether it was adequate and in line with its obligations. These failings were likely to have caused inconvenience to the resident who was awaiting a resolution.
The landlord’s compensation policy allowed it to reimburse any relevant out-of-pocket expenses that had been incurred due to its service failures. There is no evidence the landlord considered the resident’s concern of increased electricity costs due to the additional heating she required to heat her home. This Service would expect the landlord to take these concerns seriously. This Service has made an order for the landlord to reimburse the resident for her increased electricity costs from the start of her tenancy until 4 April 2023 when the repair to the balcony door was completed.
The resident lived with her young child in a second-floor property, therefore if the balcony door could not lock shut, there was a serious risk of her child accessing the balcony unsupervised. After reviewing the deficiencies identified during the inspection which contributed to a hazard, the HHSRS could also have provided the landlord with a useful tool to have assessed the likelihood of the resident’s child suffering a potentially harmful occurrence in the next 12 months. Secondly, the inspector should have judged the possible harm outcomes that could result from such an occurrence. There is no evidence the landlord considered the health and safety risk posed by a balcony door which would not shut throughout the lifetime of the case. The landlord’s failure to assess and thereafter manage the risk, in addition to considering what alternative interventions it could implement is evidence of a serious failure in its management of repairs.
This Service recognises the landlord’s complaint response found service failure in its handling of the repair. It was good practice for the landlord to acknowledge its failings. However, the landlord’s management of the balcony repair was unreasonable and significantly delayed. It was not reasonable for it to wholly rely on the delays its contractor had obtaining parts to complete the repair. It failed to manage the repairs timescale with its contractor and consider temporary or alternative repairs/replacements, failing to manage the resident’s expectations. It also failed to reasonably assess the risk to the resident and her child when faced with a door which would not shut and posed a serious fall risk, in addition to considering the temperature of the property, especially during the winter months. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the number of serious failings in the landlord’s handling of the balcony repairs amounted to severe maladministration.

Repairs following a bathroom leak

The resident reported a leak from underneath her bath on 6 January 2023. The landlord responded by sending its contractor to inspect and repair the leak on 3 February 2023 and it was marked ‘complete’ in the repair records. This was approximately 1 month after the leak was reported. While this was in line with the landlord’s timeframe for routine repairs of 25 working days, this Service would expect a water leak to have been responded to urgently if it had potential to affect other residents in the building, and to prevent associated damp and mould from developing. The landlord’s response time suggested it did not take the matter of a leak seriously. This was evidence of a service failure.
On 7 February 2023 the resident reported damp and mould on the inside of the bath panel following the contractor’s attendance to repair the leak, where it had removed the bath panel. This left the hot water pipe exposed. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould states that landlords should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. Landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould should reflect the urgency of the issues. The landlord showed good practice to respond to the report of damp and mould by arranging a survey on 9 March 2023. This was also in line with its damp and mould policy.
The landlord has not provided evidence of the contractor’s report following its repair. It is therefore unclear whether it had earlier notice of the exposed hot water pipe. However, the evidence does suggest the landlord was unaware of the exposed hot water pipe until it received its damp and mould survey report, which was still outstanding when the landlord provided its stage 2 response on 30 March 2023.
The landlord responded quickly to the information it received following its damp and mould survey and fitted a new bath panel on 13 April 2023. It also arranged for further repairs identified in the survey to be completed. However, the landlord was ultimately responsible for the work carried out by its contractors. It should have a system in place to ensure repairs carried out by its contractors were completed satisfactorily and the condition following the repair was reported. This would have allowed the landlord to monitor the present condition and ensure there was no exposure to health and safety risks. The lack of consideration of the risk to the resident and her child, and the HHSRS, which provides guidance on assessing the risk of vulnerable residents such as children and the prevention of burns is evidence of a serious service failing. It was fortunate no serious incident occurred while the hot water pipes were exposed.
Furthermore, the evidence provided by the landlord confirmed it was aware of recurring leaks under the bath which also affected the previous tenants of the property. This Service would expect the landlord to have recognised in its repairs history there was a regular bath leak, and considered whether the repairs it was completing were sufficient to repair the leak for good. There is no evidence the landlord did this. This is evidence it did not take its repairing responsibilities seriously and was evidence of a service failure.
While the landlord responded to the leak within its repair policy timescales, a leak would suggest a more urgent response was required. It failed to evidence it responded within a reasonable timeframe. It also failed to manage the quality of repairs by its contractor, exposing the resident and her child to a serious health and safety risk. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was maladministration.

Repairs to communal windows

On 22 November 2022 the resident reported concerns with the communal windows of the apartment block which had been left open during the winter period. She was concerned with the heat loss from her property while waiting for repairs to her balcony door, and believed the open windows contributed further to the heat loss.
The landlord’s evidence showed it raised a repair request with its contractor on the same date. However, it was marked complete on 20 December 2022. There was no evidence provided which explained why the repair was marked complete, despite the evidence showing the windows remained open.
On 25 January 2023 the landlord inspected the windows. It was confirmed the windows were open due to a smoke vent, but further work was required by the electrical team to resolve the issue. It raised a work order on the same date however, on 22 March 2023 the landlord realised it had logged the order with the incorrect charge code and it was amended and passed to the fire safety team. On 28 March 2023 a new works order was raised with the correct team. The evidence provided by the landlord explained the repairs remained outstanding on 14 November 2023.
The landlord’s handling of the repair was unreasonable. It failed to inspect the issue for approximately 2 months from when the resident first reported it and secondly, it remained outstanding for at least 12 months. This was outside of its repairs policy timescales of 25 working days for routine repairs. Furthermore, there was an unexplained issue of the repair being marked ‘complete’ incorrectly and the incorrect charge code logged. These mistakes contributed to the delays and caused the resident distress and inconvenience, failing to close the windows during the winter period while the resident was experiencing heat loss from her property because of her broken balcony door.
The length of time it took the landlord to resolve the repair suggests it did not take its role seriously or sought to provide a reasonable repairs service to the resident. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this amounted to maladministration.

Overflowing bins and grounds maintenance

The resident complained about the frequency of the removal of waste from the communal bin stores and the trimming of hedges in the communal areas. She explained there was a risk of pest infestation and the hedges had blocked communal pathways, causing her to walk in the road to avoid the obstruction. The landlord explained to the resident it was the responsibility of the managing agent to remove rubbish and maintain the hedges.
The landlord showed good practice to inspect the site following the resident’s report of the overflowing bins on 25 January 2023. While its inspection could not find evidence to support the resident’s complaint, it recognised the bins were recently collected. It took further steps to ensure the resident was provided with a direct contact to report future issues. It ensured it visited the site several times to monitor the situation, which was confirmed by email to the resident on 27 March 2023. It also made further enquiries with the local council regarding the frequency of its rubbish collections. The landlord’s actions were reasonable and evidenced it wanted to prevent the issue reoccurring.
The landlord contacted the managing agent following the resident’s report to remind it of its responsibilities and ask it complete grounds maintenance work. It also asked the resident to provide photographs of the affected areas which caused her concern. This Service recognises the landlord encountered difficulties obtaining a response from the managing agent. To avoid further delay, it arranged for its own contractor to attend and cut back the overgrown hedges. This was good practice from the landlord and was evidence it went above and beyond its contractual responsibilities to provide a good customer service. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have obtained its own photographs of the overgrown hedges while attending site to inspect the overflowing bins, rather than expecting the resident to provide such evidence to prevent further delays.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of overflowing bins and grounds maintenance was reasonable. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this amounted to no maladministration.

The associated complaint

The resident’s complaint dated 13 January 2023 included the landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal entrance door of the apartment block within the complaint parts. There is no evidence the landlord responded to this aspect of the resident’s complaint within its complaint responses. The landlord should have responded to all parts of the complaint definition as set out at paragraph 6.7 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. This was evidence of a complaint handling service failure.
The resident escalated her stage 2 complaint to the landlord on 2 February 2023. The landlord did not provide its stage 2 response until 30 March 2023. This was approximately a 2-month delay. This was not in line with the landlord’s complaint handling policy or the Code timescales of 20 working days. Furthermore, there is no evidence the landlord communicated with the resident about delays to provide its stage 2 response or sought to agree an extension with her. This was unreasonable and left the resident in the complaint handling process without managing her expectations to expect a resolution of her complaint. This caused her distress and inconvenience. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint was service failure.
The landlord acknowledged service failing for its stage 2 response delay and offered the resident £50 compensation. However, this Service found a further service failing in the landlord’s complaint handling. A further order for compensation has been made to reflect this additional service failing.
In line with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, as there is evidence of a complaint handling failing, this Service has also investigated the landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal entrance door.

Repairs to the communal entrance door

The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal block entrance door and that it was frequently broken, compromising security.
The landlord’s communal repairs log showed a substantial history of repair issues with the communal entrance door, with 12 reported incidents between April 2020 to May 2021. Since the resident moved into the property there were 5 reports of issues with the communal front door on 16 June 2022, 8 July 2022, 4 and 24 August 2022 and 14 September 2022.
While there was a history of issues with the communal front door, this Service appreciates there was a period between May 2021 and June 2022 where no further reports of issues were received.
Since the new issues were reported from June 2022, this Service recognises the landlord was entitled to make attempts to repair the door system where the cost of replacement was likely to be significant. On 27 October 2022, the landlord raised a repair job for replacement of the door system which was completed on 18 November 2022. It also realigned the door on 20 January 2023. Since then, the landlord’s evidence shows there were no further reports of issues with the communal front door raised.
The evidence provided suggests the landlord recognised there had been a period of repairs which proved to not be long-lasting, and it took appropriate action in November 2022 which appeared to have resolved the issues. The landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the communal entrance door was no maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the balcony door.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s report of repairs following a bathroom leak.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s report of repairs to communal windows.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s report of overflowing bins and grounds maintenance.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s report of repairs to the communal entrance door.

Reasons

The landlord took 14 months to repair the balcony door and failed to promptly instruct the repair after it had initially been identified within the void repairs report. It took 5 months from when it was on notice of the void repair to instruct its contractor to complete the repair, adding to the delays. It relied solely on its contractor’s obtaining parts and did not consider alternative or temporary solutions. It did not consider the risk to the resident and her young child of living in a property which was experiencing heat loss because of the outstanding repair, or the risk of a potential fall where the balcony door would not close. It also did not take into consideration the resident’s additional costs of heating her home because of the heat loss.
The landlord did not appropriately monitor its contractor repairs and did not consider the risk to the resident’s child and other visitors of an exposed hot water pipe. Furthermore, the landlord failed to consider its property repairs history which suggested the repairs it was completing were not long-standing and should have considered making repairs to resolve the bath leak for good.
The landlord failed to repair the communal windows throughout the life of the case and did not consider the attributed heat loss caused to the resident. Communication and administrative errors resulted in long delays which were outside of the landlord’s repair policy timescales.
The landlord’s handling of overflowing bins and garden maintenance was reasonable. It inspected both issues and provided the resident with a direct contact to report further issues. It also ensured remedial works were completed to trim hedges, despite it not being within its remit.
The landlord did not respond to part of the resident’s original complaint about repairs to the communal entrance door and took 2 months to provide its stage 2 response.
The landlord appropriately responded to repairs to the communal front entrance door. It considered previous repairs had proved unsuccessful and completed long-lasting repairs which resolved the issue.
There is no evidence the landlord took responsibility to inspect the work of its contractors in this case or considered health and safety risks where a young child could suffer serious harm. These issues were present across several complaint heads of this investigation and represent serious failings, which if not resolved, pose an ongoing risk of serious harm for the landlord’s residents as a whole.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. A senior member of the landlord’s staff should apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. If it has not already completed repairs to the communal windows, provide a timeline for repairs to be completed, and thereafter a monthly written update with action taken until all outstanding issues are resolved.
3. If the landlord has not already done so, pay the resident £710 which it offered in its stage 2 response on 30 March 2023.
4. Pay the resident compensation in the sum of £1,700 comprising of:
  1. £750 in recognition of the time and trouble caused to the resident by the failures in its handling of the repairs.
  2. £850 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failures in its handling of the repairs.
  3. £100 in recognition of the time and trouble caused to the resident by its complaint handling.
5. The landlord should make a further award of compensation to reimburse the resident’s increased electricity costs associated with the heat loss in the property, from the resident’s tenancy commencement until the balcony door was repaired.
In accordance with paragraph 54(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is ordered to carry out a review of its practice in relation to responding to requests for repairs where there are health and safety risks. The review must be carried out within 8 weeks and should be conducted by a team independent of the service area responsible for the failings identified by this investigation. The review should include as a minimum (but is not limited to):
1. An exploration of why the failings identified by this investigation occurred, including its lack of consideration of the impact the situation had on the resident.
2. A review of all determinations that we have issued over the last 6 months regarding health and safety. Where findings of severe maladministration and maladministration have been made, the findings should be incorporated into the review, along with the relevant case reference number.
3. Review its staff’s training needs to ensure all relevant officers:
  1. respond to requests for repairs appropriately and progress works orders in an efficient and timely manner, in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures
  2. are aware of the need to maintain oversight of repairs and communicate effectively with contractors to ensure works completed are compliant with health and safety requirements.
Within 12 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord should produce a report setting out:
1. The findings and learning from the review.
2. Recommendations on how it intends to prevent similar failings from occurring in the future.
3. The number of other residents who have experienced similar issues since June 2021.
4. The steps it proposes to take to provide redress at the earliest opportunity to the residents who have been similarly affected by the identified failings. This should include consideration of compensation commensurate with the level of detriment a particular resident has experienced, if caused by a failing on the part of the landlord.
The landlord should embed the recommendations in the report within its wider transformation programme, to inform practice in other areas of service delivery, where relevant, with appropriate oversight.
The landlord should provide a copy of the final report to its governing body and member responsible for complaints, if appointed, for scrutiny. The governing body should agree how it will provide oversight of the implementation of any recommendations made following the review. The landlord should also provide a copy of the report to the Ombudsman.
The landlord should commit to revisiting the issues 6 months after the report has been finalised, to check whether changes in practice have been embedded.
The landlord shall contact the Ombudsman at weeks 4, 8 and 12 to provide evidence it has complied with the above orders.