London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202306893)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306893

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

7 May 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 handing of the resident’s report of a leak from the shower to the bedroom.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a joint tenant of the landlord and occupies the property under an assured tenancy with his mother, who is 90. The property is a 2 bedroom ground floor flat and the tenancy began in 2017.
The landlord’s repairs policy states as follows:
1. For emergency repairs (where there is an immediate danger to the resident or members of the public) it will attend within 24 hours.
2. For routine repairs it aims to complete the repair at the earliest mutually convenient time.
3. If a resident is vulnerable it can adjust its service standards where a delay would put the resident risk because of their condition.
The landlord’s compensation policy states as follows:
1. It will not reimburse residents for lost earnings.
2. It may pay compensation, in the form of rent rebate, if a resident is not able to use a room in their property because of a repair issue that is its responsibility, and which causes prolonged and unreasonable disruption.
3. It will make the following fixed payments:
  1. £10 for a failure to respond to a formal complaint within the timescales in its complaints policy.
  2. £20 for failure to keep an appointment without at least 24 hours’ notice.
4. It will partly or fully offset a compensation payment against any debt owed to it by a resident, including rent and service charge arrears.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints process. At stage 1 it aims to respond within 10 working days. At stage 2 it aims to respond within 20 working days. If additional time is required at either stage it will keep the resident informed.
The resident previously referred a complaint to this Service (case reference 202123452, determined 19 April 2023) in respect of the landlord’s repairs to the shower and a leak from the shower to the bedroom. This Service investigated the repair to the shower which exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process on 23 March 2022. The complaint about the leak from the shower was assessed as outside jurisdiction as this complaint had not completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure at that stage.

Summary of events

The resident emailed the landlord on 9 February 2022 and stated that water had leaked from the wet room to the bedroom. This Service has not seen any action following this report until the landlord raised a job in respect of this on 22 June 2022. The landlord noted that water was seeping into the adjoining bedroom wall when the shower was in use. This job was attended on 5 July 2022. It is not clear if any works were completed on that occasion however the landlord noted that the bathroom vinyl flooring needed to be renewed.
On 5 August 2022 the landlord noted internally that works to the bathroom tiles and tile trim were required. The resident chased the repair on 8 August 2022 and the landlord advised that it needed to book the repair for the tiles before it could fit the flooring.
The landlord noted internally on 9 August 2022 that the resident was not happy that it would not repair the tiles as a “p1” repair. It had explained that it was a containable leak, as it only occurred when the shower was in use. It had advised the resident to use a black bag with “tap” (it appears this should say tape) to reduce the water reaching the tiles. It raised a job for new flooring to be laid once the tiling had been completed.
On 15 September 2022 the landlord recorded the leak repair as completed. Details of this repair were not provided to this Service.
On 14 October 2022 the resident asked the landlord when the bathroom flooring would be fitted. The landlord advised the resident to call back once the tiling works had been completed. It reiterated to him on 14 February 2023 that the tile trim needed to be renewed before the flooring could be replaced. It stated that a contractor would arrange this appointment. The landlord marked the job to renew the bathroom flooring as urgent on 28 February 2023.
On 17 May 2023 the resident submitted a complaint and stated that he had not been able to use the bathroom for more than 6 months due to the leak into the bedroom. That same day, the landlord noted internally that it had tried to call the resident about a maintenance appointment but there had been no answer.
The resident contacted this Service on 25 May 2023 and stated that he and his mother could not use the shower as water leaked through to the bedroom. He explained that his mother was 90 years old and they had to go to his sister’s house for a shower. This Service advised that the landlord had until 1 June 2023 to respond to his complaint (submitted 17 May 2023) at stage 1.
On 2 June 2023 the landlord noted internally that its flooring contractor had not been able to gain access to the property to carry out the works. The date is not clear but it appears this was in late May 2023). The resident had advised the contractor that he had forgotten about the appointment and asked for it to be rebooked. It was subsequently rearranged for 12 and 13 June 2023.
That same day (2 June 2023) the resident reiterated his complaint to the landlord. He requested the issue with the bathroom be fixed urgently as he and his mother had to travel to family 10 miles away to shower.
The landlord responded at stage 1 that same day (2 June 2023). It stated that it had raised a job to renew the vinyl flooring in the bathroom. It had tried to call its contractor but had been unable to reach it however it would chase the works. It advised the resident how to escalate his complaint.
On 4 June 2023 the resident escalated his complaint and stated as follows:
1. The issue had been going on for over a year.
2. He had been “messed around” and was frustrated by the delays and the works had not been completed.
3. His elderly mother could not shower and had been affected by the delay.
4. He requested compensation.
On 14 June 2023 the landlord advised the resident that the wet room flooring had been “addressed” and the contractor would attend that day to finish off the tile trim. It requested information about damage caused to the bedroom wall by the leak.
On 19 June 2023 the resident advised this Service that the repair had been completed on 14 June 2023.
The landlord responded at stage 2 on 21 July 2023 and stated as follows:
1. It apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint.
2. It outlined its timeline of actioning the leak as follows:
  1. 22 June 2022 – Leak reported.
  2. 5 July 2022- Leak repaired and order raised for bathroom flooring.
  3. 9 August 2022 – Leak reported again.
  4. 24 August 2022 – Paint damage reported in bedroom.
  5. 15 September 2022 – Leak repaired.
  6. 10 January 2023 – Appointment to repair paint damage cancelled due to no access.
  7. 22 June 2023 – Plaster repairs completed in the bedroom.
3. It acknowledged that there had been significant delays in carrying out the repair and multiple cancelled appointments. It acknowledged that this would have been “stressful and inconvenient” and that the resident’s elderly mother had been particularly impacted.
4. It acknowledged that the resident had had to contact it on a number of occasions in respect of the repair.
5. It offered a total of £450 compensation, made up as follows:
  1. £150 for distress.
  2. £150 for inconvenience.
  3. £50 for the time and effort spent raising and chasing the complaint.
  4. £100 for the delayed complaint response.
6. This compensation would be offset against the resident’s arrears of £7,648.87.
On 27 July 2023 the resident advised the landlord as follows:
1. Its offer of compensation was not sufficient. It had not acknowledged that he had spent £1040 on petrol travelling to have a shower at a family member’s property.
2. Missed appointments had caused him to lose income.
3. There was mould on the walls (he did not indicate which room).
On 18 August 2023 the landlord advised the resident as follows:
1. It had reconsidered its offer of compensation. It’s revised offer was a total of £500, made up as follows:
  1. £175 or distress.
  2. £175 for inconvenience.
  3. £50 for time and effort.
  4. £100 for complaint delays.
2. It signposted the resident to this Service.
That same day the resident referred the matter to this Service. He stated that the offer of compensation was not sufficient.

Assessment and findings

Report of a leak from the shower to the bedroom

It took the landlord 16 months (February 2022 to June 2023) to replace the bathroom flooring and re-tile in order to stop the water penetration. The landlord’s repairs policy does not indicate a repair response timeframe for general repairs, however the time taken to complete the repairs in this case was not reasonable. It is noted that during this 16 months, the landlord carried out two repairs try to resolve the leak in July 2022 and September 2022. The details of these works were not provided to this Service, however the leak was not resolved. A contractor had attended to complete the tiling works in May 2023, however this appointment could not proceed as access could not be gained to carry out this work.
It is noted that around August 2022 the resident had requested that the issue be treated as a “p1” repair however the landlord did not consider the leak to be an emergency repair. This was appropriate and was in line with its repairs policy as it considered that water seeping through the wall when the shower was in use did not pose an immediate danger to the resident. While it was appropriate that the landlord did not classify the repair as an emergency, it remained essential that the issue was resolved in a reasonable timeframe given the household vulnerability and the reported difficulties with accessing suitable washing facilities due to the repair issue. However, the landlord took 16 months to resolve this issue, an excessive delay in the circumstances.
It is noted that the landlord advised the resident that he could try to lessen the water penetration by attaching a plastic bag to the bathroom tiles. This suggestion was made in August 2022, 6 months after the resident had reported the leak. By this point, it was reasonable for the resident to expect that the leak should have been resolved and that such a temporary solution should not have been required had the landlord acted in accordance with its repairs policy. The temporary solution suggested by the landlord did not consider the nature of a wet room, where such a bag and tape would get wet and could pose a slip hazard should it come unstuck. This suggestion was not appropriate in light of the household vulnerabilities and could have presented a further hazard had the resident followed the landlord’s advice. Instead the resident chose to take his mother to a relative’s house to shower.
When the landlord realised that it could not complete the repair in a reasonable timeframe, it should have taken steps to attend the property to see if it could provide any temporary repair to the bathroom itself. Instead it took the landlord until September 2022 to try to compete a repair. It is not clear what repair was carried out on this occasion, however it is noted it did not resolve the water penetration. Given that the landlord had ascertained by August 2022 that new flooring and tiling works needed to be carried out, there was a missed opportunity for these works to be completed in September 2022.
When the landlord marked the job as urgent in February 2023, this had little impact on the works being actioned. It is noted that a flooring contractor had attended around late May 2023 and that access could not be gained due to the resident having forgotten about the appointment. Whilst this was unfortunate, the landlord acknowledged, within its stage 2 response, that its contractors had missed appointments on a number of occasions. This demonstrates further missed opportunities to put things right for the resident at an earlier stage.
Following the completion of the internal complaints procedure (July 2023) the resident advised the landlord that there was mould on the wall (it is not clear which wall this was). Although the landlord did not have an opportunity to consider the report of mould in its internal complaints procedure, given that water penetration had been occurring for around 16 months, the landlord should have been proactive and investigated whether the leak had caused damp and mould to the property. There is no evidence that it did so.
The landlord acknowledged its failings within the stage 2 response and offered compensation. It is noted however that the landlord stated it had been notified of the leak in June 2022, when in fact this Service has seen correspondence to show that the resident informed the landlord of the issue in February 2022. The landlord’s record keeping should be adequate to enable it to find details of when a repair issue was first reported. Following the stage 2 response, the landlord reconsidered its offer of compensation in light of the resident’s representations as to the cost of fuel to shower elsewhere and loss of earnings. Its revised offer was a total of £400 compensation in respect of its failure with the repairs, £175 for distress, £175 for inconvenience and £50 for time and effort.
When a failure is identified, as in this case, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
In respect of the complaint handling, the landlord took 34 working days to respond at stage 2. This was outside of the landlord’s complaints policy of 20 working days for this stage. The landlord acknowledged its failure to respond in line with its complaints policy and it offered £100 compensation in respect of its complaint handing failures (this was in addition to the £400 offered in respect of the repair issue). This offer was higher than the £10 for a delayed complaint as set out in its compensation policy. The offer of compensation was reasonable to acknowledge the frustration caused to the resident by this delay of 14 working days. It is noted that the resident had been in contact with this Service throughout his complaint and this delay did not significantly interfere with his ability to bring his complaint to this Service.
It is acknowledged by this Service that the resident and his mother did not feel able to use the shower in the property and the resident reported that he spent money on petrol traveling to shower at a relatives as a result. Whilst it is appreciated that the water ingress would have impacted on the enjoyment of the wet room, the landlord confirmed that the shower remained operational and the room was usable. It is acknowledged however that due to the issue the resident did not have full enjoyment of the wet room. It is also acknowledged that having water penetrating into the bedroom for the prolonged period would have impacted the resident’s enjoyment of the bedroom. Whilst the landlord acknowledged some of the inconvenience and distress caused, it failed to acknowledge the full impact of the loss of enjoyment of the rooms. The landlord also made an inappropriate suggestion for a temporary solution 6 months after the water penetration was reported. It did not demonstrate that it had considered the household vulnerability when suggesting this temporary fix or in addressing and fixing the cause of the water penetration. In addition, the landlord’s record keeping was poor as it was not clear what works it carried out to try to resolve the leak prior to the re-tiling. As such the redress offered (£400) did not sufficiently address the significant distress and inconvenience caused to the household for the significant period of time or that the resident and his mother ha to shower elsewhere. This amounts to maladministration. This Service has concluded that compensation of £800 is reasonable to acknowledge the impact of the failings on the resident (this includes the landlord’s offer of £400). The compensation ordered by this Service is in line with the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance for maladministration where a failure by the landlord has had a significant detrimental impact on the resident over a period of time.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s

Reasons

The landlord did not accurately consider when the length of time the repair had been outstanding and it significantly delayed the completion of the repair. It did not acknowledge the impact this had on the vulnerable household or the use of and enjoyment of the wet room and the bedroom. Its suggested temporary measure was inappropriate and lacked consideration for the household vulnerability. The landlord’s offer of compensation did not account for the household feeling unable to use the wet room and having to travel to shower elsewhere. Its offer of compensation was not sufficient in the circumstances.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of this report and provide evidence of compliance to this Service:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this case.
2. Pay £800 compensation directly to the resident (this includes the landlord’s offer of £400 in respect of the repair during the internal complaints procedure, unless already paid as part of the complaints process).