London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202341681)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202341681

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

28 February 2025

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 repairs to his kitchen following a leak, including reports of mould and water damage.
2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

3. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord. The tenancy began on 8 August 2005. He lives in a second-floor studio flat with no other occupants. The landlord is a housing association. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
4. The landlord’s repair records show that the resident first reported a leak from a pipe underneath the kitchen sink on 17 May 2023. The landlord raised a works order to repair the pipe on the same date and completed the repair on 12 June 2023. It then raised a follow-on works order to repair the kitchen unit on 7 July 2023, which it attended on 24 October 2023. The landlord did not complete the repair during this visit and instead recommended a kitchen inspection.
5. The landlord inspected the resident’s kitchen on 11 December 2023 and closed the job as it found no outstanding repairs.
6. On 13 December 2023 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord by email. He said:

1. the kitchen repairs were still unresolved after 8 months.
2. the landlord cancelled the initial works order twice before the appointment on 24 October 2023, which inconvenienced him as he had taken time off work.
3. he did not understand why the landlord closed the job after the supervisor’s inspection on 11 December 2023.
4. he wanted a new works order promptly raised to repair the damaged base unit.

7. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 14 December 2023. It said:

1. the supervisor’s visit on 11 December 2023 found no repairs. It would have to follow policy and work from the supervisor’s report.

2. it would not replace the kitchen solely due to its age. It said it would opt for a repair rather than a replacement unless the condition was irreparable.
3. it acknowledged the inconvenience caused by the two missed appointments. It offered the resident a £50 e-voucher.

8. The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on the same date. He said the landlord should have treated the initial leak repair as an emergency, but it did not. He explained that the operative who attended the property in October 2023 said they could not repair the kitchen unit for technical reasons, not because of its age. He said he felt the landlord had not addressed the outstanding damage.
9. The landlord raised a new works order to repair the damaged kitchen units on 22 January 2024.
10. On 8 April 2024 the Ombudsman contacted the landlord and asked it to respond to the resident at stage 2 by 16 April 2024.
11. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 12 April 2024. It said:

1. it acknowledged the leak went on for 2 months without resolution and that there was a short-notice cancellation of a carpenter visit.

2. it had repaired the leak and had raised a new works order to replace the kitchen cabinets and counter, scheduled for 23 April 2024.
3. it offered £480 compensation comprised of:

1. £120 for distress.
2. £120 for inconvenience.
3. £240 for time and effort.

12. The resident initially contacted the Ombudsman seeking a response from the landlord at stage 2 and completion of the kitchen repairs. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 12 April 2024 and repaired the sink and tap in September 2024. However, the resident said that the repairs to the damaged kitchen counters and worktops are still outstanding. His desired outcome is for the landlord to complete the required works.

Assessment and findings

The scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation

13. In correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident said he would like a full kitchen replacement. He said he felt that the landlord had been unclear on whether this would be done under a programme of planned works. This matter did not form part of the original complaint brought to us and it is unclear whether the resident raised these issues as a separate complaint with the landlord.
14. Accordingly, this investigation will only consider the issues raised in the resident’s complaint to the landlord on 13 December 2023. The landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of the Ombudsman. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if needed.

Repairs to the resident’s kitchen

15. The landlord’s repairs policy (2023) says that it:

1. will aim to complete routine repairs in an average of 25 calendar days.
2. will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours.

3. will not replace kitchen units because of mismatching but will repair base and wall units when rotten.
4. will replace key components such as kitchens through planned programmes of work where they are affected by age, wear and tear.

16. On 17 May 2023 the landlord raised a works order to repair a pipe under the kitchen sink in response to a report of a leak. The landlord attended the property and repaired the leaking pipe on 12 June 2023. It is unclear how the landlord categorised the repair, so we are unable to assess if the response time was in line with its repairs policy. Given the nature of the repair, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have contacted the resident to explain its reasoning for attending the repair as a non-emergency. 
17. The landlord raised a new works order for the stopcock under the kitchen sink on 30 June 2023. The evidence shows that the landlord issued the resident with a ‘no access’ letter on the same day. The resident has disputed the access issue and said in his contact to the Ombudsman that the landlord cancelled the job. Based on the documentary evidence available, the Ombudsman is unable to determine whether this was a mitigating factor.
18. The landlord raised a follow-on to the original works order on 7 July 2023, with the purpose of repairing the damaged kitchen units. The evidence shows that the landlord rescheduled this works order from 14 July 2023 to 11 September 2023. The repair records show the landlord attended the property on 24 October 2023.
19. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence from the landlord such as job completion notes to confirm what work took place during this visit. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said that the attending operative put in a recommendation for a supervisor inspection of the kitchen.
20. It is unclear why it took 3 months from the landlord raising the works order on 7 July 2023 to it attending the property to address the repair. The landlord has not provided any explanation for the delay. This was not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy therefore, the delay was not appropriate.
21. Following the assessment on 24 October 2023, the landlord raised a works order for a supervisor inspection, which took place on 11 December 2023. The landlord said its supervisor found no repairs during the inspection, so it closed the works order. The Ombudsman has not seen a copy of the inspection report from 11 December 2023 to confirm the landlord’s findings. We are therefore unable to assess whether the landlord took reasonable steps to address the resident’s report of water damage to the units under the kitchen sink.
22. The inspection was completed some 34 working days after the landlord had recommended it. The landlord has not provided a reason for the delay in completing the inspection.
23. Landlords are required to create and maintain adequate records to be able to demonstrate that they have complied with their repair obligations. There was a failure in this case to record the outcomes of the repair visit on 24 October 2023, and the inspection of the kitchen that took place on 11 December 2023.
24. In his original complaint on 13 December 2023, the resident explained that the base unit underneath the kitchen sink was damaged by the leak and there was a risk of mould and rot. He also said that there was a hole in the sink.
25. In its stage 1 response the landlord explained that it would not replace a kitchen for being reported as old. It stated it generally aimed to repair rather than replace unless the condition was deemed irreparable. However, in his complaint the resident had not asked for a kitchen replacement, just for the landlord to repair his damaged kitchen units. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have addressed the resident’s concerns about the damaged units and his reports of a hole in the sink, including what action it would take in response to his concerns.
26. Following a request from the resident, the landlord raised a final works order to repair 2 damaged kitchen units on 22 January 2024. It originally booked the works in for 1 March 2024.
27. The landlord contacted the resident on 29 February 2024 to reschedule the works to 23 April 2024 due to operative sickness. The landlord issued the resident a voucher totalling £20 for the inconvenience, which was in line with the fixed amount for missed appointments specified in its compensation policy. It was reasonable for the landlord to contact the resident to explain the delay, although this caused the works to fall outside of the timescales outlined in its repairs policy.
28. The landlord’s repair records show that it completed some repairs in the kitchen on 17 September 2024. This was 16 months after the landlord first became aware of the resident’s reports of damage to the kitchen units. It is unclear from the landlord’s records why it could not complete the works as expected on 23 April 2024.
29. Furthermore, the landlord said that in its stage 2 response that it was going to replace the damaged kitchen cabinets and counter. The completion photos from the works on 17 September 2024 show it replaced the kitchen sink and tap but not the damaged units. The Ombudsman is unable to determine from the evidence provided whether the landlord repaired the counter during this visit. It is unclear why the landlord did not take the remedial action it stated in its stage 2 response.
30. In summary, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s kitchen because:
    1. there is no evidence the landlord has completed the repairs to the damaged units. The resident said the works are still outstanding some 21 months after he first made the landlord aware of the leak under the kitchen sink.
    2. it has failed to explain why there has been such a significant delay in completing the works, or why it attended 3 separate works orders outside of its repairs policy timescales.
31. The resident said the above failures have caused him distress, inconvenience, and time and effort. The resident said he has had to repeatedly contact the landlord to try to get the works completed. The resident said he has taken time off work to wait for repairs that the landlord has then cancelled.
32. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord offered the resident £480 compensation for the distress, inconvenience, time and effort caused to him by the delays in it addressing the repairs. The offer of compensation shows the landlord made some attempts to ‘put things right.’ However, there is no evidence that the landlord has completed works to the damaged kitchen units, as agreed in its stage 2 response. We have therefore ordered the landlord to action the repairs to the kitchen units and countertop as stated in its stage 2 response.
33. As there have been further delays in the landlord completing the repairs to the resident’s kitchen, the landlord’s offer of compensation was not proportionate to the failures identified in this investigation. Having carefully considered our remedies guidance and the compensation already offered by the landlord, we have ordered the landlord to pay additional compensation of £150. The total compensation payable is therefore £630, in replacement of the offer made in the landlord’s complaint responses. The landlord may deduct the £480 it has offered if this has already been paid.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

34. In accordance with the Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”), landlords must ensure they:

1. acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days.

2. respond to the complaint within 10 working days of the days of the acknowledgment at stage 1.
3. provide a final response within 20 working days of the date of acknowledging the escalation request.

35. The landlord’s policy is compliant with the provisions of the Code.
36. The resident made his original complaint on 13 December 2023 and the landlord provided its stage 1 response the following day. In its response, the landlord said that it would not replace the kitchen. However, the landlord did not provide a meaningful response to the substantive issue of the outstanding repairs, which the resident had raised as part of his complaint, including what actions it would take.
37. The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated on 15 December 2023 and the landlord confirmed it had escalated the complaint to stage 2 on the same date. The landlord therefore had until 16 January 2024 to provide its stage 2 response.
38. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 8 February 2024 as he had not received a stage 2 response from the landlord. Following contact from the Ombudsman on 8 April 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 response some 82 working days after the complaint was escalated.
39. The landlord has not produced any evidence to show that this delay was outside its control or necessary to answer the complaint. There is no evidence that it agreed an extension of time to respond with the resident. On that basis the landlord failed to comply with its own complaint policy and the Code.
40. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it may offer compensation where it fails to meet agreed complaint response times or comply with the Code.
41. The landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for the delay to the complaint process within its stage 2 response. This was not appropriate. The landlord should have recognised the delay in its stage 2 response and the distress and inconvenience this caused to the resident while he waited for a resolution to his complaint.
42. In summary, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint, due to:
    1. its failure to provide a meaningful response to the substantive issue at stage 1 of its complaints process.
    2. its failure to comply with its own complaints policy and the Code in providing its stage 2 response 82 working days after escalation.
    3. its failure to acknowledge or apologise for the delay in its stage 2 response.
43. Having carefully considered our remedies guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay compensation to the resident of £125 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the above failures.

Determination (decision)

44. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to his kitchen following a leak, including reports of mould and water damage.
45. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

46. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:

1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in the report.
2. Replace the damaged units and the countertop as stated in its stage 2 response.

3. Pay the resident a total of £755 compensation, comprised of:

1. £630 for distress and inconvenience caused by the continued delay in completing the kitchen repairs.
2. £125 for distress, time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failures.
3. The landlord may deduct the £480 it has offered from the total compensation amount if this has already been paid.

47. Provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within 28 days of this report.