London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202316601)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202316601
London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)
5 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
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
- Reports of a loss of hot water, and the associated repairs.
- Reports of a leak, and the associated repairs.
- Subject access request (SAR).
- The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.
Background
- The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, and lives in a flat in a block. The landlord recorded the resident as vulnerable due to “illness”.
- Between July and December 2022, the resident reported a loss of hot water 4 times. On each occasion the landlord attended the same day to fix the issue.
- On 19 January 2023, the resident reported a leak from the bath around the plug area. The landlord attended the same day and marked the job as complete.
- The resident contacted the landlord to make a complaint on 10 February 2023. She said that the hot water was “cutting out”, and the landlord kept replacing the emersion heater element, but this did not resolve the issue. She also raised a concern that when she reported the leak from the bath, the landlord had left without inspecting underneath the bath and had just said the plug needed replacing. The resident said she was unhappy she had to wait until 21 February 2023 for a further repair visit. The resident said she was concerned that the floor was “sinking” due to the ongoing leak.
- The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 13 February 2023, it upheld the resident’s complaint and offered a £30 “e voucher” as compensation. It gave a history of the hot water repair dating back to December 2022, and said the issue was resolved on 20 January 2023. It said it would reattend the bath leak repair on 21 February 2023.
- The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint response and asked her complaint to go to stage 2 of its process on 13 February 2023. She was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of repairs and wanted it to find a “long term solution” to the hot water issue. She also asked it to come up with an “action plan” of how it would resolve the leak issue.
- The landlord completed the repair to the leak from the bath on 21 February 2023.The landlord raised a repair to renew the flooring under the bath on 29 June 2023. It does not appear the repair went ahead at that time.
- After an intervention from this Service, the landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 18 August 2023. It upheld the resident’s complaint and made an offer of £70 in compensation for its handling of the repairs, and a SAR. It also offered £150 for its complaint handling. It said it would be “in touch” to book repairs to renew the bathroom and kitchen flooring as a result of the damage caused by the leaks. It said it would only replace the “subflooring” in the living room if damaged and said the floor coverings were the resident’s responsibility.
Events after the complaint
- The landlord made an increased offer of £150 for delays in attending to the repairs on 11 September 2023. The resident contacted this Service on 13 September 2023 and asked us to investigate her complaint. She said that the landlord’s handling of the repairs had meant she missed work and caused a loss of earnings. She reported the hot water issue was ongoing, and the landlord would attend “reset” the system, but the issue kept coming back.
- The landlord’s records show it completed the works to the flooring on 30 November 2023, but the resident disputes this. The resident contacted this Service again in January 2024, and said the landlord had still not completed the flooring works.
- The records show the resident reported a loss of hot water on 6 occasions between November 2023, and June 2024. The landlord attended the same day on each occasion to reinstate the hot water.
Assessment and findings
Scope of investigation
- What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
- When the resident raised her complaint in February 2023, she expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of a SAR. The landlord outlined its position on the SAR in both its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses.
- After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s SAR is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint handling body.
- The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) investigates complaints about an organisation’s handling of personal data. The ICO is an independent body set up to uphold information rights. It has the power to investigate how a public body has handled a person’s data, including SARs. It has the power to assess whether an organisation has failed to comply with the relevant data handling provisions, and to make orders aimed at putting things right. The resident may wish to raise a complaint with the ICO if she wishes to pursue this matter further.
- When the resident raised her complaint about various repairs in her property, in February 2023, she set out that the issue with hot water emersion heater was ongoing since 2009/10. While the resident’s concerns are noted, repairs dating back to 2009 are not within the scope of this investigation. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable, and personnel involved may have left an organisation. This makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made.
- Therefore, having considered the availability and reliability of evidence, it is considered fair and reasonable to focus on the landlord’s handling of the repairs from July 2022, which is the period leading up to the resident’s formal complaint.
- When the resident brought her complaint to this Service, she said the landlord’s handling of the repairs had impacted on her mental wellbeing. The serious nature of this is acknowledged and we do not seek to dispute the resident’s comments. However, this aspect of the resident’s complaint ultimately requires a determination of liability for personal injury. Claims of personal injury, including damage to health, can be considered via a landlord’s public liability insurance, or in a court of law. Such claims will take into consideration medical evidence and allegations of negligence. These matters fall outside of the Ombudsman’s remit. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim, if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. However, we have considered any distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced as a result of errors by the landlord.
- The resident also raised a concern about loss of earnings she suffered. She claimed this was due to having to take multiple days off works for repairs appointments that the landlord failed to attend. It is not within the remit of this Service to offer compensation for loss of earnings. Such a determination ultimately requires a decision by the courts. Again, the resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if she wishes to pursue this matter further. We have however considered whether there was any distress and inconvenience caused by any appointments which the landlord failed to attend without prior notice.
- The landlord issued its final complaint response in August 2023. At the time of its stage 2 response the substantive issues in the case were outstanding. For fairness, this Service has increased the scope of the investigation beyond the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response to fully consider the landlord’s handling of the substantive issues raised in the complaint.
Loss of hot water
- Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property and keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water and sanitation.
- The landlord’s repairs policy in operation in 2022 (when the resident first complained) stated that it would attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours, and routine repairs at a “mutually convenient appointment”. The landlord amended its policy in May 2023 to state routine repairs would be attended to in “an average of 25 calendar days”.
- When the resident reported a loss of hot water on 4 occasions between July and December 2022, the landlord attended on the same day each time. This was reasonable and shows the landlord treated the issue as an emergency repair and attended within the timeframes set out in its repairs policy. However, there is no evidence to indicate the landlord sought to investigate what was causing the repeat issue. Given the frequency of the loss of hot water at the property, a more thorough investigation would have been appropriate. That the resident had to repeatedly report the same issue, without a lasting resolution, caused an inconvenience. The frequent loss of hot water was evidently distressing for her.
- The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, of February 2023, lacked learning about its handling of the issue. The response only reflected that the resident had reported the issue in December 2022. It failed to acknowledge she made 4 reports in the months leading up to her complaint. That the landlord failed to reflect on its handling of the repairs up to that point which caused an inconvenience. That it did not address the resident’s concerns she had to repeatedly raise the same repair was unreasonable. The landlord missed an opportunity to learn from the outcomes of its handling of the issue and identify the need to find a lasting solution.
- That the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of August 2023 was silent on hot water was inappropriate, and a further failing in its handling of the matter. The resident was evidently unhappy with its handling of the repairs. The resident was left not knowing what actions, if any, the landlord planned to take.
- The evidence seen as part of this investigation shows the resident made a further 6 reports of the same issue between November 2023, and June 2024. We welcome the fact the landlord attended to reinstate the hot water on the same day each time. However, it is reasonable to conclude there may be an underlying issue that needs resolving. The resident asked the landlord to get to the root cause of the issue. The landlord has not supplied evidence to indicate it has sought to investigate what is causing the repeat loss of hot water. As such, an appropriate order is set out below.
- Our remedies guidance sets out that for findings of maladministration an order of compensation between £100 and £600 may be appropriate to put things right for the resident. The exact amount of compensation will depend on the individual circumstances of the complaint. The guidance states that findings of maladministration may be made when we identify failures “which adversely affected the resident”. (Depending on the severity of the failing and the impact on the resident). Considering, the failings identified above we have determined an order of £300 in compensation is appropriate.
The landlord’s handling of a leak
- The evidence shows the landlord was on notice about a leak from the bath on 19 January 2023, and it attended the same day to inspect the issue. This was appropriate in the circumstances and evidence that it appropriately applied its repairs policy. However, there is no recorded outcome of the visit in the evidence it has supplied this investigation. This is a failing in its record keeping.
- Considering what the resident reported (that its operative did not inspect under the bath), and the lack of recorded outcome, it is reasonable to conclude the landlord’s inspection was not appropriately thorough. This conclusion is further supported by the fact the resident reported the leak was not resolved when she raised her complaint in February 2023. This caused the resident an inconvenience, as the landlord did not inspect the repair with adequate thoroughness and carry out a lasting repair to resolve the leak.
- When the resident raised her stage 1 complaint, in February 2023, the landlord appropriately raised an inspection of the flooring. However, the records indicate the job was marked as “cancelled”. It is not possible to determine the reason for the cancellation, but the evidence shows the resident was of the view the repair needed to go ahead. She experienced time and trouble when she chased the repairs again in February and June 2023.
- The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response appropriately set out its latest position on the leak, that it was due to reattend the repair on 21 February 2023. However, its response did not show learning and failed to acknowledge that it had not resolved the leak on its initial repair visit. This was inappropriate, and it missed an opportunity to build trust with the resident. That it was silent on the resident’s concerns about damage to the flooring, caused by the leak, was also unreasonable. The resident was inconvenienced by the lack of detail about the repairs in its stage 1 response as she was obliged to escalate the complaint to stage 2 to gain answers to these points.
- The landlord resolved the leak on 21 February 2023, 33 calendar days after it was first on notice. This was outside of the timeframes set out in its repairs policy. It is noted that this was not an excessive delay, but the resident was inconvenienced by the fact she had to raise the repair again, as part of her complaint.
- The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, of August 2023, showed no learning about its handling of the leak, which was unreasonable. It is noted it was satisfied the leak was resolved at that point. However, that it failed to assess its handling of the issue and acknowledge the inconvenience the resident experienced was unreasonable.
- The landlord also used its stage 2 complaint response to set out its position on the repair to the flooring. This went some way to putting right its silence on the issue at stage 1. It failed to apologise for, or acknowledge, the fact the resident raised the issue in her stage 1 complaint, and it did not address it. It also failed to explain why the repairs visits did not go ahead in February and June 2023. The resident was inconvenienced by this.
- The comments in its stage 2 complaint response in relation to the floor coverings in the living room were inappropriate. The resident claimed the damage to the floor was caused by a repair issue the landlord was responsible for. To therefore state it was only responsible for the subfloor was unreasonable. While we do not seek to make a determination on whether the resident’s flooring was damaged by the leak, that the landlord did not advise the resident on how to make a claim through its liability insurer, was unreasonable. The landlord should pass on its liability insurer’s details to the resident now if it has a liability insurer so she can raise a claim if she wants to. Matters of insurance fall outside the complaints process and the insurer is a separate organisation from the landlord. Therefore, the Ombudsman cannot comment on the insurer’s actions if a claim is made to it or the likely outcome of such a claim.
- The evidence indicates that the works to the flooring did not go ahead after the landlord issued its stage 2 response. The landlord has supplied evidence that indicates its contractor had some difficulty in gaining access to the property to progress with the repairs to the floor in October 2023. The records show that the resident was unable to take time off work to be present for contractors. The Ombudsman is not commenting on the resident’s reasons for not being available. It is accepted that residents may not always be available for appointments for legitimate reasons. However, this suggests that some of the further delay was outside of the landlord’s control.
- The works to the floor were completed on 30 November 2023. This was 2 months after it first set out that it would replace the floors. Some of the later delay was outside of the landlord’s control, due to resident availability. In the circumstances, this delay was not excessive.
- It is unclear how much of the £70 the landlord offered at stage 2 was for its handling of the repairs, and how much was for the SAR. It is reasonable to conclude that the offer was for its handling of each issue equally, and determined it offered £35 for its handling of the repairs. Factoring in the landlord’s offer £150 made in September 2023, we have concluded it offered £185 in compensation for its handling of the leak, and the associated repairs.
- Considering the flooring repair was outstanding at the time of its offer, this impacts on the degree to which the offer put things right. We have determined there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the matter. In accordance with our remedies guidance, as outlined above, we have determined that an order for a further £100 would put right the failings in the landlord’s handling of the issue.
Complaint handling
- The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure, which states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and it will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaint response timeframes mirror our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out our expectations of a landlord’s complaint handling practices.
- The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was sent within the timeframes set out in its policy and the Code. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
- The landlord operated an open-ended approach to the stage 2 complaint. On receipt on the resident’s request to take the complaint to stage 2, it advised it had opened a complaint, but did not know when it would be able to respond. An email on 13 February 2023 set out that due to a “backlog”, it was unable to say when it would respond to the complaint. The open ended approach inconvenienced the resident, as she was left not knowing when, or if, the landlord would respond to the stage 2 complaint.
- This was not in line with the Code or the landlord’s complaints policy and was therefore unreasonable. It is accepted that landlords may sometimes need longer than their published timescales to respond to complaints. In this situation, in line with the Code, the landlord should inform the resident of the delay and set a revised timescale for its response.
- As part of her complaint the resident raised concerns about the damage to the flooring caused by the leak. In response to this concern, the landlord’s comments in its email of 16 February 2023 were inappropriate. It stated that it was unable to investigate the flooring issue as it was not raised as part of the complaint. This was inaccurate and the evidence shows the resident raised the concerns about the flooring in the initial complaint. The response was dismissive of the resident’s concerns, and evidence the landlord was obstructive in relation to this aspect of the resident’s complaint. This was a failing in its complaint handling, and the resident was inconvenienced by this. It is noted that it did respond to the resident’s concerns about the flooring in its final response.
- We have not seen evidence to indicate that the landlord was proactive in providing updates on its stage 2 investigation between February and August 2023. This would have been appropriate considering the delay. That it did not do so inconvenienced the resident. She was caused time and trouble by the need to seek assistance from this Service in order to get a response to the stage 2 complaint, in August 2023.
- The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 18 August 2023, 131 working days after the resident asked to go to stage 2. This was an unreasonable delay and well outside of the timeframes set out in its policy and the Code. The resident was inconvenienced by the lengthy delay.
- The landlord appropriately apologised and offered redress for the complaint handling delays. However, its stage 2 response lacked appropriate learning about the delay, and it did not set out what it would do to prevent similar failings happening again. It also failed to acknowledge its inappropriate comments about what would be included in the complaint. As such, we have determined its offer of £150 did not fully put things right for the resident. In line with our remedies guidance, we have determined there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling, and a further £75 in compensation will put things right for the resident.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a loss of hot water, and the associated repairs.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak, and the associated repairs.
- In accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord’s handling of the resident’s SAR is outside of our jurisdiction to investigate.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
Orders
- Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
- Apologise for the failings identified in this report.
- Pay the resident £810 in compensation. Its offer of £335 in compensation should be deducted from this total if already paid. The compensation is broken down as follows:
- £300 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of a loss of hot water.
- £285 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak, and the associated repairs.
- £225 in recognition of the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
- Instruct an appropriately qualified operative to inspect the emersion heater to try and identify what is causing the repeat loss of hot water. It must consider whether it would be more appropriate to replace it in view of the repeated repair issues. It must also set out its findings to the resident in writing, including timeframes for any proposed works.
- Write to the resident to inform her how she can make a claim to its liability insurer for damage to her floor coverings.
- In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, within 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to conduct a review into its handling of the repairs. It must consider the failings identified in this report and identify how it can prevent similar failings happening again.