London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202319060)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319060

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

30 May 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:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of cracks in the ceiling.
2. Response to the resident’s transfer request.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord of a ground floor flat. She occupies the property with her daughter.
On 11 April 2023, the resident reported that there were large cracks on her ceiling and that she was concerned the ceiling may collapse. A plasterer inspected the issue on 24 July 2023 and noted that an asbestos check was required. On 10 September 2023, the resident reported that the ceiling in her daughter’s bedroom had collapsed following a leak from the upstairs property.
The resident raised a complaint on 11 September 2023 about the landlord’s response to her reports about cracking on the ceiling. She stated that a contractor had previously attended to inspect and advised her that it looked like wallpaper peeling off. The resident reported that she had severe mental health concerns and that the issue was causing her distress and anxiety. She also reported that she did not feel it was safe for her and her daughter to remain in the property.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 12 September 2023. It stated that the resident had been provided with a dehumidifier and that it would reimburse her for the cost of using this. It said that an asbestos survey would be carried out within 5 working days and that following this, the bedroom ceiling would be plastered. The landlord also gave advice to the resident about making a claim on its liability insurance for items that were damaged.
The resident escalated her complaint on 29 September 2023. She questioned why the issue that she reported in April 2023 was not looked into and stated that the ceiling caved in due to negligence by the landlord. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on the same date and said that she was a victim of abuse and stalking in 2019, and that the landlord had refused to transfer her as it said that she was not in immediate danger. She stated that she informed the landlord that staying in the property was affecting hers and her daughter’s mental health, but the landlord did not class her as vulnerable.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was issued on 8 February 2024. The landlord stated the number of people on the rehousing list was far exceeding the number of available properties, and so the criteria was set very high. The landlord said that the resident had recently applied for a medical assessment move, but that she had not met the criteria and this was therefore declined. The landlord recommended the resident pursue a mutual exchange.
In relation to the ceiling cracks, the landlord found that it did not provide the level of service it should have after the resident reported the issue. It said that photographs should have been taken and a more thorough report should have been produced when the plasterer attended in July 2023. The landlord offered the resident a total of £642.63 compensation, made up as follows:
1. £200 for distress and inconvenience caused in relation to the response to the resident’s reports of cracking to the ceiling in April 2023,
2. £72.63 for the loss of 1 bedroom for a period of 16 days,
3. £260 for the 4-month delay in final repairs and decoration being completed,
4. £30 in recognition of the time and effort spent to resolve the complaint,
5. £80 for the delays in the stage 2 complaint response.
The resident raised her complaint with the Ombudsman on 18 February 2024. She stated that the part of the complaint that she remained unhappy with was the landlord’s decision not to transfer her to an alternative property. The resident stated that the police had advised the landlord she should be relocated to ensure her and her daughter’s welfare, and she questioned why she did not meet the criteria for a move.
On 19 March 2024, the resident informed the Ombudsman that she was satisfied with the compensation offered by the landlord in respect of the ceiling repairs. However, she said that her and her daughter were fearful about remaining in the bedroom and that there were other cracks in the property. The resident stated that the landlord should do a full inspection of the structure of the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident had requested to be moved in 2019 due to being stalked, and that the police contacted the landlord about moving the resident if she still felt unsafe. The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s comments that the issues with the ceiling had triggered her to again feel unsafe in her property.
The Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out that the Ombudsman may not consider matters that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable timeframe, which is usually 6 months of an incident occurring. As such, this investigation will not take into consideration the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests to be moved between 2019 and 2022 because there is no evidence that this was pursued as a formal complaint at the time. Taking all of the circumstances into account, this investigation focuses on events from April 2023 onwards, which is 6 months prior to the resident’s formal complaint to the landlord in September 2023.

The landlord’s response to reports of cracks in the ceiling.

The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for repairing cracked or severely crumbling ceilings, but that it does not undertake repairs to hairline cracks in ceilings. The policy says that emergency repairs will be attended in 24 hours and routine repairs will aim to be completed in an average of 25 calendar days.
The evidence reflects that the landlord did not respond to the resident’s April 2023 reports within the 28-day timeframe stipulated in its repairs policy. Further, the notes of the repairs visit were poor, and no follow-up repairs were scheduled. The landlord appropriately identified and accepted that there were failings in its response to the resident’s reports of cracking to the ceiling, which resulted in the collapse of the ceiling in her daughter’s bedroom. The landlord acted appropriately by agreeing to redecorate however, there were delays in the final repairs and redecoration being completed. Again, this failing was recognised by the landlord in its complaint responses.
When the resident raised her complaint in September 2023, she stated that there were lots of cracks in all the ceilings within the property. However, the landlord did not address this matter within its complaint responses and no evidence has been provided to indicate that a further inspection of the whole property took place.
The landlord informed the Ombudsman that an appointment was scheduled for 15 May 2024 for the cracks to be inspected. However, the resident informed the Ombudsman that a visit did not take place on this date. The resident reported that she felt unsafe in the property and expressed concerns that the cracking could again lead to more serious repairs issues. It is unreasonable that approximately 8 months have elapsed without a further inspection taking place. This amounts to a failing by the landlord as it ought to have carried out a thorough inspection of the ceilings within the property.
Where there are failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether it has offered suitable remedies in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
The resident experienced significant distress and inconvenience due to the landlord’s handling of the repair. The resident was understandably concerned that her daughter could have been in the room when the ceiling collapsed, and that she was concerned about the safety of both herself and her daughter. It is also acknowledged that various items were damaged and that the resident reported she had been injured. The resident indicated that she had been pursuing a claim via the landlord’s liability insurance for her injury and the damage to her possessions.
It is outside of the Ombudsman’s remit to comment on the outcome or handling of insurance claims as this is outside of the landlord’s complaints process. The insurer is a different organisation from the landlord and the Ombudsman can only assess landlords’ actions, not the actions of insurers. It was reasonable for the landlord to refer the resident to make a claim under its liability insurance. Landlords are entitled to use liability insurance as a means of managing the cost of negligence claims and the landlord was not obliged to pay a claim for personal injury or damage to possessions outside the insurance process. Therefore, the Ombudsman will not comment on the injury or damage to possessions any further.
The landlord has made attempts to ‘put things right’ by offering the resident £642.63 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused and to refund rent for the loss of the bedroom while the ceiling was being repaired. However, additional compensation should be offered to remedy the landlord’s failure to inspect ceiling cracks in other parts of the property. The resident reported that she continues to be concerned about the safety of the property, and an order has therefore been made below for the landlord to pay her an additional £150 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused. The total amount of £792.63 is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failings by the landlord that have had a significant impact on the resident and is therefore suitable to resolve the complaint.
The landlord should also conduct an inspection of the ceilings within the property to establish whether any repairs are required, which should then be completed within a reasonable timeframe in line with its repairs policy.
The landlord should demonstrate that it has learned from complaint outcomes. In its stage 2 response, the landlord stated it had launched a repairs change project to improve the quality and responsiveness of its repairs service, as well as investing in additional staff and training to promote efficiency and good communication. This indicates that the landlord has recognised the need to improve its repairs process and is implementing positive change.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s transfer request.

The landlord’s transfer policy states that transfer applications will be accepted based on the needs to the residents and household members. It states that it accepts that certain medical conditions may affect an applicant’s ability to stay in their current home, and that guidance has been offered to staff in relation to this. The policy states that medial evidence is assessed by an independent medical advisor on behalf of the landlord.
The Ombudsman’s role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a management transfer was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
The evidence indicates that the resident completed a medical move application dated 10 December 2023, which she submitted on 8 January 2024. It is unclear whether the resident included any medical evidence in support of her application. However, it is noted that she reported that doctors and therapists had previously written to the landlord on her behalf.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 15 January 2024 in response to her application. The landlord explained that there was a shortage of housing stock and that due to this, the medical criteria for rehousing was high. It outlined the criteria that must be met for residents to be considered for a medical move and stated that the resident’s application had not met the required threshold. The landlord encouraged the resident to explore a mutual exchange and provided advice on how to approach this. It also gave advice about applying on the local authority’s housing register and about pursuing a move to private rental or shared ownership properties.
In correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident stated that the local authority had given her priority to move and therefore questioned why she did not meet the landlord’s criteria for a medical move. It is likely that the landlord’s criteria are different from the local authority’s. As such, the local authority’s decision to approve a higher priority for a move does not necessarily mean that the landlord was acting unfairly by not doing the same.
The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s concern about remaining in her current property, and the impact that she stated this has had on hers and her daughter’s mental health. However, the evidence indicates that the landlord acted appropriately by considering the resident’s application and explaining in writing why she had not met the criteria for a medical move. While this decision was likely to have been distressing for the resident, it is clear that the resident’s needs did not meet the specific criteria required. The landlord acted appropriately by providing advice to the resident about alternative options for pursuing a move. The landlord does not need to do anything further regarding this aspect of the complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord regarding its response to the resident’s reports of cracks in the ceiling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord regarding its response the resident’s transfer request.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord should pay the resident a total of £792.43, made up as follows:
1. £642.43 already offered by the landlord, if this has not already been paid.
2. £150 in relation to its response to reports of cracks in the ceiling.
The landlord should conduct an inspection of the resident’s ceilings and identify any repairs that are required within 28 days. If repairs are required, the landlord should provide a schedule of works to the resident and the Ombudsman and complete the repairs within a further 28 days.
The landlord should evidence compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within 28 days of this report.