London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202306931)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202306931
London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)
16 August 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 response to:
- the resident’s reports of issues with the gas supply.
- the resident’s reports of a contaminated water supply.
- the resident’s reports of repairs.
- the handling of the resident’s complaint.
Background
- The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since October 2022. The property is a 3 bedroom house which she shares with her husband and 4 children. The resident has disabilities in relation to mental health, which are registered on the landlord’s systems.
- The landlord noted that the day after the resident moved in on 7 October 2022, it had delivered temporary heaters as a priority after concerns were raised about the lack of heating. On 18 October 2022 it attended the property to recommission the boiler and at the same time a new gas certificate was produced, which noted there were no faults and it was “safe to use”. Between October and December 2022 the resident continued to report intermittent issues with the gas supply. Around the same time, concerns were raised about the temperature of the water throughout the property.
- On 5 January 2023 the resident made a complaint to the landlord. She said that:
- she had no gas supply for 5 weeks after moving into the property. This left her with no heating or hot water and she had been told her boiler had been fitted incorrectly. She had been given £350 in compensation, but told that if she accepted the payment then she could not escalate her complaint.
- she had been buying bottled water for 8 weeks because she had been informed the water was contaminated and unsafe.
- the landlord had been in limited contact with her. The situation was impacting the health of her and her family.
- The landlord issued the resident with a stage 1 response on 18 January 2023. It said that:
- it was sorry for the lack of contact she had experienced and it was clear that the level of service she had received had fallen short of expectations. This would be addressed as a training issue with its staff.
- it was sorry if she had been advised her boiler had been fitted incorrectly. On the contrary, its contractors had attended the property and confirmed it was working.
- it had made a recommendation for a plumber to attend as an emergency to check there was no debris inside the tank in her loft and to check the temperature of the cold water supply to her taps. It would inform her of the outcome of the visit. Meanwhile, it would be willing to reimburse any costs she had to pay towards bottled water.
- On 25 January 2023 the resident escalated her complaint. She said no one had attended her property to assess the situation. She felt “repeatedly let down” and the situation was impacting her health. She said that:
- the landlord had given her a gas safety certificate when she moved in, which she felt was incorrect. She believed a subsequent gas leak was due to an incorrectly fitted boiler, but the landlord had failed to acknowledge this.
- her water smelt and tasted bad, but the landlord had taken months to investigate the issue.
- there was an incident where she was “nearly attacked” by her neighbour’s dog as the garden fence was insecure. She had to wait over a week for it to be fixed.
- On 24 April 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident and said it had reviewed the compensation it had offered her and wanted to increase its figure to £4,985 as a “full and final” settlement to her complaint. It noted that it had offered to still progress the matter to stage 2 of its process, but she had agreed that the complaint could be closed as she was happy with the revised offer. The amount was broken down as:
- £1,300 calculated as £50 per week for the length of time it had taken to address her concerns since she had moved in, a total of 26 weeks.
- £1,560 for the distress, calculated as £60 per week for 26 weeks.
- £1,560 for the inconvenience, calculated at £60 per week for 26 weeks.
- £250 for her time and effort.
- £165 towards bottled water, which was in addition to £200 it had already paid her towards her costs.
- £150 one off payment for the inconvenience caused as a result of not keeping a record of her previous complaint about the heating.
- Between February and July 2023, the resident continued to complain to the landlord about a number of additional issues, including that she was unhappy with the fence repair, her ceiling required making good after a leak and she had cracks appearing on the walls. She said she was unhappy with the number of missed appointments and the way the landlord had dealt with her complaints. As a result she approached the Ombudsman, who requested that the landlord provided the resident with a full and final response to all of her concerns.
- The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 11 August 2023. It acknowledged that it had failed to provide an effective service and said that:
- with regards to repairs she had raised:
- issues related to the gas supply were rectified on 17 October 2022.
- the water was tested as being safe on 21 March 2023.
- follow on works to the walls that were cracked were completed on 21 April 2023 and works to the ceiling following a leak had been completed on 27 July 2023.
- works to the fence were outstanding, so it would monitor it until it was complete.
- It wanted to offer her £3,100 in compensation, broken down as:
- £100 for the “lack of stage 1 response”
- £130 for the delays in responding to her at stage 2
- £250 towards her right to repair
- £20 for missed appointments
- £1,000 for distress, calculated as £100 per month for 10 months
- £750 for inconvenience, calculated as £75 per month for 10 months
- £600 for time and effort, calculated as £60 per month for 10 months
- £250 as a goodwill gesture.
- with regards to repairs she had raised:
- The landlord issued a further “complaint follow up letter” on 18 October 2023. It said that it wanted to address matters that the resident had said were omitted from its stage 2 response. It explained that:
- it was unable to evidence she had made a formal complaint about staff behaviour. It was sorry if she was under the impression this would be included in her stage 2 response and explained that complaints about staff conduct would be dealt with by the line manager of the staff member in the first instance. If she wanted the matter formally logged as a conduct complaint, she would need to make this clear.
- it recognised she had raised further concerns about more recent gas-related repairs. She could raise a new, separate complaint about this.
- it was sorry to hear that her garden was littered with sharp objects. Safety of its residents was its main priority, and asked that she report issues to its contact centre in the first instance. Fencing would be her ongoing responsibility to repair.
- it was sorry it had not addressed other issues with regards to internal repairs within its final response, and apologised for the inconvenience. Specifically it noted that:
- following a leak she had reported, it would reimburse her for any extra costs she had paid for water, if she provided it with a copy of her bills.
- it was responsible for plastering repairs, but painting was her responsibility and it was sorry if it had not made this clear to her.
- it would be willing to reimburse her further for bottled water she had purchased, if she could provide proof of purchase.
- it was upholding the £8,085 it had paid her in compensation to date, but wanted to offer her a further £250 for not addressing all of her concerns at stage 2 of its complaint process.
- In recent contact with the Ombudsman, the resident has said that issues relating to her gas supply are unresolved and she believes there has been a “slow leak” into her son’s bedroom since 2022. She also reports she does not feel confident that the water in her property is safe, and so she continues to buy bottled water. The landlord has advised that a gas leak was reported on 20 July 2024 which was attended to as a priority and later rectified within 4 days.
Assessment and findings
Scope of investigation
- Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact her living conditions have had on her health and that of her family. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. The Ombudsman accepts that the resident suffers from anxiety and has concerns about the quality of the water in the property and the potential impact it has had on her family. 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 resident’s reports of issues with the gas supply.
- Records show that the previous resident was using electric heaters in the property. At the time the property became void, an inspection took place on 30 May 2022 and noted that there was “no heating system in place”. In order to meet the Decent Homes Standard, the landlord had an obligation to provide a reasonable degree of thermal comfort. As a result, a new combi boiler was installed on 20 July 2022 which was appropriate.
- The landlord was obliged to ensure that it arranged for the appropriate gas safety checks to ensure that all appliances in the property were safe and fit to use. After installing the boiler, the landlord’s gas engineers produced an accompanying gas safety check certificate the same day, which was appropriate. However, the certificate was in relation to the installation of the boiler only, it did not demonstrate that the gas supply had been turned on for testing. A warning label was issued which made it clear that the boiler still needed to be commissioned.
- Contrary to the landlord’s gas safety policy, there is no evidence it followed its process for recommissioning in a void property. Its policy states that once void works are completed, the property is referred back to its lettings team and a gas contractor will be contacted at least 48 hours before occupation to recommission the gas supply. There is no evidence that the landlord did this, and as a result the supply was not commissioned before the resident moved into the property on 6 October 2022 which was inappropriate.
- The resident contacted the landlord about a lack of heating the day after she moved in. It attended to provide the resident with temporary heaters within 24 hours which was appropriate and in accordance with its repairs policy. However it was not until 18 October 2022, 12 days later, that it arranged to recommission the boiler and updated its gas safety certificate. The delay was unreasonable and caused the resident considerable inconvenience and distress.
- Between November and December 2022 the resident reported new concerns about her heating. Whilst is understood that the further issues caused the resident inconvenience and worry, the landlord responded promptly to her concerns and attended the property in accordance with the timescales set out in its repair policy. On 19 November 2022 the landlord attended within 24 hours to cap the gas due to a leak, and returned 2 days later to replace the washer on the isolation valve. It also tested the appliances again which was appropriate.
- A month later, she reported that her carbon monoxide alarm was sounding and she had to call the landlord out again. It attended within 24 hours, capped the gas and returned to carry out a sweep of the boiler, after which it left the system working. A new alarm was also fitted which was appropriate. Furthermore, the landlord’s gas safety records were kept up to date.
- It is clear from evidence seen that the resident’s lack of confidence in the landlord’s management of the gas supply caused her considerable distress. She stated on several occasions that she was confused as to how she had been given a safety certificate when she moved into the property, but had repeated issues between October and December 2022. There is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to explain what interventions it had undertaken to alleviate her concerns, although it is not disputed that a member of staff had been in contact with her at some point to offer £350 for the inconvenience it had caused.
- The landlord’s record keeping was inadequate. A formal complaint was not raised and there was no evidence of the conversations it held with the resident about the issue which was inappropriate. By failing to do so, there was no record of how the landlord came to offer the resident £350. She later alleged that she had been told that if she accepted the money, she could not take her complaint further. The landlord’s lack of contemporaneous notes of its interactions with the resident about the issue was insufficient. The Ombudsman cannot conclude whether this advice was given to the resident or not, but any informal compensation it offered should not have prevented her from accessing the landlord’s complaints process.
- The landlord’s stage 1 response on 18 January 2023 was an opportunity for it to consider the resident’s experience and put things right. However it fell short in addressing her concerns and failed to identify that there had been a failure to follow its void process or its gas safety policy by commissioning the boiler in good time before the resident moved in.
- Neither the landlord’s communication on 24 April 2023 or its final complaint response on 11 August 2023 recognised the extent of its failure to ensure that the property had adequate heating from the day she moved in. Whilst it was appropriate for the landlord to have increased its offer of compensation by a further £150, it did not demonstrate that it had taken any learning from her experience which was unreasonable.
- Overall there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with her gas supply. The landlord failed to commission the boiler in good time prior to the resident moving into the property in accordance with its gas safety policy. Whilst it offered reasonable compensation for the inconvenience it had caused her, it did not recognise that its failure to communicate what had gone wrong and what it had done to put matters right caused the resident avoidable distress. Furthermore, it took no learning from her experience in order to rebuild the resident’s trust.
- It is acknowledged that the resident has reported further concerns about the gas supply after the landlord issued its stage 2 response. Most recently, she reports there was a further gas leak in July 2024. It is understood that the situation has caused the resident considerable anxiety. The landlord’s more recent actions cannot be considered as part of this investigation as the incident took place a considerable time after its final complaint response and relate to a new gas leak that was not previously foreseen. However, an order has still been made for the landlord to make contact with the resident and provide her with reassurance of what steps it has taken to resolve the issue in accordance with its gas safety policy.
The resident’s reports of a contaminated water supply.
- The Government’s Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) identifies the water supply for domestic purposes as a potential hazard. It explains that the quality and adequacy of the supply of water within a dwelling should be sufficient for drinking and domestic purposes, such as cooking and washing. This is because poor water quality can be a threat to health from chemical and microbiological pollutants.
- In this case, concerns were first raised about the water temperatures around the same time the resident first reported issues with her gas supply. On 21 November 2022 the landlord recorded that there was “possible contamination of wholesome drinking water” via the boiler. It raised an urgent job to its gas contractors who could find no contamination from the boiler to the cold water supply. The matter was referred to a specialist to assess the property on 28 November 2022 which was appropriate.
- The risk assessment and management action plan which followed noted that there was an elevated overall risk, and the property had been recorded as “medium”. Although the report noted that there appeared to be minimal risk of bacteria growth, the assessment highlighted that the landlord’s monitoring records were not available, nor up to date. The report concluded that that “medium risk requires action as soon as it can be conveniently included in the work schedule”. However it was not clear what the work schedule would include, and the outcome was not shared with the resident, causing her considerable worry and distress.
- When the resident made her complaint on 5 January 2023, she explained that she had been buying bottled water for some weeks. In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged that she had been inconvenienced and assured her that it would reimburse her. However it made no assurances that it was acting upon the guidance given within the risk assessment it had been given in November. It did not put her mind at ease or explain when it would conduct further testing of her water supply. This was inappropriate and did not demonstrate it understood the urgency with which it needed to clarify the safety of the water in line with its HHSRS obligations.
- Records show that throughout January and February 2023 the resident had to chase the landlord about what progress was being made, which was unreasonable. The situation caused her further inconvenience where she waited in for an appointment on 24 January 2023 but the operative did not attend.
- The impact on the resident and the distress she felt is evidenced in emails she sent throughout January and February 2023 in which she stated she felt “mentally exhausted”, her “anxiety was severe” and the situation was “destroying her with worry”. Other than repeatedly assuring the resident it would reimburse her with bottled water costs, the landlord did not demonstrate sufficient empathy towards her situation. It failed to set out what it was doing to investigate the issue and it was delayed in referring her to further support, which was unreasonable.
- The water was not tested again until 17 February 2023. The results of the testing evidenced that there has been 2 “fail samples” taken, and understandably, the situation caused the resident considerable further distress.
- It is recognised that what caused the water to fail its sample testing was unclear, and the landlord was in liaison with both the water supplier and its specialist legionella contractors on a number of occasions. However, the landlord failed to provide the resident with sufficient reassurance and it did not share its plan of action with her. By not doing so, it failed to demonstrate that it had considered what other measures it could put in place to safeguard her whilst it addressed the issue.
- Internal records from the landlord on 20 March 2023 noted that its specialist contractor was “baffled” by the results and stated “new taps and hoses required…it appears the property was let not fit to live in as major works are required. May need to find the family a new home or find serviced apartments”. However there is no evidence that the landlord discussed a possible decant with the resident after it had come to this conclusion, which was inappropriate.
- The landlord’s final complaint response to the resident stated that the water had been tested as safe on 21 March 2023, which is not consistent with its comments that the property needed “major works” a day earlier. The Ombudsman asked the landlord for evidence that the water was tested as safe by its specialists on this date. On 13 August 2024 it provided email correspondence between its staff and its specialist contractor dated 28 March 2023 and a copy of an invoice dated 12 April 2023 relating to remedial works, but no evidence of the outcome of the subsequent water testing. This demonstrates poor record keeping by the landlord, and the outcome of the water testing remains unclear.
- It is recognised that the landlord has offered the resident financial compensation for her experience. On 24 April 2023 it offered £4,835 for failures related to the water, and on 11 August 2023 it made a further offer of £2,350 for the inconvenience, distress, time and trouble caused to the resident. In its final response, the landlord did not make it clear whether it had considered the informal offer it had made 4 months prior. For example, it referenced the same detriment time frame but did not make clear whether the amount was in addition to that it had already offered in April 2023, until it issued a “follow up complaint letter” 2 months later. The delay was unreasonable and caused evident confusion.
- The landlord did not make it clear whether the “missed appointments” payment was specifically in relation to the resident’s experience relating to concerns about her water supply, as they were not explained within its response. For the purposes of this investigation, the Ombudsman has considered the £20 it offered the resident for these as additional recompense for her experience relating to a missed appointment on 24 January 2023 which was reasonable.
- In total, the landlord has offered the resident in excess of £7,200 for its failures relating to the water. The amount it has offered is significant recognition of the detrimental impact the situation has had on the resident, and was made in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for a serious failing. As a result, the Ombudsman will not be awarding further compensation. Whilst offering redress was an opportunity for the landlord to put things right for the resident, considerable financial payments cannot be considered as absolute resolution for the resident’s experience. Particularly as it has been unable to demonstrate how it has concluded that all works had been done to the property and when the water had been tested as safe, causing the resident prolonged distress.
- Overall, the landlord has failed to adopt the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles of “be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes”. It is acknowledged that it set out a lengthy version of events within its final response, but it did not adequately explain what its understanding was of its service failures. It did not offer appropriate reassurance to the resident and its records were contradictory, particularly in relation to its internal correspondence on 20 March 2023 and the update it gave her with its final complaint response. Despite offering considerable compensation, it has failed to provide the resident with reassurance, demonstrate what it has learnt from her experience and has not put matters right resulting in a finding of severe maladministration.
The resident’s reports of repairs.
- The resident reported that the fence required repair on 10 October 2022. In accordance with the landlord’s repair policy, it had 28 days to complete the repair as it was deemed non-urgent. According to its repair records, the landlord attended and marked the job as complete 7 days later, which would have been reasonable. However, there appeared to be confusion about the condition of the fence which the resident continued to report to the landlord on several occasions throughout 2023.
- The landlord’s repair records related to the garden were insufficient. It referred the Ombudsman to document “5.1 job report garden” to view the history of garden related repairs. This document showed that it had recorded only 2 repairs related to the fence. The initial fence repair, which had been completed on 17 October 2022 as mentioned above and a further repair it recorded as completed the same day on 25 May 2023.
- Landlords are expected to maintain accurate records of repairs so that interventions can be tracked and monitored over time. In this instance, the information related to 25 May 2023 was inaccurate as the landlord’s stage 2 response on 11 August 2023 made it clear that it acknowledged the fence repairs were outstanding. The landlord has since provided the Ombudsman with email confirmation that works to the fence were completed on 29 August 2023. There were delays in completing the repair in accordance with its repairs policy, which was unreasonable.
- On 13 February 2023 the landlord recorded that the resident had complained that there was a patch on her ceiling following a leak from the bathroom above, and there were cracks in the walls. However there was a delay in raising the works. It was not until 3 March 2023, 15 working days later that a job was ordered on the landlord’s system, which was unreasonable. Both repairs were later completed outside of the timeframe expected within the landlord’s repairs policy, causing the resident inconvenience and distress.
- It is not disputed by the landlord that there were delays in completing the repairs and its complaints team had difficulty obtaining updates from the repairs department. The delays caused the resident additional frustration, and she experienced unnecessary time and trouble chasing the status of the repairs.
- In its final response, the landlord offered the resident £250 for the “right to repair” although it is unclear which specific repair it attributed this remedy to, or under what context. Whilst the landlord detailed the history of her reports of repairs, and apologised that she had experienced “a myriad of issues”, it did not set out what it had learnt from her experience and what measures it was putting in place to improve its service which was unreasonable.
- Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs. It is not disputed by the landlord that there were delays in completing repairs which was exacerbated by a lack of communication between its internal teams. The landlord’s final response on 11 August 2023 was an opportunity for it to put things right and learn from outcomes. However it failed to explain what steps it had taken to improve its service and as a result it did not put matters right.
- 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 policy. In response, the landlord reviewed the policy. It is currently undertaking a focussed piece of work to make 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 is already putting into practice what would have been ordered as part of this investigation.
The handling of the resident’s complaint.
- The resident first made her complaint on 5 January 2023. The landlord responded to the resident with a stage 1 response in good time in accordance with its complaint policy. Conversely, in its final response, it offered the resident £100 for the “lack of stage 1 response”. This was confusing and did not demonstrate that the landlord had a full understanding of the resident’s complaints journey.
- The resident made it clear that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response on 25 January 2023 when she stated the issues remained unresolved and she felt “repeatedly let down”. Whilst the landlord acknowledged it needed to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its process the same day, it did not respond with a final response for a further 138 working days. The delay was considerable and caused the resident evident frustration.
- In the time the resident waited for a final response, she complained about further issues and received complaint reference numbers which crossed into the same substantive issues. The Ombudsman asked the landlord for evidence relating to previous complaints, which the landlord had referred to by staff name rather than complaint stage. For example, it has been unable to provide evidence of “[Staff name] response at stage 1”, dated 23 January 2023 which was referenced in its final response. It has also been unable to provide a copy of “[staff name] original stage 2 response”.
- Having a large volume of complaint communications from the resident may have contributed to the difficulties in the landlord’s complaint handing, as matters were responded to both formally and informally over a period of 7 months. However, failing to recognise the resident’s dissatisfaction and coordinating them into one final complaint response led to considerable confusion and offering substantial compensation for its failures outside of its complaint process.
- Better communication with the resident about her complaint could have reduced this confusion for the both resident and the landlord. It is noted that the landlord did later address the resident’s concerns in its final response as one complaint on 11 August 2023, but only after the Ombudsman intervened. The landlord offered the resident £130 for the delay in responding to her complaint at stage 2, which was a fair offer of compensation and proportionate to its failures.
- The landlord addressed the majority of the resident’s concerns within its final response, but failed to include certain elements of her complaint which resulted in a further “follow up letter” being sent 2 months later on 18 October 2023. Whilst that the purpose of the follow up letter was to conclude all of the resident’s concerns, it was sent outside of the landlord’s complaints policy which was inappropriate.
- The landlord offered the resident a further £250 for its complaint handling failures which was reasonable and sufficient to put matters right. As a result, the Ombudsman will not be awarding further compensation specific to the landlord’s complaint handling. She was signposted to raise new matters as a separate complaint, which was reasonable.
- The landlord’s failures in handling the resident’s complaint were not limited to the time it had taken to respond to her concerns at stage 2. In responding to a resident’s complaint, landlords are encouraged to adopt the Ombudsman dispute resolution principles of “be fair, put things right, learn from outcomes”. In this case, the landlord’s final response on 11 August 2023 was 6 pages long and provided a lengthy history of its version of events. However it contained a limited assessment as to what it felt had gone wrong or how it intended to put matters right, which demonstrated overall ineffective complaint handling.
- Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. Offering high levels of compensation outside of the landlord’s complaint policy and “complaint follow up letters” are not compliant with either the landlord’s complaint policy or the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. The landlord’s failure to effectively manage the residents complaint would have been determined as severe maladministration, were it not for the compensation it had offered, and the learning it is undertaking under paragraph 49 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme.
- As referenced in paragraph 46 above, as a result of the Ombudsman’s special report, it has been ordered to take specific actions to improve its service. For example it was ordered to appoint a member of its governing body to have lead responsibility for complaints and support a positive complaint handling culture (in compliance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code). A member was appointed in January 2024 and actions are ongoing to conduct quality assurance checks on complaints. Its complaints policy has also been updated to include a new assurance section which it can report on, aligning it to its new quality assurance framework.
- The landlord has also reviewed the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has the right plans in place to address all the recommendations, both short and long term, with a focus on continuous improvement. Therefore, this report has not made further orders in relation to complaint handling as it is already putting into practice what would have been ordered as part of this investigation.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a contaminated water supply.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with the gas supply.
- 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.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
Orders
- The landlord is ordered to apologise for the failures noted within this report, within 4 weeks.
- The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £8,685 in compensation, within 4 weeks. The amount is to be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The amount is made-up of:
- £4,985 it offered the resident on 24 April 2023, if not already paid.
- £3,100 it offered the resident at stage 2 of its complaint process on 11 August 2023, if not already paid.
- £250 it offered the resident on 18 October 2023, if not already paid.
- a further £100 for the distress caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of her report of issues with the gas supply.
- a further £250 for the time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of her reports of repairs.
- The landlord is ordered to write to the resident to set out the lessons learnt from her specific case. In doing so it should list the failures it has identified and how it will inform future decision making to avoid repeated mistakes, within 4 weeks. The update should include, but is not limited to:
- an explanation of what it has understood its failures to be in relation to the time the property was void to when she moved in, what it has learnt from her experience and how it will improve services in the future.
- a full explanation about what steps it has taken to ensure the property has adequate heating and hot water.
- an explanation of what steps it has taken to resolve her concerns of water contamination. In doing so, it should provide a copy of the independent assessment which evidences that the water has been tested as safe.
- what it learnt from its complaint handling failures in this case, and how its quality assurance checks will improve its service to residents in the future.
- an update of progress on its “repairs change project”.
- The landlord is ordered to make contact with the resident and provide her with reassurance of what steps it has taken to resolve the most recent report of a gas leak in accordance with its gas safety policy, within 4 weeks.