London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202304413)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202304413
London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)
1 October 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 a washing machine repair.
- The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.
Background
- The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord in 1 bedroom flat in a block, and his tenancy started in November 2021. The landlord recorded the resident as vulnerable due to having an illness that affects his mobility. During his complaint, both the resident and his flatmate were in contact with the landlord. For clarity, this report refers to both the resident, and his flatmate, as “the resident”.
- The resident reported that his washing machine was not working on 17 March 2022. The landlord attended to repair the washing machine on 22 March 2022, but was unable to as it needed to order parts. The landlord attended to fix the washing machine again on 12 May 2022, 29 May 2022, and 10 June 2022. The evidence indicates the repairs visits were unsuccessful. The landlord replaced the washing machine on 23 September 2022.
- The resident contacted the landlord in October 2022 to make a complaint about its handling of the washing machine repair, the exact date he complained is unclear. He said he was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the repair and that he was without a working washing machine for 6 months.
- The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 17 October 2022. It gave a breakdown of its repairs visits, upheld the complaint, and apologised for its handling of the repair. It offered the resident £300 in compensation, £240 for “loss of appliance” and £60 for “inconvenience caused”.
- The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint response, and emailed it on 19 October 2022 to say the compensation it offered did not fully compensate him. He said the issue inconvenienced him due to the “cost, time and effort” involved. He gave a breakdown of costs he claimed to have incurred. He explained that as a “disabled person” he found getting to and from washing machine facilities caused “even more inconvenience”.
- Following intervention from this Service, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 23 May 2023. It upheld the resident’s complaint, and offered its “sincerest apologies” for its handling of the issue. It made an increased offer of £799.98 in compensation, broken down as follows:
- £300 (£10 per week) for loss of appliance.
- £199.98 (£33.33 per month) for washing and drying costs.
- £100 for distress
- £100 for time and effort.
- £100 for complaint handling.
- The resident contacted this Service on 19 June 2023 and asked us to investigate his complaint. He said the landlord’s compensation did not fully put things right. He said the landlord had not “taken into account” [his] disability”.
Assessment and findings
Washing machine repair
- The landlord’s repairs policy states that it aims to complete “routine” repairs in an average of 25 calendar days. The landlord’s repairs policy states that in its “private rented sector accommodation” if it provides appliances, such as a washing machine, it will be responsible for repairing and maintaining it.
- When the resident first reported the repair in March 2022, the landlord attended within a reasonable timeframe and in line with the timeframes set out in its repairs policy. This was appropriate in the circumstances. That the landlord was unable to repair the washing machine on its first visit was somewhat outside of its control as parts were needed. However, the evidence indicates that after several further repairs visits it did not fix the issue. The resident was inconvenienced by the lack of use of his washing machine. Considering the resident’s reported vulnerability, it is reasonable to conclude the impact of this issue was greater than on someone without limited mobility due to the need to travel elsewhere to wash his clothes.
- The resident was cost time and trouble repeatedly raising a repair that the landlord failed to fix. The matter was ultimately resolved in September 2022, when it replaced the washing machine. That it decided to do so was reasonable in the circumstances. However, that the matter was outstanding for 6 months amounts to an unreasonable delay. The resident was inconvenienced by the lack of use of his washing machine, the impact of which was increased due to his individual circumstances, and vulnerability.
- The landlord accepted that its handling of the repair was poor, and that it took an unreasonable time to resolve. The evidence supports this conclusion. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, of October 2022, appropriately apologised and offered compensation to the resident. However, it offered little in the way of learning about what caused the delay. This was inappropriate, lacked transparency, and it missed an opportunity to build trust with the resident by setting out what it would do to prevent similar failings happening again.
- The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, of May 2023, increased its offer of compensation, and offered a detailed breakdown of how it had reached the figure. This was appropriate in the circumstances. We welcome the fact the landlord sought to revisit its offer of redress. That it offered an increased amount based on the resident’s concerns about the costs he had incurred, and the inconvenience the matter had caused him, was reasonable in the circumstances. However, it again failed to show appropriate learning about what had caused the delay, and what it would do to prevent similar failings happening again. This was inappropriate and a further failing in its handling of the issue.
- In his stage 2 complaint, the resident explicitly stated that the situation had impacted him more because of his disability. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint was silent on this concern. While it is noted the landlord made an increased offer of compensation, that it did not address this specific concern was unreasonable. The landlord’s silence on the resident’s concerns about his disability and the impact the situation had was inappropriate and caused an inconvenience of not having his concerns addressed. This is evidence it did not have due regard for his vulnerability and particular circumstances when responding to the complaint.
- The landlord’s complaint responses lacked learning, and its silence on the resident’s concerns about impact, due to his disability, was unreasonable. We have therefore determined there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the matter. We consider the landlord’s offer of compensation was reasonable in the circumstances, and have therefore not made an order for additional compensation for its handling of this issue.
Complaint handling
- The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure, which states it will response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and it will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
- When the resident raised his stage 1 complaint, the landlord sent its response within the timeframes set out in its procedure, and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). This was reasonable in the circumstances.
- The evidence shows the resident was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 response and expressed his dissatisfaction in emails on 18 and 19 October 2022. It is noted the resident did not explicitly ask it to escalate his complaint. However, that the landlord did not open a stage 2 complaint at this stage was unreasonable, and a failing in its complaint handling. The Code states that “if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, it must be progressed to stage 2”. That it did not do so is evidence it operated an obstructive complaints process that was unfair, and inconvenienced the resident.
- We have seen evidence that the landlord actively tried to discourage the resident from progressing his complaint to stage 2 at that time. The landlord sent the resident an email on 19 October 2022 that said: “the current waiting time for stage 2 responses is between 6 and 12 months, minimum, often the result [compensation] can be the same as first offered”. This approach was inappropriate and evidence the landlord operated an obstructive complaint process. The resident was inconvenienced by the landlord’s reluctance to progress his complaint to stage 2.
- The resident was further inconvenienced by the need to seek assistance from this Service, in May 2023, in order to get the landlord to open a stage 2 complaint investigation. This cost him time and trouble.
- The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, of May 2023, offered the resident £100 for its complaint handling. While we welcome the landlord’s decision to offer redress for the evident delays, that it did not offer any explanation was inappropriate. The landlord’s complaint response failed to explain why it was offering compensation for complaint handling, what learning it had done, and how it would prevent similar delays in the future. This was unreasonable and its response lacked transparency.
- Considering the lack of learning shown, and its actions in trying to actively discourage the resident from escalating the complaint, we have determined its £100 offer of compensation did not fully put things right.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a washing machine repair.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
Orders
Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
- Apologise for the failings identified in this report.
- Pay the resident £899.98 in compensation, made up of:
- The £699.98 it offered for its handling of the washing machine repair (if it has not already done so).
- The £100 it offered for its complaint handling (if it has not already done so).
- A further £100 in recognition of the inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by its complaint handling.
- Remind its staff responsible for investigating complaints the importance of:
- Showing appropriate learning in its complaint responses, including about complaint handling delays.
- Responding to all aspects of a resident’s complaint.
- Opening a stage 2 investigation if the resident is unhappy with its stage 1 response, in line with the approach set out in the Code.
- Setting out its consideration of a resident’s vulnerabilities in its complaint responses.