London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202230164)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202230164

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

29 November 2024

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
    1. Concerns about service charges
    2. Repairs to the property and bin store.
    3. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a shared owner of the property with the landlord, which a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom ground floor flat which is part of a coach house. The property was a new build. The lease started in May 2022

Summary of events

  1. The resident contacted the landlord on 23 March 2023 regarding the increase of service charges. The resident said she did not agree to the increase in charges as she did not receive all of the services she was being charged for.
  2. The resident also raised various repairs in 2023. This included that the bin store was not locking, her front step was wobbling and she had loose kitchen panels.
  3. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 23 March 2023. The resident said she disagreed with the increase in service charge as she was not receiving all the services she was being charged for. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 27 March 2023. In its stage 1 response the landlord confirmed that as the resident was a variable service charge payer any costs not applicable would be reconciled in September next year. The landlord confirmed that her 2022/23 service charge would be reconciled in September 2023.
  4. The resident raised further repair matters at stage 2 on 16 October 2023. The resident contacted this Service due to not receiving the stage 2 response. As such, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 25 May 2023 to request it provides it stage 2 response by 12 June 2023. In its stage 2 complaint response dated 12 June 2023, the landlord apologised for its lack of communication and delay and offered compensation of £300.
  5. In referring the matter to this Service on 1 March 2023, the resident said that repairs were outstanding. Additionally, that the service charge increase did not reflect that she did not live in a flat. Therefore, the services she was being charged for was incorrect.
  6. Post complaint process
  8. 7.     The resident contacted the landlord on 19 June 2023 and said she had not received any contact regarding the repairs. The resident said she was seeking an update.

Assessment and findings

  1. The Ombudsman’s Dispute resolution principles are to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.
  2. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns by adhering to relevant legislation, its policies and procedures, and any agreements with the resident, and that the landlord acted, taking account of what is fair in all the circumstances of the case.

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident informed the Ombudsman the landlord’s handling of the matters under review in this investigation had a negative impact on her health and wellbeing. Whilst this service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. However, we will consider any impact that resulted in distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  2. The resident has raised concerns about the level of service charges and rent. Under paragraph 42 (d) of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, the Ombudsman is unable to consider the reasonableness, level of, or the amount of increase to service charges, or rent. Such matters are better dealt with by the courts.
  3. The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord’s list of service charges and her concerns that many of the charges should not apply to her. This investigation will consider whether the landlord offered a reasonable and timely response, including whether the landlord gave her the correct information to help her understand the reason for the charges.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about service charges

  1. Service charges are payments that a leaseholder or a tenant must pay for the cost of services provided by a landlord. Variable service charges are charges that change based on the costs incurred by the landlord. They are defined in section 18 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
  2. In this case, the resident initially raised concerns about the level of service charges she was being charged in March 2023. This followed the resident receiving her service charge estimate for 2023/24. The estimated service charge statements provide a breakdown of the estimated service charges for the forthcoming financial year. The actual service charge statements provide a reconciliation of the estimated and actual costs for the financial year and show whether this has resulted in a deficit or a surplus for the financial year.
  3. The resident complained that she was being charged for services she had not received such as fire protection maintenance and maintenance of the door entry system. The records show that the landlord contacted the resident on 27 March 2023, as part of its stage 1 complaint response. In its response the landlord said that as the resident was a variable service charge payer any costs not applicable would be reconciled in September 2024. In complaints regarding service charges, landlords are expected to respond to all queries within a reasonable time.
  4. Whilst the landlord provided a timely response, it failed to provide a clear substantive response to the resident’s concerns at this time. This included that the landlord did not provide a response to the resident’s concerns as to why she was paying service charges for services she did not receive. The landlord remains accountable to the resident in respect of the money it spends on services and must be able to explain them. As the resident felt most of the charges should not apply to her it was important for the landlord to explain to her how and why the charges were applicable. The landlord’s response was not reasonable as it lacked oversight of the resident’s concerns.
  5. The landlord did not provide a substantive response until it issued its stage 2 complaint response on 12 June 2023. This was 3 months after the resident initially complained about the level of service charges. Due to the delay in its response, the landlord caused the resident unnecessary time and trouble in chasing it for a response. This included that the resident contacted the landlord on 6 April 2023 and 27 April 2023. This was not reasonable as the landlord lacked understanding of the issues the resident faced.
  6. This included that the resident had reported to the landlord on 23 May 2023 that she was struggling financially due to the increased costs. Whilst the landlord did direct the resident to its own debt advice service at stage 2 it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have advised the resident on its advice service earlier in the process.
  7. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that its service charge statement for 2023/24 was incorrect. It confirmed that electrical testing, fire protection equipment maintenance, door entry system maintenance, and emergency lighting maintenance as services should not have been included in the estimate statements. The landlord said it would refund any overpaid charges at the end of the year once costs had been reconciled. This was in line with its service charge policy.
  8. The landlord apologised for its lack of communication and distress caused to the resident. The landlord offered the resident £240 to cover any distress caused and £20 for time and effort. However, it is unclear from the compensation offered if part of this relates to compensation for the delay in repairs. Therefore, it is proportionate to consider that the landlord awarded 50% of the compensation for its service charge failings. Therefore, this amounts to £130.
  9. This service finds reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of reports of concerns about service charges. The remedies offered were fair, put things right and the landlord learnt from the outcomes. Its offer of £130 compensation was reasonable in the circumstances and reflective of its compensation policy.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the property and bin store

  1. The landlord’s defect warranty period on all new homes is 2 years, within which time all defect repairs will be covered by the developer of the building. Residents can report any issues directly to its Aftercare team. Deliberate or accidental damage is not covered by the defect warranty, and any charges for such issues will be included on the residents’ service charge statement at the end of the financial year. The defect period of the resident’s property ran from May 2022 to May 2024.
  2. The resident raised a number of repairs in 2023, this included that the front doorstep was wobbling, the bin store was not locking and loose kitchen panels. This was during the landlord’s defect warranty period.
  3. It is not disputed that the landlord is responsible, under the terms of the lease, to repair and maintain communal areas. This includes repairs to communal bin stores. The landlord’s records show that the resident reported that the bin store door did not close properly on 24 April 2023. The resident stated that due to the bin store not locking people were accessing the store to take part in illegal activity, making her feel unsafe.
  4. The landlord’s records show that it repaired the lock on the bin store 3 months later on 21 July 2023. This delay was not in line with the landlord’s policy and was unreasonable, with no evident mitigating factors to explain the full length of time the resident was awaiting repair works. This demonstrates a failure by the landlord to comply with its repairing obligation to complete repairs within 25 days.
  5. In terms of the repairs raised during the defect period this covers the resident’s reports of the front doorstep wobbling on 6 April 2023 and loose kitchen panels on 12 April 2023.
  6. The landlord has not provided any evidence of its contact with the developer. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to show evidence that it raised the defects and liaised with the developer to ensure repairs had been completed. The records provided to this Service by the landlord point to failures in effective record keeping practices. As part of this investigation, the landlord was requested to provide relevant information that would reasonably be recorded and retained by the landlord. The documentation provided was limited and the repair logs provided did not track its actions or future plans.
  7. The records provided show that the loose kitchen panels were only repaired on 10 October 2023. This was 6 months after the resident initially reported the matter. The records go on to state that the resident’s front doorstep was repaired on 2 October 2023. This was also 6 months after the resident reported the matter. Further to this, it was 4 months after the landlord in its stage 2 complaint response said the repairs had been booked. However, the records show that the resident contacted the landlord after she received the stage 2 response. In the resident’s contact dated 19 June 2023 she confirmed that she had not received any communication regarding repairs.
  8. There is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident regarding dates for repairs. Overall, there was poor communication on the landlord’s behalf in updating the resident on the developers progress of works. This left the resident in a position of uncertainty and may have impacted the landlord and resident relationship. This was not reasonable as it should have full oversight of the matter, contacting relevant teams on a regular basis to seek a resolution. Additionally, providing regular updates to the resident to provide reassurance that it was taking matters seriously.
  9. The landlord acknowledged its failings in its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised for any inconvenience caused or experienced. This included that it offered compensation of £240 for distress and £20 to cover time and effort. However, it is unclear which proportion of the compensation relates to the delay in completing repairs. This is not in line with the Code for landlords to reflect the impact on residents for failings identified.
  10. The landlord’s failure to contact the developer to chase the outstanding repairs together with the lack of updates for a prolonged period of time represents maladministration. The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident and pay additional compensation to reflect the distress caused by its failings. It is also required to take steps to seek to learn from the issues identified.

The associated complaint

  1. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) was introduced with the aim of improving complaint handling across the housing sector. As a member of the Scheme, the landlord is obliged to establish and maintain a complaints procedure in accordance with any good practice recommended by the Ombudsman.
  2. In accordance with its complaint’s procedure, the landlord’s response to residents’ complaints at stage 1 is required within 10 working days of the complaint and the stage 2 response in 20 working days. Where these timescales are not possible, this will be communicated to the resident.
  3. The resident initially complained to the landlord on 23 March 2023, the landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day. The landlord provided its response 2 working days later on 27 March 2023 which is in line with its own complaint procedure and the Code. This Service notes that the landlord did not stipulate that it was a stage 1 complaint response in this response. This failing is not appropriate or in line with the Code as landlords should confirm the complaint stage in its correspondence.
  4. The resident requested that the landlord progress to stage 2 of its complaint process on 27 March 2023. At this time, the resident raised further repair matters. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 request on 25 May 2023. The landlord provided its stage 2 response 3 months later on 12 June 2023. The delay of 2 months to acknowledge and provide its stage 2 response was outside of its own complaint procedure and the Code.
  5. The landlord has not provided any evidence to explain its delay in issuing its complaint response at stage 2 nor did it request for an extension. The landlord’s lack of response was not reasonable. This adversely affected the resident and caused her unnecessary time and trouble requesting a response. Additionally, contributed to the resident’s distress and further exacerbated the situation further. It was also a missed opportunity for the landlord to identify, address and learn from the failings identified above. This amounts to a service failure.
  6. It was also a failing that the landlord did not raise the resident’s complaint about repairs as a new complaint. The landlord instead responded to the repair concerns in its stage 2. This was not appropriate as the landlord should have opened a new complaint. This is in line with the Code that states that when residents raise a new complaint which is unrelated to the issues already being investigated, new issues must be logged as a new complaint.
  7. The landlord apologised for its delays at stage 2 and offered compensation of £40. This amount does not reflect the impact caused to the resident due to the delay. This Service orders that the landlord pay the resident compensation to adequately reflect the avoidable inconvenience arising from its complaints handling failings. Also, apologise for its failings which had not previously identified.
  8. In July 2023, the Ombudsman issued a special report about the landlord, highlighting concerns with its handling of complaints and repairs. The report recommended the landlord review its process, practices and procedures to reduce the risk of similar failures in the future. In this investigation we have identified failures similar to those in our special report. To avoid duplication no further orders or recommendations for policy, process or practice review have been made. We do expect the landlord to take all relevant learning points from this case into account when delivering future service provision.
  9. The Ombudsman also previously ordered the landlord to carry out a review of its policy or practice under paragraph 54.f in relation to responding to record keeping. Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to the case of 202400109 already determined. The landlord has demonstrated compliance with our previous wider order so we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case, which would duplicate those already made to landlord. The landlord itself should consider whether there are any additional issues arising from this later case that require further action.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about service charges.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the property and bin store.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the associated complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. Pay the resident £400 compensation in addition to what has already been awarded. This comprises of:
      1. £300 to reflects the resident’s time and trouble in its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the property and bin store.
      2. £100 to reflect its poor complaint handling.
  2. Provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chat to us