Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202307713)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307713

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

25 April 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:
    1. Reports of repairs to the windows.
    2. Formal complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has occupied the property, a 4 bedroom house, with her 3 children since October 2022 on an assured tenancy. Two of her children have disabilities and the landlord has been made aware of this.

Summary of events

  1. The resident complained to the landlord on 23 March 2023 about the condition of the windows at the property, specifically that there were gaps creating draughts. While contractors had looked at the handles, the draught issue remained unresolved and she complained that she had disabled children who were being negatively affected by the cold.
  2. The landlord issued its stage 1 response the same day. It said a repair to the windows was logged on 1 December 2022 and a contractor attended on 15 February 2023 and said new handles were needed and attended again on 23 March 2023 but could not source handles. It apologised for the inconvenience and said it would update her when it had more information, but in the meantime offered her £180 compensation (repair delay of 4 months x £15 = £60; distress for 4 months x £15 = £60; and inconvenience for 4 months x £15 = £60).
  3. The resident told the landlord on 31 March 2023 that the issue with draughty windows was still outstanding. On 19 April 2023, the resident queried with the landlord when the property was on its cyclical list for window replacements. The landlord said it would look in to it.
  4. The resident rejected the stage 1 offer on 5 May 2023 as she said the issue started on 31 October 2022 and there were 2 other visits. This included one on 21 December 2022 when she was told someone would get back to her and they did not, so she had to chase. There were further visits on 15 February and 23 March 2023 when she had to work from home and she was no further forward. She said the house was cold and she wanted the windows replaced and reiterated that she had 2 disabled children.
  5. The landlord apologised on 9 May 2023 and said the contractor was still trying to source the part. However, on 14 May 2023 the resident explained that 2 people had already attended and told her the handles for the windows no longer existed and they had already checked that. Therefore, time was being wasted and the issue was that the windows were draughty and the house was cold and new handles would not resolve that. She asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2.
  6. The landlord confirmed on 15 May 2023 that the complaint would be considered at stage 2, but advised there was a backlog so could not say when it would respond. It did comment though, that it was a “reactive repairs service” and could not undertake a complete renewal of the windows. The resident reiterated her concerns about the effect the cold was having on her family, the same day.
  7. On 16 May 2023 the landlord responded to the resident’s 19 April 2023 query about the windows, and said they were usually replaced on average every 30 years in accordance with the decent home standard. In the meantime repairs could be done. The resident then asked how old the windows were and she was told the relevant team would contact her. In the absence of any further contact, the resident chased the landlord on 25 May and 3 July 2024, but it is not clear whether it ever responded on this point.
  8. In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 14 August 2023, it detailed the background to the complaint and the contents of the stage 1 response. It apologised for the delay in responding at stage 2 and thanked the resident for speaking with it that day. It said:
    1. As an interim measure it had offered to send a contractor to adjust the window handles and look at options of draught proofing but the resident declined that, as she was concerned it may impact a surveyor’s assessment of the windows.
    2. It had arranged for a surveyor to inspect the windows on 21 August 2023 and make recommendations.
    3. It acknowledged and apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused by the poor service and accepted the repairs and communication should have been managed more effectively.
    4. In addition to the £180 offered at stage 1 it would pay an additional £425, making a total of £605. The stage 2 compensation was made up of:
      1. £50 for the delayed stage 2 response.
      2. £100 for poor complaint handling as it failed to acknowledge gaps in windows causing draughts.
      3. £75 for further delay to repair from stage one.
      4. £75 for further distress caused between stages 1 and 2.
      5. £75 for further inconvenience caused between stages 1 and 2.
      6. £50 to recognise the time and effort in bringing the issue to its attention.
  9. A surveyor attended the property to assess the windows on 21 August 2023. The outcome of this survey has not been provided to this Service.
  10. On 18 September 2023 the resident was advised someone could attend the following day to assess if the windows could be repaired, but she had to cancel the appointment as she would not be available at such short notice. She then chased the landlord for an update on 25 September 2023 and was advised her request for information had been sent to the surveyor who attended in August 2023.
  11. On 9 October 2023, the resident was advised that window replacements had been approved and would be carried out in the 2024/25 financial year. The resident queried whether the windows would be fully replaced and on 16 October 2023 the landlord confirmed they would. It also said it had rearranged the draught proofing in the meantime and she would be notified of the date of visit shortly.
  12. The resident confirmed a contractor attended on 23 October 2023 to assess whether a temporary repair could be carried out in the meantime, but it had said it could not do much. The resident was concerned about draughts with winter coming and asked if someone could measure the windows so it had the information ready for the replacement.
  13. The landlord explained to the resident on 26 October 2023 that the works had been marked as urgent, but it could not give a specific date as to when they would be replaced. However, its planned works team would contact her nearer the time, with dates and further information.
  14. The resident chased the landlord for an update on the window replacement on 11 January and 1 February 2024, as the cold was impacting her health. The landlord replied on 1 February 2024 and reiterated the windows would be replaced in the next financial year and she would be contacted in advance. The landlord is unable to confirm at this time, when in this financial year, the work will be carried out.

Assessment and findings

Handling of reports of repairs to the windows

  1. The occupancy agreement says the landlord will keep the exterior and structure of the property in repair and the landlord’s Repairs Policy states it will repair windows, including window frames and sills, where windows are rotten, insecure windows and handles. Having had issues with the windows reported, the landlord did arrange for contractors to attend, but it failed to complete a routine repair “in an average of 25 calendar days”, as per its Repairs Policy. After 10 months, with the windows still in disrepair, the landlord did then acknowledge they were to be replaced.
  2. However, in the meantime there had been a dispute over whether replacing the handles on the windows would be possible or useful, but in the end, despite being chased by the resident, no repair was actually carried out. The landlord has confirmed the windows will be replaced in the 2024/2025 financial year.
  3. The Ombudsman appreciates that having scheduled repairs to be carried out in the next financial year, the landlord was not in a position to provide the resident with an accurate timescale and made reasonable attempts to manage her expectations in that respect. However, it also said it would carry out draught proofing in the meantime, and it seems despite a contractor attending, no action was then taken. This has left the resident and her family living with draughty windows since at least December 2022 and with no clear idea exactly when the windows will be replaced, which is unreasonable.
  4. While a resident is expected to ensure they allow access to a property in order for a repair to be carried out, in this case, the resident has evidently arranged to be home for appointments on several occasions when no repairs were undertaken. She also had to chase the landlord for information, and did not always receive a prompt response, which is unacceptable as it shows she was inconvenienced on a number of occasions.
  5. The landlord’s communication in relation to the repairs has been poor and this is demonstrated by the fact it was the resident that made it aware that a contractor had already attended the property and confirmed replacement handles were not available. In addition, when a contractor came to deal with draught proofing later, it was the resident that told the landlord it was unable to complete that. Knowing the reported repair from December 2022 remained unresolved, the landlord should have been proactively managing the repair and updating the resident as needed, which it did not.
  6. Overall the landlord’s service fell short. However, it acknowledged this at both stages of its complaints process, which must be recognised. The landlord’s Compensation Policy says it will award discretionary compensation when its mistake or failure causes a customer distress and inconvenience and/or the need to spend unnecessary time and effort in getting it to put things right. The landlord’s response to the complaint at both stages shows it took reasonable steps to apply this Policy and consider the impact its maladministration had on the resident and her family.
  7. At stage 1 the landlord recognised the delay in carrying out the repair as well as the distress and inconvenience caused. However, the repair remained outstanding and there was no plan to replace the windows at that point. It then increased its offer of compensation to recognise the additional delay, along with further distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident until it agreed to replace the windows which was the right thing to do. Overall, it offered a total of £455 in relation to the window repairs.
  8. The Ombudsman appreciates that having draughty windows had a negative impact on the resident and her family. While there has been poor service, there has been no permanent detriment, and the landlord acknowledged its failings and attempted to put things right. In these circumstances, this Service’s Remedies Guidance suggests compensation of between £100 and £600. In this case, as the remedy offered falls squarely within that bracket, and there is a plan in place for the windows to be replaced soon which should remedy the issue, the Ombudsman finds that the redress already offered is reasonable to resolve this part of the complaint.

Handling of the resident’s formal complaint

  1. The landlord’s Complaints Policy and Complaint Handling Operating Procedures say a complaint will be acknowledged within 5 working days and at stage 1 a written decision will be sent within 10 working days of logging the complaint. If a complaint is escalated to stage 2, a response will be sent within 20 working days of the request to escalate. At both stages, if the landlord needs more time to reach a decision, it will explain why and write again after no more than 10 working days. In exceptional circumstances it may need longer and will try to agree this with the complainant.
  2. The landlord’s stage 1 response was issued promptly and in line with its obligations under its Complaints Policy. It addressed its failings and made an offer to remedy matters in accordance with its Compensation Policy which was appropriate in the circumstances. However, it did not sufficiently recognise what was causing the draughts and, because of that, and as the repair remained outstanding, the complaint was escalated to stage 2.
  3. Although the Ombudsman notes the landlord’s attempts to manage the resident’s expectations by explaining it had a backlog and it could not provide timescales for when a response at stage 2 would be sent, this does not mean its service was reasonable. The resident had no idea if or when she would receive a response to her complaint at stage 2, and when one was sent, it was 3 months after escalation, meaning it failed to adhere to the timescales in its Complaints Policy and amounts to unreasonable delay.
  4. It is important to recognise that the landlord did apologise for the delay and its response also refers to speaking with the resident about her complaint, which indicates it listened to her concerns before issuing its reply. In its response, not only did the landlord reconsider the remedy offered in relation to the windows, but it rightly acknowledged the impact the delay in responding to the complaint, had on the resident as well as failing in its complaint handling at stage 1. This is something its Compensation Policy endorses and shows the landlord had learnt from its mistakes.
  5. There was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling. Its offer to pay the resident £50 due to the delay in issuing its stage 2 response and £100 for omitting something at stage 1 is not unreasonable. However, while the landlord did try to put things right, the offer of £50 compensation to recognise 3 months delay is insufficient. In the Ombudsman’s view, this should be increased by a further £100.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the windows satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

  1. There were some communication issues over the repairs needed to the windows and this led to a delay in dealing with the matter but the landlord offered compensation which overall was reasonable by way of a remedy.
  2. The landlord omitted a point at stage 1 and there was a delay in responding to the complaint at stage 2. However, the remedy offered at stage 2 had to be increased to adequately reflect the impact of the poor service experienced.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £705 compensation made up of:
      1. £455 for its handling of the resident’s report of repairs to the windows (if it has not paid this amount already).
      2. £250 for the delays in its complaint handling (incorporating the £150 already offered at stage 2).
  2. Review its processes to ensure repair jobs are actively monitored until they are resolved.