London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202225580)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225580

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

30 July 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:
1. the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs.
2. the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy which began in March 2022. The property is a 3 bedroom house, where she resides with her 3 young children. During the timeline of her complaint, the resident reported that her children were frequently unwell. In particular, her son was experiencing regular seizures.
Within 3 weeks of moving into the property, the resident informed the landlord that she had concerns about high energy bills which she believed was due to heat loss through the windows and doors. On 26 April 2022 she made a complaint to the landlord. She asked it to compensate her for a missed appointment and requested it arranged for an in depth inspection to take place.
The landlord responded to the resident the next day at stage 1 of its complaint process on 27 April 2022. It said that new windows had been ordered but were damaged in transit to the property, causing the missed appointment. It offered the resident £50 in compensation and said she could escalate her concerns to stage 2 of its complaint process. It closed the complaint 2 days later.
Between May and August 2022 the resident continued to report that she had concerns that her property was draughty. She also said that she had a mouse infestation. On 5 December 2022 the resident made a further complaint. She explained she was unhappy that repairs were outstanding and she had experienced several other missed appointments. The landlord acknowledged her correspondence on 12 December 2022 but provided her with no formal complaint response, and the Ombudsman had to intervene.
On 21 February 2023 the landlord provided the resident with a stage 2 response. It said that:
1. with regards to its complaint handling, it recognised that it did not react to her concerns in a prompt manner. To put things right it would:
  1. escalate concerns relating to a specific member of staff to management.
  2. arrange further staff training relating to complaints and better communication.
  3. offer her £110 in compensation.
2. it had reviewed the history of her repairs and accepted that she had to chase it on several occasions. It recognised that:
  1. the property should have been thoroughly checked by the voids team. It was liaising with staff who were in post at the time about her experience and would update her on their response.
  2. she should not have been advised to approach or chase contractors directly.
  3. her household had vulnerabilities and it accepted that the situation “must have been difficult to live with”. It had updated her account with a vulnerability flag and wanted to offer her £1,180 for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble.
3. it had investigated repairs to her front and back doors. The back door had been approved but was on a 5 week lead time. The front door was still awaiting approval to repair or replace. It wanted to offer her:
  1. £250 as a gesture of goodwill for energy lost due to faulty windows and doors.
  2. £60.86 as payment towards items the resident had purchased herself, for example draught excluders.
4. it accepted that missed appointments had caused her inconvenience and wanted to offer her £100.
5. the issue with pest control had been resolved through multiple visits over 6 weeks by its pest contractors. Mesh had also been put over active access routes.
6. it recognised she had outstanding repairs outside of her complaint which it had taken ownership of. This included an investigation into reports of damp and mould and a quote for a larger radiator in the bedroom. It would monitor all the repairs through to conclusion.
7. it wanted to provide her links to useful resources which could assist her with her fuel payments.
8. its total offer of compensation was £1,700.86.
The landlord’s customer relations officer continued to personally liaise with the resident after the conclusion of her complaint, however there continued to be repair delays over several months. After all repairs were completed, the landlord wrote to the resident on 2 June 2023. It said it had taken into account the additional delays and wanted to reassess the compensation it had offered previously. It said that:
1. follow up works had taken longer than expected and for this it was sorry.
2. it wanted to offer her a further £510 in compensation, broken down as:
  1. £250 towards redecorating which the resident expressed she wished to undertake herself.
  2. £100 for time and effort.
  3. £80 for distress.
  4. £80 for inconvenience.
In recent correspondence with the Ombudsman the resident advised that she is satisfied that all repairs have now been completed, but she wants to ensure the landlord has taken sufficient learning from her experience for the benefit of other residents.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact of her living conditions on the health of her family, in particular her son. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. However unlike a court we cannot establish what caused the health issue, or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs.

On 30 March 2022 the resident reported to the landlord that there was a draught coming through her front door and she had concerns that heat was escaping from the property, resulting in high energy bills. The landlord’s repair records from that time lacked sufficient detail and jobs were closed prematurely which was inappropriate. For example, the resident’s concerns relating to the front door were opened and closed on the same day, without any further action noted as being required from the landlord. The lack of appropriate record keeping resulted in frustration and distress for the resident, who kept having to chase the landlord about the same issue on several occasions.
In her complaint on 26 April 2022, the resident made it clear to the landlord that she felt the property was “freezing” and raised concerns about the standard of void works that had been undertaken before she moved in. The landlord failed to respond to each point she had made within its stage 1 decision the following day. Its response focussed only on how it had reacted to her reports of a draught through the windows, but provided her with no reassurance of what steps it was taking to address heat loss throughout the property. Furthermore, no investigation was undertaken into the quality of the void works which was inappropriate. As a result, it failed to put matters right and the £50 it offered the resident as compensation was insufficient.
The landlord was delayed in updating its vulnerability records for the resident and her family. In April 2022 the resident explained that she had an 8 month old baby and she was concerned about the impact the situation was having on him. However the landlord did not place a flag on the resident’s account until June 2022, and the notes it added were in relation to hot water repairs only. This was unreasonable and did not demonstrate that the landlord had understood the full extent of the household vulnerabilities. In doing so, it failed to adopt the “think, respond and record” approach in accordance with its vulnerable residents policy.
Despite adding a vulnerability flag to the resident’s account, the landlord did not prioritise any of her reports of repairs. Records show that throughout 2022 she continued to report issues with the windows and doors causing draughts, which worried her about the health of her young children, in particular her son who had experienced multiple seizures. Evidence shows the resident had to chase the landlord on several occasions, causing her inconvenience and distress. To put matters right in its final complaint response, the landlord updated her account to make her vulnerabilities clearer to all staff which was appropriate.
Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to how her reports of a mouse infestation were handled by the landlord. Evidence shows that a job was raised to the landlord’s pest contractors on the same day the resident reported the issue, which was appropriate and in accordance with its expected service standards. Whilst the repeated return visits caused the resident inconvenience, it is standard practice that a pest control contractor would attend on several occasions to ensure that the problem was eradicated.
It is recognised that the resident experienced frustration when the pest contractors failed to attend on 17 May 2022. Internal records show that the landlord liaised with its contractors about the missed appointment in a timely manner and established the reason was due to a technical issue with the contractor’s electronic job sheet. It compensated the resident £20 for the missed appointment which was reasonable. Furthermore, the landlord arranged for mesh covers to be put in place to ensure the problem did not return which was appropriate.
On 5 December 2022 the resident made a further complaint. She explained that she had not been provided the opportunity to discuss her concerns and said there were a number of repairs outstanding. Whilst the landlord acknowledged her complaint, it failed to take full ownership of the repair and placed the onus on the resident to contact the contractor directly. This was not appropriate. Within its final complaint response, the recognised that it had given her the wrong information and apologised for its error and agreed to discuss her experience with management, which was reasonable.
It is not disputed that the resident experienced a number of occasions where she waited in for repair appointments which were missed. The disruption to her planned schedule whilst looking after her young children and the frustration she felt is well documented within the landlord’s records. In its final complaint response, the landlord apologised for the inconvenience and compensated her for each missed appointment which was appropriate. However it did not demonstrate what learning it took to avoid missed appointments in the future.
It is clear that the resident expressed on a number of occasions that she was concerned about the rising cost of fuel and how she would be able to afford the costs of keeping the property warm. The landlord was slow to respond to these specific concerns and it did not refer her to appropriate support. It is not until it provided a final response on 21 February 2023 that it signposted the resident to agencies that could provide specialist support. The delay was unreasonable and contributed to the resident’s distress.
In determining whether there has been maladministration, we consider both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. In this case, the landlord’s final response appropriately acknowledged each of its service failures in considerable depth which was appropriate and demonstrated a sound understanding of the resident’s experience.
The amount of compensation it offered for each service failure related to the delay in repairing the property was reasonable and made in accordance with its compensation policy. It is clear that the landlord followed up on its assurances to see the repairs through to conclusion, and it gave the resident a single point of contact which was appropriate.
Whilst the landlord’s final complaint response to the resident largely put matters right, it failed to take any learning from her experience. As a result there were further repair delays following the conclusion of the complaint. Although the officer responsible for seeing the repairs through to conclusion was in regular contact with the resident, they had to repeatedly chase the appropriate departments for updates. Despite their best efforts to support the resident, repairs to the windows and doors were not completed until May 2023, another 3 months later. It is unclear why the additional delays occurred and the completion of the repairs was referred to by the landlord as a “miracle”. The additional delays were unreasonable and caused the resident evident frustration.
Whilst the Ombudsman does not encourage multiple final complaint responses, it was appropriate in this case that the landlord revisit the amount of compensation it offered the resident to account for the extended delays once the repairs were concluded. The additional £510 the landlord offered was fair and was sufficient to compensate for the additional time, distress and inconvenience it had caused her. As a result the Ombudsman will not be making a further order for compensation.
Overall, there were significant delays in repairing the resident’s property and recording her vulnerabilities appropriately. There were repeated instances of missed appointments which caused the resident inconvenience and distress. Whilst the landlord recognised these failures, compensated her fairly and made considerable efforts to rebuild its relationship with the resident, it failed to demonstrate sufficient learning. The completion of the repairs continued to be delayed for approximately a further 3 months, resulting in a finding of service failure.
In July 2023, the Ombudsman published a special report which identified that the landlord had failed to provide a satisfactory repairs service to its residents. Recommendations were made to carry out a review of the assurance section of its repairs and vulnerable residents policies. In response, the landlord reviewed both policies. It is currently undertaking a focussed piece of work to review all of its vulnerability flags and it is making ongoing improvements as part of its “repairs change project”. Therefore, this report has not made an order for the landlord to take this action, as it already putting into practice what would have been ordered as part of this investigation.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

The resident first made a complaint in April 2022. Although the landlord was quick to respond to the resident, it failed to address all of her concerns. There was no evidence that it contacted the resident directly to gain a full understanding of her complaint. As a result, it missed an opportunity to address all that she was dissatisfied with earlier within its complaint process.
The resident made a further complaint in December 2022, but it was not responded to appropriately in accordance with the landlord’s policy. Its response of 12 December 2022 offered no insight into the investigations it had undertaken and did not explain what it had learnt from the resident’s complaint. The response appeared to be more of a holding or acknowledgement letter rather than a comprehensive complaint response, which was inappropriate. Furthermore it offered no signposting for the resident to approach the Ombudsman if she was dissatisfied which was unreasonable.
It should not have taken intervention from the Ombudsman in February 2023 for the landlord to have provided the resident with a full and final complaint response. Nevertheless, it was an opportunity for the landlord to investigate the resident’s concerns and respond to her fully.
Where the Ombudsman identifies service failure during an investigation, we will assess the extent to which a landlord has recognised the shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress and learn from the complaint, with reference to the landlord’s complaints and compensation procedures as well as our own considerations of what is fair in all the circumstances of the case.
In this case, it is clear that the landlord took full ownership of its complaint handling failures and acknowledged them fully. It recognised that the resident’s experience since April 2022 had been poor and accepted that it fell short of expectations in accordance with its complaint policy. The landlord’s response on 21 February 2023 was comprehensive and its apology appeared genuine. The £110 it offered the resident in compensation for its failures was reasonable and sufficient to put matters right.
As explained in paragraph 22 of this report, the Ombudsman does not encourage multiple final complaint responses. However, the landlord’s customer relations officer responsible for responding to the complaint should be commended for their personalised approach to resolving the resident’s concerns. It is clear they took ownership and followed up on assurances made in the landlord’s final response to see the resident’s repairs through to conclusion. Regular contact was maintained with the resident over the period of approximately 3 months until the repairs were completed. During this time, the landlord demonstrated empathy and understanding, and it is clear a professional rapport was built with the resident which helped to restore the landlord and tenant relationship.
The landlord involved the resident in its decision about the final offer of compensation, which demonstrated a customer-focussed approach and a willingness to put matters right in the circumstances. For example, the resident was asked whether she would prefer to have the landlord “make good” some of her property post-repair or whether she would like the opportunity to redecorate it herself with a contribution towards costs. Her choice was appropriately reflected in the landlord’s final offer of compensation on 2 June 2023.
Overall, the landlord failed to consider the resident’s complaint appropriately between April and December 2022. However once the Ombudsman became involved and the resident was assigned a specific point of contact for her complaint in February 2023, her experience was much improved. The landlord acknowledged its mistakes and made an appropriate offer of financial redress for its failures. It took sufficient learning from her complaint and made considerable efforts to rebuild the resident’s trust in its complaint process, resulting in a finding of reasonable redress.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint satisfactorily, resulting in a finding of reasonable redress.