London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202311546)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311546

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

11 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 a leaking gutter.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The landlord is aware that the resident has vulnerabilities.
  2. The resident has an allocated parking bay in the communal car park owned by the landlord.
  3. On 15 January 2023 the landlord raised two jobs after reports of a leak from the gutter in the car park. Records indicate the job was passed between a plumber and a roofer before being closed.
  4. On 2 August 2023 the resident reported to the landlord that the gutter above his parking space was leaking. He mentioned that he had previously reported the issue months ago, but action still needed to be taken. The leaking gutter had caused limescale from the building to accumulate on his car, leading to damage.
  5. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 3 August 2023, confirming that a job had been raised to repair the gutter and that the resident would be updated once a contractor had been assigned. The resident was advised to submit an insurance claim to the landlord’s insurance company regarding the damage to his car.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint on 14 August 2023 and said he did not want to submit an insurance claim for the damage to his car. Instead, he asked the landlord to offer a direct resolution and compensation.
  7. The landlord sent a stage 2 response on 2 November 2023 and apologised to the resident for the delay in addressing the matter. The repair work for the gutters was underway after the initial cleaning was completed on 31 August 2023. The landlord acknowledged that limescale running off the building could have damaged the resident’s car and suggested that a heavy-duty car cover would be an option. While the landlord understood this was not the ideal solution, it would help prevent further damage to the resident’s car. The landlord confirmed that it was looking for a new parking space and would notify the resident if one became available. The landlord has offered a total of £680, broken down as £240 for the distress caused by it not acknowledging the impact of vulnerabilities, £240 for the inconvenience arising from the same issue, £80 for the poor handling of the complaint, and £120 for the time and effort the resident had spent on resolving the complaint. Additionally, the landlord provided advice on how to submit an insurance claim.
  8. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response and requested our Service to investigate his complaint. He mentioned that he had purchased a car cover but found it irritating to remove and recover his car daily. As a resolution, he would like the landlord to install an awning over his parking space, which he said was promised. If that does not happen, he would like a new parking space.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. As part of the resident’s complaint, he requested that the landlord cover the costs for the damage to his car. Issues involving damage to personal property typically relate to liability, which is best addressed by a court or an insurance company capable of determining responsibility. Therefore, we have not attempted to establish liability in this case. Instead, we have focused on the landlord’s response to the resident’s request and whether it was consistent with the landlord’s policies and procedures.

Repairs policy

  1. The landlord’s policy confirms that it is responsible for repairs necessary in communal areas. Routine repairs are completed within 28 days and are considered repairs that do not cause serious inconvenience or pose a health and safety risk.

 

Assessment

  1. The evidence indicates that the resident reported a gutter leak in January 2023. The landlord’s records show that two work orders were created on 15 January 2023 and assigned to plumbers and roofers. However, the records demonstrate that the jobs were closed without confirming whether the repairs were completed. Even if repairs were made then, they did not provide a lasting solution, which led to the resident’s complaint in August 2023 and a further job being raised.
  2. Our investigation has highlighted that the landlord failed to adequately manage the repairs or the contractors involved, leading to delays. Records show that responsibility for the job switched between plumbers and roofers. On 17 October 2023, the landlord sought confirmation from the contractor regarding completing a repair. Although the contractor claimed the job was finished, the resident continued to report ongoing issues.
  3. Further investigation revealed that the contractor mistakenly attended to the wrong section of the building. Consequently, the landlord had to submit a new repair request on 24 October 2023, resulting in additional delays. The absence of satisfactory records and appropriate oversight of the repair likely hindered the landlord’s ability to manage the repair effectively, causing further delays and inconvenience for the resident.
  4. The landlord apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of repairs. It offered a total of £680 in compensation, which is at the higher end of our compensation awards (£100-£600) where there has been a failure that negatively affected the resident but had no permanent impact. This offer demonstrates a commitment to resolving the matter. As such, we have not awarded additional compensation.
  5. Although the landlord suggested that the resident purchase a heavy-duty car cover, a well-intentioned recommendation, the landlord should have prioritised fixing the gutter to prevent further leaks and protect the resident’s car from further damage and a greater emphasis on ensuring that a lasting repair was provided.
  6. The landlord informed the resident that the reported damage to his car was not covered by the complaints process, as outlined in the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord provided the resident information on submitting a claim to the insurance company. This response was appropriate. Ultimately, it was the resident’s decision not to pursue a claim.
  7. Following the landlord’s stage 2 response on 2 November 2023, repairs to the gutter were completed on 15 November 2023. A drainage contractor did the repairs, including welding glue to secure the gutter parts and replacing a 90-degree bend. After these repairs, the contractor confirmed that the gutter was tested and found to be leak-free.
  8. Although the records indicate that the resident expressed satisfaction with the repairs, he pointed out another area of the gutter leaking. The contractor informed the landlord that he would return to fix this issue, as it dripped onto the resident’s car. However, it is unclear how the landlord addressed this, if at all, which is unreasonable. There is a record that the resident reported this to the landlord on 8 December 2023.
  9. The resident has advised us that the gutter still leaks. However, the landlord has stated that it is not aware of any additional repairs needed at this time and mentioned that the resident has not raised any concerns during the monthly inspections. Therefore, an order has been made on this.
  10. The resident mentioned that the landlord said it intended to install an awning in the car park. However, our investigation has not found any correspondence to verify whether this was an official commitment from the landlord. We recognise the importance of the landlord providing clarity to the resident and an order has been made on this.
  11. We are unable to confirm that the gutter repair has provided a lasting solution for the resident, in particular as there is no record if a follow up from the 15 November 2023 finding of a second area leaking. Therefore, there has been a service failure in the landlord’s management of this repair.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in the landlords:
    1. Response to the resident’s reports of a leaking gutter.
    2. Record keeping.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Contact the resident and confirm if further leaks from the gutter exist. If required, take appropriate action to complete a repair within 4 weeks.
    2. Confirm its position on the awning and explain its reasons.

Recommendations

  1. Continue to look for an alternative parking space for the resident.