London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202313564)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313564

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

27 March 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of defects to the main communal entrance door.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) in the communal areas.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of defective communal lighting.
4. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of excrement in the lift.
5. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a hole in the communal ceiling following heating works.
6. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Background

The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the fifth floor of a purpose-built block. The resident has an assured tenancy, which started on 30 April 2012.
The resident advised the landlord that she and her son were severely asthmatic.

Summary of events

The resident contacted the landlord on 21 May 2023 to report that the block had no communal lighting and the main communal entrance door could not be opened. The landlord replied to the resident on the following day (22 May 2023) and confirmed that it had raised jobs to repair the communal block lighting and the lighting in the bin shed, which was also defective.
The landlord’s maintenance log shows that repairs to the communal lighting were carried out by the landlord’s emergency call out team on 22 May 2023 and that a follow-on order was raised on 23 May 2023 to carry out further repairs to the lights. The job stated that the block had communal lights apart from the fourth floor and that the matter needed to be passed to an engineer for follow-on works. The maintenance log shows that the job was completed on 23 May 2023.
The landlord’s maintenance log shows that a further order was raised on 26 May 2023 for an electrical contractor to repair the lighting in the bin shed and the hallway.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 28 May 2023 to report that the lighting had not been repaired and the main door was still defective. She also stated that unauthorised people were gaining access to the block because of the defective door and some of them were on the stairs.
The landlord replied to the resident on 30 May 2023 and explained that the contractor had attended to repair the communal lighting but had not been able to gain access to the block. The landlord stated that the contractor would attend on 30 May 2023 to repair the lights. The landlord’s maintenance log shows that the contractor did complete the repairs to the lights on this date.
The landlord raised an order on 30 May 2023 to repair the main entrance door, which it stated on the order was not closing. The landlord’s maintenance log shows the order was cancelled but does not state the reason for this. The log shows that further orders to repair the door were raised on 1, 5, 7 and 29 June 2023 and the orders stated that the door was insecure.
On 29 June 2023, the resident phoned and wrote to the landlord to ask for the lift to be cleaned as there was excrement in the lift and this was creating a very strong smell. The resident submitted a stage one complaint to the landlord on the same day. She referred to a phone call that had taken place with the landlord earlier that day, during which she had been told the lift had been cleaned. The resident stated that during the conversation, she had checked the lift and found it had not been cleaned. She had therefore advised the landlord of this. The landlord’s records stated that it had terminated the call because the resident had shouted on the phone.
The resident sent a further email to the landlord on 29 June 2023 in which she reported her dissatisfaction with the condition of the building. She added that unauthorised people were gaining access to the block and were causing noise and mess. She repeated that the lift needed to be cleaned urgently as it was a health and safety hazard.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 30 June 2023 to acknowledge receipt of her complaint. The landlord explained that there had been miscommunication between the resident and the caretaker. The landlord stated that a contractor had attended on 29 June 2023 to carry out “deeper cleaning” within the block but had not cleaned the lift.
On 6 July 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord to enquire about a wooden board in the lift. She stated that it had been in the lift for over a year and asked whether it had a purpose or had just been left there by the contractor.
The resident contacted the landlord on various occasions on 14 July 2023 to report that:
1. Someone was sleeping rough in the bin shed and the bin shed door had been vandalised.
2. The main door had been vandalised and had not been operational for 3 months.
3. People were using the lift as a toilet (excrement was again present in the lift) and were wandering around the building.
The landlord’s maintenance log shows that an emergency job was raised on 14 July 2023 to remove the excrement from the lift and clean the lift. The landlord’s records state that the job was completed on 16 July 2023.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 17 July 2023 to report there was blood smeared on the ground near the entrance to the block. The resident repeated that the main door needed to be repaired and she also requested the landlord to consider installing CCTV. The landlord replied on the same day and advised the resident that it had raised an order to inspect/repair the bin shed door. The landlord added that it had agreed with the police that they would carry out unannounced visits to the block during the week and the landlord stated that it would investigate whether any residents were associated with the unauthorised people accessing the block.
On 21 July 2023, the landlord sent its stage one reply in which it stated the following:
1. The contractor carrying out the deep cleaning of the block had provided photos to the landlord to show it had attended to carry out the cleaning. However, the landlord accepted that the lift had not been cleaned on 29 June 2023. The landlord had spoken to its member of staff and reminded him of the need to be confident that work had been completed before advising residents of this.
2. The wooden board in the lift had been fitted in the lift by the contractor to protect the lift floor during the heating improvements. The landlord was investigating whether the covering could now be removed and stated it would update the resident by 28 July 2023.
3. The landlord had inspected the block on 20 July 2023 and was expecting a quotation to repair the main door from the contractor. The landlord stated it would update all residents by 24 July 2023.
4. The landlord had spoken to the police Safer Neighbourhoods Team and they had agreed to carry out regular patrols of the block.
5. The landlord thanked the resident for sending photos of a hole in the communal ceiling that had been left following the heating improvements. The landlord said the resident had raised this during their conversation on 14 July 2023. The landlord said it had referred the matter to the project team and the landlord stated it would provide a further update by 28 July 2023.
6. The landlord apologised for its handling of her complaint and offered compensation of £90, which was made up as follows:
  1. £25 for complaint handling;
  2. £20 for distress;
  3. £20 for inconvenience;
  4. £25 for time and effort.
On the same day (21 July 2023), the landlord sent a follow-up letter to its stage one reply, in which it confirmed that orders had been raised for a carpentry contractor to refit the main door so that a specialist contractor could refit the locks. The landlord had emailed the carpentry contractor and requested it to provide a progress update to the resident. The landlord provided the resident with a named contact until the door had been repaired.
The landlord’s records show that the resident chased the landlord on 24 and 26 July 2023 regarding the outstanding repairs to the main door.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 26 July 2023 and confirmed that the hole in the ceiling would be dealt with during that week and also the temporary floor covering in the lift would be removed. The resident wrote to the landlord on the same day to advise that she was unhappy that the landlord had given her contact number to the main door contractor without her permission.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 27 July 2023 to acknowledge her stage 2 complaint. The landlord also wrote to the resident on 9 August 2023 and asked her to make contact to discuss the stage 2 complaint.
The resident sent an email entitled ‘stage 2 complaint’ to the landlord on 11 August 2023 in which she included the following points:
1. The main entrance door was still insecure. Residents had previously not been able to open the door and the resident had to call the fire brigade as residents were unable to leave the building.
2. The resident stated that there was drug use taking place in the communal area on the sixth floor.
3. There were burn marks on the stairs where drugs were being taken and therefore the resident believed there was a fire hazard. She asked why risk assessments and fire safety were not included in the estate inspections.
4. The resident asked why the hole in the ceiling had not been addressed when the heating works were carried out. She asked why she had needed to complain for the landlord to cover the hole.
5. The resident asked the landlord how long it had taken to address various issues, including the hole in the ceiling, cleaning the excrement in the lift, and repairing the communal lighting.
6. The resident asked the landlord why the door contractor had contacted her when the landlord has a caretaker on site.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 11 August 2023. The resident replied on the same day to advise that she had been withholding her rent and service charges because of the outstanding issues. She stated that she had found 2 men on the floor in the communal area outside her property. The resident requested the landlord to fit fob systems on the lifts and on the fire doors to each floor.
The landlord sent an interim reply to the stage 2 complaint on 17 August 2023 and advised the resident that it would need additional time to resolve the complaint issues. The landlord included the following points in the interim reply:
1. The landlord was expecting to receive quotations in the next 2 weeks for installing CCTV.
2. A surveyor had visited the block on 16 August 2023 and was requesting quotations for repairs to the main door and the locks.
3. The landlord was working with the police patrol but understood that rough sleepers were not currently accessing the block.
4. The caretakers were challenging anyone who entered the block without authorisation.
5. Although the resident had previously stated that a member of staff had visited her property after 9pm, the member of staff had denied this and stated that he had visited during working hours.
The resident replied to the landlord on 18 August 2023 and disputed the staff member’s account of events. She submitted social media posts, which she said showed he had arrived after 9pm.
The landlord sent its stage 2 reply to the resident on 21 August 2023 and included the following points:
1. The landlord stated that the resident had first reported the defective communal door on 1 June 2023 and the landlord had raised an order to repair the door as advised in the stage one reply.
2. The landlord advised that the main door had been refitted by the contractor on 27 July 2023 and an electrician had then attended on 18 August 2023 to carry out the electrical repairs to the door. The repairs to the door had therefore been completed.
3. As stated in the stage one reply, the landlord accepted that its staff member had mistakenly advised the resident (on 29 June 2023) that the lift had been cleaned. It apologised again for the error.
4. The landlord had reported the rough sleeping in the bin shed to the police Safer Neighbourhoods Team, who had agreed to carry out regular patrols.
5. The landlord had raised an order to repair the communal lights after the resident had reported there were no lights. The contractor had repaired the lights in the bin shed on 30 May 2023.
6. The landlord accepted that communication and the complaint handling should have been better and apologised for this. The landlord also accepted that there should have been less delays in completing the repairs. It therefore offered compensation of £260 made up of:
  1. £100 for distress and inconvenience;
  2. £60 for time and effort;
  3. £10 for the delay at stage 2;
  4. £60 for complaint handling;
  5. £30 for the “right to repair x 3 months”.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 21 August 2023 to report that the main door was still insecure and had not been repaired. She stated that as a result unauthorised people were accessing the block and using drugs in the communal areas. The resident declined the landlord’s offer of compensation.
The landlord replied on the next day (22 August 2023) and accepted that the main door had not been repaired. An electrician had attended but had reported that the job needed to go to a specialist contractor. The landlord apologised for the error and confirmed that an order had been raised for a specialist contractor to attend during that week.
The resident sent further emails to the landlord on 4, 5 and 15 September 2023 to report that the main door had not been repaired and, as a result, unauthorised people were entering the block and smoking drugs in the communal areas. The resident also reported seeing youths removing bikes from the bike storage area. The resident questioned why the main door to the adjacent block had been repaired while the main door to her block remained defective.
The landlord’s maintenance log shows that a specialist contractor attended on 22 September 2023 to inspect the main door and then provided the landlord with a quotation for repairs on 25 September 2023.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 22 September 2023 to advise that she had received a cheque from the landlord for £250. She stated that she would be returning the cheque as she had declined the landlord’s offer of compensation. She pointed out that the amount offered should in any case have been £260 and not £250.
On 13 October 2023, the landlord and the resident exchanged further emails. The landlord advised the resident that it had ordered a more robust lock to be fitted to the main door and would be carrying out monthly inspections to monitor the situation. The landlord advised the resident to continue reporting any ASB to the police. In reply, the resident explained that her flat was the only property on the fifth floor of the block and therefore she felt isolated and was worried about calling the police. She again requested the landlord to consider fitting a fob system to the fire door on her floor.
An internal email dated 30 November 2023 from the landlord stated that the main door was still not secure as the contractor was awaiting parts. As a result, the resident had reported that there were still unauthorised people accessing the block, drug use and rough sleeping taking place in the block.
The landlord’s records show that on 1 December 2023 it carried out a risk assessment in relation to the reported ASB.
The landlord’s records in December 2023 show that it was arranging for the ‘drop key’ system on the main door to be disabled to prevent unauthorised people accessing the block (the drop key is used by the fire brigade to gain emergency access to blocks). It is not clear whether the landlord disabled the system.
The resident has advised this Service that the main door was repaired early in 2024.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of defects to the communal main entrance door

The landlord’s Repairs Policy states that it is responsible for communal entrance doors, frames, all furniture, and door entry systems.
The policy states that there are 2 repair categories:
1. Routine day–to–day repairs, which the landlord will aim to complete in an average of 25 calendar days; and
2. Emergency works, where there is an immediate danger to the occupant or members of the public, which the landlord will attend within 24 hours. For emergency works that occur out of hours, the landlord will ‘make safe’ within 4 hours and lower the immediate risk.
On 21 May 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that the main communal entrance door to the block was defective and could not be opened. The resident then wrote to the landlord again on 28 May 2023 to report that the main door was still defective and, as a result, unauthorised people were entering the block. The landlord therefore raised an order on 30 May 2023 to repair the main door, which it said was not closing. This Service has not seen any evidence to explain why it had taken the landlord 5 working days to raise an order to repair the main door. This was inappropriate as the main door was designed to prevent unauthorised people entering the block and therefore needed to be operational as soon as possible.
The landlord’s records show that the resident wrote to the landlord on several subsequent occasions to report that the main door was insecure. For example, she wrote on 6 July 2023, 17 July 2023, 24 July 2023, 26 July 2023, 11 August 2023, 21 August 2023, 4 September 2023, 5 September 2023, and 15 September 2023. In response, the landlord’s records show that it raised various orders to repair the door.
Despite stating in its stage 2 reply dated 21 August 2023 that the door had been repaired, the landlord acknowledged on 22 August 2023 that it had not been repaired. The landlord stated that an electrician had attended on 18 August 2023 but had advised the landlord that a specialist entry phone contractor would need to repair the door.
The view of this Service is that the ongoing delay in repairing the door was unreasonable as it meant that the door was insecure and, as a result, unauthorised people were entering the block. The resident advised the landlord on various occasions that she had seen people on the communal stairs taking drugs and defecating in the lift. Furthermore, the landlord’s lack of urgency in repairing the main door meant there was an increased risk of the door being vandalised. The Ombudsman’s view is that it was therefore unreasonable that the landlord had taken 3 months from the resident’s initial report about the defective door to establish that it needed a specialist contractor to repair it. It was also unreasonable that the landlord had incorrectly advised the resident in its stage 2 reply on 21 August 2023 that the main door had been repaired without checking that this was the case.
A specialist contractor attended on 22 September 2023 to inspect the main door and on 25 September 2023 provided a quotation to the landlord for carrying out the repairs. The landlord has advised this Service that the main door was repaired in November/December 2023. However, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence to confirm this. Furthermore, an internal email dated 30 November 2023 from the landlord stated that the main door was still not secure as the contractor was awaiting parts. The email added that as a result of the delay in repairing the door, unauthorised people were accessing the block and there was drug use and rough sleeping occurring in the block.
Although the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence to confirm the date the door was repaired, the resident has confirmed to this Service that the door was repaired and she believes it was repaired early in 2024.
Given that the landlord knew the block was experiencing ongoing ASB issues as a result of unauthorised people entering the block, it was unacceptable that the landlord had not repaired the main door more than 6 months after the defect was reported.
The purpose of the door entry system was to provide a secure means to control access to and from the block. In this case, the main door was insecure and therefore access to the block could not be properly controlled. As a result, the resident felt insecure, particularly as there were no other properties on her floor of the block.
The landlord offered compensation of £90 at stage one and £260 at stage 2 to recognise its failings. The information seen indicates that £255 of these sums were to put things right in terms of the delays in carrying out repairs, including the repair to the main door. While this Service welcomes the landlord’s offer of compensation to put things right, the Ombudsman does not consider the offer to be proportionate to the failings identified in repairing the main door. The resident wrote on several occasions about unauthorised access to the block and the consequences of this, including drug use, rough sleeping and defecating in the communal areas of the block.
The Ombudsman has therefore found there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the defective main door. There was an unacceptable delay in repairing the door and poor communication with the resident regarding the outstanding repair.
Total compensation of £500 has been ordered. This is within the range of financial redress specified in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for situations where the landlord has acknowledged failings, made some attempt to put things right but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified in the Ombudsman’s investigation.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour in the communal areas

The landlord’s ASB Policy states:
1. “We will work to prevent ASB by a range of means, including…carrying out estate inspections to identify and respond to environmental issues on estates and maintaining and managing communal areas to minimise crime and ASB”.
2. “We will review all reported incidents and will consider the risk in each case”.
3. The types of ASB that will be recorded include…” drug or substance misuse or drug dealing…[and]…common area misuse where it is persistent, deliberate or targeted, e.g. loitering in lifts, urinating in public areas”.
4. “In the investigation and management of ASB we will…agree an action plan with the reporting party, victims and witnesses, and keep them updated throughout the case”.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 28 May 2023 to report that unauthorised people were gaining access to the block and were on the communal stairs. The resident wrote to the landlord again on 29 June 2023 and on 14 July 2023 to report that people were rough sleeping in the bin shed and causing noise/mess in the block, including defecating in the lift. The resident also wrote on 17 July 2023 to report that blood had been smeared on the ground near the entrance to the block. The landlord wrote to the resident on 17 July 2023 and advised her that it had agreed with the police’s Safer Neighbourhoods Team that they would carry out unannounced visits to the block.
It was reasonable for the landlord to liaise with the police and agree that they would patrol the area. The Regulator of Social Housing’s Neighbourhood and Community Standard states: “Registered providers shall work in partnership with other agencies to prevent and tackle anti-social behaviour in the neighbourhoods where they own homes”.
The landlord also stated that it would investigate whether there were any links between residents of the block and the unauthorised people accessing the block. This was reasonable as the landlord wanted to establish whether any of the residents were providing access to the people causing the ASB.
Although it was reasonable for the landlord to work with the police and to investigate any links between residents and the people causing ASB, this Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord agreed an action plan with the resident. The landlord had therefore not followed its ASB policy in this respect. This was inappropriate as it meant that the resident did not have any input into the actions the landlord would be taking to address the ASB.
During July to October 2023, the resident continued to contact the landlord to report ASB in the communal areas, including rough sleeping, loitering on the stairs, drug use and the removal of bikes from the bike storage area. The landlord responded and stated:
1. It was continuing to work with the police’s Safer Neighbourhoods Team.
2. The caretakers were challenging any unauthorised people entering the block.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, these were again reasonable steps to help address the reported ASB.
The resident requested the landlord to install CCTV in the block and a key fob system on her landing. The landlord stated in its email dated 17 August 2023 that it had requested estimates for installing CCTV. However, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord provided the resident with a decision regarding these requests. This was inappropriate as the resident had raised these issues on various occasions and therefore the landlord should have considered her requests and responded.
There is no legal requirement for landlords to carry out improvements such as installing CCTV or additional fob systems. Furthermore, landlords are entitled to decide how they prioritise competing demands for their investment programmes. Therefore, the Ombudsman is unable to order the landlord to install CCTV or a fob system. However, the Ombudsman has added an order in this report for the landlord to consider the resident’s request and to write to her setting out its position.
Overall, the Ombudsman has found there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB because it did not agree an action plan with her and did not provide a meaningful response to her requests for the installation of CCTV and a key fob system.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of defective communal lighting

The resident contacted the landlord after normal working hours on 21 May 2023 to report that the block had no communal lighting. The landlord replied to the resident on the following day to confirm it had raised a job to repair the communal lighting. As the resident’s email had arrived after working hours, it was reasonable that the landlord raised an order and replied on the following day.
The landlord’s maintenance log states that repairs were carried out by the landlord’s emergency callout team on 22 May 2023. This was appropriate as the loss of communal lighting had been raised as an emergency job for completion within 24 hours.
A follow-on order was raised on 23 May 2023 to carry out further work to the communal lighting system. The job notes stated that the whole block had communal lighting apart from the fourth floor. Although the landlord’s maintenance log stated that the follow-on job was completed on the same day (23 May 2023), the resident wrote to the landlord on 28 May 2022 and reported that there was still no communal lighting. The landlord replied on 30 May 2023 and accepted that the lights had not been repaired on 23 May 2023 as the electrician had not been able to access the block. The maintenance log shows that after the abortive visit by the electrician, the landlord had raised a further order on 26 May 2023 and the repairs were completed on 30 May 2023.
The evidence shows that some electrical repairs were carried out by the emergency callout team on 22 May 2023. The electrician was then unable to obtain access to the block on 23 May 2023 to carry out follow-on works and therefore the communal lights and the bin shed light were not fully restored until 30 May 2023.
The block therefore had partial or no communal lighting between 22 May 2023 and 30 May 2023, which was just over a week. This was inappropriate as the resident had advised the landlord that this was a health and safety risk for residents using the communal areas and a security risk because unauthorised people were accessing the block. The defective lighting should have been dealt with as an emergency and repaired within 24 hours. The landlord’s failure to repair the lights therefore caused the resident distress. The Ombudsman has found there was service failure on the landlord’s part because there was a delay of just over a week in fully restoring the communal lighting, including the lights in the bin shed. The Ombudsman has taken into account that the landlord offered financial redress at both stages 1 and 2 for general delays in carrying out repairs.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of excrement in the lift

On 29 June 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to ask for the lift to be cleaned as there was excrement in the lift. The resident spoke to the landlord on the same day and the landlord advised her that the lift had been cleaned. However, the resident checked the lift while on the phone with the landlord and found it had not been cleaned. The resident therefore submitted a complaint to the landlord on 29 June 2023 in which she referred to the landlord providing her with incorrect information during their conversation.
The landlord replied to the resident on 30 June 2023 and explained that a contractor had attended the block on 29 June 2023 and had carried out “deeper cleaning” within the block but had not cleaned the lift due to miscommunication. The landlord later added in its stage one reply dated 21 July 2023 that its staff member had been advised by the contractor that all areas had been cleaned. The contractor had also provided the landlord with photos of the areas it had cleaned. However, the landlord accepted that the lift had not been cleaned and therefore had arranged for the on-site caretaker to clean the lift. The landlord stated in its stage one reply that its staff member had been reminded of the need to be confident that work has been completed before providing information to residents.
Based on the evidence seen, the landlord had arranged for the lift to be cleaned on the same day as it was reported by the resident. However, due to miscommunication the cleaning had not occurred and the lift was not cleaned until the following day on 30 June 2023. The landlord accepted that it had made an error in failing to clean the lift on 29 June 2023 and had given the resident incorrect information. These were shortcomings on the part of the landlord, which it acknowledged in its stage one reply. It also demonstrated learning from its failings by reminding its staff member of the need to be confident of information before conveying it to residents.
The resident contacted the landlord on 14 July 2023 to report further excrement in the lift. The landlord’s maintenance log shows that it raised an emergency job on the same day to clean the lift. This was appropriate as the lift was unusable until it had been cleaned and therefore it was right that the landlord had treated the matter as an emergency. Although the maintenance log shows the job was completed on 16 July 2023, it is unclear whether this was the actual date of completion or the date the job was updated on the landlord’s system.
Overall, the Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord responded to the reports of excrement in the lift reasonably by arranging for it to be cleaned on the same day as it was reported. However, due to miscommunication it was not cleaned. The landlord acknowledged its errors, including giving incorrect information to the resident. The landlord had demonstrated learning by reminding its staff member to check information before conveying it to residents.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a hole in the communal ceiling following heating works

The landlord stated in its stage one reply on 21 July 2023 that during a conversation on 14 July 2023 the resident had referred to a hole in the ceiling outside her front door. She said the hole had been left following heating improvements and she was concerned that it might be a security/fire risk. The landlord confirmed that it had referred the matter to the project team that had been responsible for the work and it would provide an update by 28 July 2023. This was reasonable as the landlord needed to check whether the hole could be safely covered over or had been left intentionally as part of the heating improvement work.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 24 July 2023 and advised her that the hole was expected to be dealt with during that week. It was appropriate that the landlord had provided a further update to the resident as it had agreed to do this.
The resident confirmed in her stage 2 complaint that the landlord had covered the hole on 11 August 2023. The landlord had therefore acted in relation to the resident’s concerns about the hole and covered it over. However, it was unreasonable that it had required the resident to bring the hole to the landlord’s attention before it acted.
The evidence shows that the hole was created as part of the heating improvement work carried out by the landlord. The resident has advised this Service that the hole had been present for approximately a year before she contacted the landlord about it in July 2023.
The Ombudsman’s view is that any making good should have been part of the overall project plan for the heating improvement work. It was inappropriate that the landlord had not identified and carried out the work earlier. Based on the resident’s complaint, the hole was unsightly and she was anxious that it might have represented a fire risk. Although this Service has not seen any evidence to show it did represent a fire risk, the resident was sufficiently concerned to include it as part of her complaint. The Ombudsman has therefore found there was a service failure on the part of the landlord for not identifying and completing the work to cover the hole as part of the heating improvement project.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process: stage one complaints are replied to within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. If the landlord cannot meet either of these timescales, it will write to the resident within a further 10 working days to explain why.
The complaints policy states: “If the complainant is dissatisfied with our resolution and asks us to, we will escalate to Stage Two”.
The resident made a stage one complaint on 29 June 2023 and the landlord replied to the complaint on 21 July 2023. The landlord therefore took 16 working days to reply, which was longer than its advertised timescale of 10 working days. The time taken to reply was therefore inappropriate, however, the delay was not excessive.
The resident responded to the landlord’s stage one reply on 21 July 2023 and indicated she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s reply. However, the landlord did not treat this as a stage 2 complaint, which was inappropriate. The resident had clearly expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage one letter and therefore the complaint should have been escalated as per its complaints policy.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 11 August 2023 and stated that she was making a stage 2 complaint. The landlord therefore acknowledged the complaint on the same day and sent its stage 2 reply on 21 August 2023. The overall time taken by the landlord to reply was therefore 21 working days after the resident’s email dated 21 July 2023 in which she expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage one letter. Therefore, despite not treating her initial email as a stage 2 complaint, the landlord dealt with the complaint within a reasonable timescale.
Overall, the landlord took longer to reply than its advertised target at stage one of the process and had failed to treat the resident’s email dated 21 July 2023 as a stage 2 complaint. However, the landlord recognised its failings in dealing with the resident’s complaints and offered financial redress of £25 at stage one and £70 at stage 2 specifically for complaints handling.
The Ombudsman’s view is that the delay in its stage one reply was relatively short and the landlord’s failure to treat the resident’s email dated 21 July 2023 as a stage 2 complaint did not result in any significant detriment to her. Therefore, the landlord’s offer of £95 is considered by the Ombudsman to be reasonable redress for its failings in handling the resident’s complaints.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of defects to the main communal entrance door.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) in the communal areas.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of defective communal lighting.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of excrement in the lift.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a hole in the communal ceiling following heating works.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to its handling of the associated complaints.

Reasons

There was an unacceptable delay in the landlord repairing the main door and communication was also poor. Although the landlord offered compensation, the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified in this investigation.
The landlord did not agree an action plan with the resident for addressing the reported ASB and did not provide a meaningful response to her requests for CCTV and a key fob system.
There was a delay of just over a week in fully restoring the communal lighting.
The landlord arranged for the excrement to be cleared within an appropriate timescale. However, due to miscommunication it was not cleaned on the scheduled date. The landlord acknowledged its errors and demonstrated learning to ensure that information would be properly checked in the future.
The landlord did not cover the hole in the ceiling as part of the heating improvement work and it had to be prompted by the resident to cover the hole.
The landlord offered reasonable redress of £95 for its complaint handling failings.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within four weeks of this report to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £750 (including the £255 offered at stages 1 and 2 for repair delays) as follows:
  1. £500 for the landlord’s handling of repairs to the main door.
  2. £100 for the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
  3. £100 for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of defective lighting.
  4. £50 for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the hole in the ceiling.
3. Provide a written response to the resident regarding her requests for CCTV and additional fob systems to be installed in the block.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord reoffers the resident £95 for complaint handling (£25 from the stage one complaint and £70 from stage 2) if these sums have not already been paid.