London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202341788)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202341788

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

30 January 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of repairs to the roof.
2. Request for reimbursement following repairs to a boundary wall.
3. Request for reimbursement following repairs to fencing.
4. Complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant and has lived in the 2-bed house since 1997.
The resident has reported problems with condensation in the roof for several years. A previous determination by this Service in November 2023 (reference 202109081) found maladministration with the landlord’s handling of reports of condensation in the loft. We ordered the landlord to take action to try and resolve the condensation.
In line with orders from 202109081, the landlord told this Service a contractor inspected the property in October 2023 when the roof was found to be in good order with no leaks. It said there was enough ventilation, and the condensation was caused by cold spots within the loft, insufficient insulation, and heat from the downlights. The landlord said the ceiling needed to be lowered and a new lighting system installed. It said it had confirmed this to the resident, but he had refused the work and would not allow access. The landlord advised it would continue in its attempts to progress with the work.
The resident approached this Service for support in making a complaint about the ongoing problem and following instruction from this Service, a complaint was raised on 9 May 2024. It referred to:
1. outstanding roof repairs
2. repairs to the boundary wall
3. repairs to fencing
4. complaint handling
The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint on 13 May 2024. It confirmed:
1. several orders had been raised since 2021 for the roof insulation, but the resident had refused contractors access to inspect the roof
2. an inspection was arranged for a roofing supervisor, but the resident cancelled this as he thought a condensation specialist was attending
3. an inspection was arranged for a roofing contractor, but this was cancelled by the resident
4. a repair was raised to inspect the lack of insulation/ventilation, but the resident said there was no loft hatch to access the Dorma roof
5. failure to allow access for work will result in work being cancelled. It advised the resident to make contact if he was still having issues with the roof
6. it was only responsible for boundary fences. It said there were only dividing fences between the resident and his neighbour, and these were his responsibility to repair
7. the wall would be repaired on 3 July 2024
8. the resident had been told in April 2024 that a new complaint would need to be raised for the new issues he had raised
The resident escalated his complaint on 16 May 2024. He remained dissatisfied with:
1. the front wall which he said he had no choice but to replace. He said he had told the landlord over a year ago that it was loose. He asked the landlord for material costs
2. the boundary fence which he said he had replaced the previous year due to high winds. He asked the landlord for material costs
3. the ongoing condensation in the loft which he said he first reported in 2020 but had never been inspected. He said the roofer who attended in October 2023 did not inspect the roof and no one could find the inspection report
The landlord provided its final complaint response on 8 October 2024. It:
1. repeated its stage 1 response regarding the complaint handling
2. confirmed repairs had previously been completed to the wall
3. confirmed an inspection of the wall on receipt of an incident which caused it to fall. The repair was arranged but cancelled by the resident
4. confirmed the resident paid a private contractor to repair the wall despite receiving advice not to
5. confirmed it would not reimburse the cost of materials as the resident had cancelled the appointment and had not allowed it the opportunity to complete the repair
6. advised all future repairs to the wall would be the resident’s responsibility
7. repeated the stage 1 response regarding the boundary fencing. It said it had asked the housing team to confirm the concerns and if necessary a further inspection could be completed
8. confirmed the attempts made since 2021 to inspect the roof. It said due to the height of the roof following the loft conversion, downlights had been installed and heat from these was contributing to the condensation
9. confirmed work had been proposed to rectify the condensation issues but these were rejected by the resident
10. advised the roofing team would provide the full report which included the findings and proposed next steps
11. confirmed failure to allow access for repairs was a breach of the tenancy agreement
12. apologised for the delay in the final complaint response and offered £80 compensation
The resident contacted this Service on 19 October 2024. He said:
1. the landlord had lied and provided fake documents regarding the roof inspection
2. no one had inspected the roof in 4 years, and nothing had been resolved
3. he had provided this Service with a professional roofers report and quote which confirmed the only solution to the problem
4. he wanted this Service to obtain a drawing of the boundaries
5. he wanted the full roof overhauled and converted into a warm deck

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has referred to the impact the situation has had on the health of him and his family. Although we can consider the impact the situation has had on the resident and whether the landlord acted reasonably, we cannot determine liability for damage to health. These are matters better suited to an insurance claim or court. Any compensation offer will be assessed in line with our remedies guidance. Should the resident wish to pursue these matters further, he should seek legal advice.
This Service has investigated a previous complaint (reference 202109081) in relation to the roof and condensation issue. In accordance with paragraph 42.l of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or another Ombudsman has already decided upon. As such, this report will focus on events from November 2023 (the previous determination date) to 8 October 2024 (the date of the final complaint response).

Repairs to the roof

The landlord’s repair policy and the resident’s tenancy agreement state the landlord is responsible, among other things, for maintaining the structure and exterior of the home, including roofs, boundary walls and boundary fences. The policy states emergency repairs (where there is an immediate danger to the occupant or members of the public) will be attended within 24-hours and routine repairs will be completed in an average of 25 calendar days.
Section 4 (clause 15) of the resident’s tenancy agreement states the resident must allow the landlord’s employees or contractors access at all reasonable times to inspect the property or conduct repairs. The landlord will normally give 24-hour notice.
The landlord said a contractor inspected the roof in October 2023 and made recommendations. This was disputed by the resident who said an inspection had not taken place, and he had not received a copy of the inspection report when requested. On this basis, the resident refused the proposed repairs.
There is no evidence to confirm a copy of the October 2023 report was sent to the resident when requested. Furthermore, it is noted that upon request, the landlord has not provided this Service with a copy of the report. This was a communication and record keeping failure by the landlord as it failed to evidence the basis of its findings and recommendations for resolving the ongoing issue.
In January 2024, the landlord committed to pursue its attempts of progressing the case. While its initial attempts of contact with the resident in October 2023 are acknowledged, there is no evidence that it made any further contact with the resident. This was not appropriate as the landlord failed to deliver on its commitment to progress the matter and fulfil its repair obligations.
In February 2024, the resident said he had sought advice from a building and loft conversion specialist who had told him the roof was not vented correctly. The landlord said it had sent the proposals from the resident to the roofing team and a second inspection would be arranged. This was appropriate and showed the landlord had considered the proposal received.
A roof inspection was arranged but the resident said there was no loft hatch to allow access to the Dorma roof. While the records indicate the inspection was ‘completed’ on 30 April 2024, due to a lack of records or inspection report, it is unclear if the inspection took place or what the findings were. As such, the Ombudsman cannot assess if the landlord acted within its repair policy and obligations.
On 13 May 2024, the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint letter, in which it stated several orders had been raised since 2021, but the resident had repeatedly refused access. As per paragraph 13 of this report, the resident has an obligation to allow access to the property. If access becomes a barrier to completing repairs, the landlord should communicate with the resident, refer to the conditions within the tenancy agreement and advise of the action it can take to pursue this. There is no evidence the landlord communicated this to the resident or took any further action regarding the access issue.
The resident escalated the issue on 16 May 2024 when he told the landlord he was seeking legal advice. On 22 May 2024 he said the number of times he had told the landlord what was required to the roof was “unbelievable”. The landlord responded the same day referring to an email from the resident on 22 March 2024. The email (provided as evidence) confirmed the resident was to pursue the case legally therefore no access or communication was allowed.
On 26 June 2024 the resident said no work would go ahead unless it was in writing. He then asked the landlord to put everything on hold so he could seek legal advice and not to contact him again – he said no access would be given for unauthorised repairs.
It is noted that the contact restrictions, requests from the resident to put a hold on work, and the access issues contributed to the delay in repairs and impacted the landlord’s ability to meet its repair obligations. However, if this was a barrier, it ought to have taken the appropriate action to overcome these. There is no evidence it did this. This is a failure by the landlord.
An email from the landlord on 27 June 2024 suggests that further contact had been made and the resident had agreed to contact from a designated officer. This contact has not been provided as evidence; however, the landlord said it hoped to see progress with the case.
The communication between the resident and landlord continued from July to October 2024 when the resident repeatedly told the landlord how long the matter had been ongoing and that no inspection had been done.
In its final complaint response on 8 October 2024 the landlord confirmed the previous proposal to lower the ceiling and replace the lighting system. It said the roofing team would send the full report to the resident which would outline the work needed. There is no evidence the report was sent to the resident, and as previously stated, the landlord has not provided this Service with a copy of any inspection on which it based its findings and recommendations. This was unreasonable and a failure by the landlord.
Taking all the circumstances into consideration the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the handling of roof repairs. This is because:
1. despite numerous requests from the resident and a request from this Service, the landlord has not provided a copy of any inspection report on which it based its findings and recommendations to rectify the problem
2. although the landlord made initial attempts of contact and access following the inspection in October 2023, there were prolonged and avoidable delays in which the landlord did not demonstrate any further attempts to complete the repairs
3. the landlord referred to access issues at both stages of the complaint. It advised the refusal of access was a breach of tenancy but did not pursue this in attempt to meet its repair obligations

Boundary wall

The landlord confirmed it had been notified of the brick wall coming down on a child on 18 March 2024. The landlord’s repair policy states if there is a risk of immediate danger to the occupant or public, it should attend within 24 hours. It was therefore not appropriate that it took 2 working days to attend site to complete an inspection and risk assessment.
On 20 March 2024 the landlord found the resident was preparing to have the repairs done independently. It took details of the incident and raised a repair for 19 April 2024. This was in line with the policy.
Although not evidenced, the landlord said it had asked the resident at the time not to do the work himself, reminding him of the tenancy agreement and terms and conditions regarding improvements. This was appropriate, however on 22 March 2024, the resident emailed the landlord and said the wall would be “built correctly before 19 April 2024”. It would have been appropriate to contact him again to reinforce the conditions of the tenancy agreement and suggest the alterations process. Explaining this would have informed the resident that in doing the work himself, the landlord would not be liable for any costs, or ongoing maintenance. There is no evidence this happened.
In the stage 1 complaint response on 13 May 2024 the landlord said the wall would be repaired on 3 July 2024. It did not provide an explanation why the date had been changed from 19 April 2024 or acknowledge the ongoing delay. In changing the appointment, the landlord did not comply with the timescales in the repair policy.
On 16 May 2024 when the resident escalated his complaint, he asked the landlord to pay for the materials used to repair the wall.
On 22 May 2024 the resident told the landlord he had completed the repairs himself on 18 May 2024. As the landlord had been made aware of this, it ought to have inspected the work that had been done. It was a further missed opportunity to refer to the tenancy agreement, the alterations process, and to discuss retrospective permission and the ongoing maintenance. There is no evidence this happened. This was a failure by the landlord.
In the final complaint response dated 8 October 2024 the landlord said it had completed a repair prior to the report on 18 March 2024 – there is no evidence of when this was reported or completed. This is a record keeping failure.
It confirmed the inspection and repair date for July 2024, which was rescheduled to October 2024, then cancelled by the resident. While it referred to several attempts to inspect and repair the wall, it said it did not get a response or access – there is no evidence of the attempts. This is a record keeping failure.
The landlord said when it did visit (the date of the visit is not known), the repair had been completed privately by the resident, despite advice from the landlord not to do so. On this basis, the landlord said the resident had not allowed it to do the work and had cancelled the appointment, therefore it would not reimburse the costs as the resident did not seek approval.
In line with its repair policy and the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord was responsible for the repair to the boundary wall. The landlord inspected it and planned for the repairs – this was in line with its repair obligations. As such, the landlord’s decision to not reimburse the material costs was appropriate as it had followed its repair policy.
Taking the circumstances into consideration, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in relation to the resident’s request for reimbursement following repairs to a boundary wall.

Fence

In his complaint, the resident asked the landlord to reimburse him for the cost of replacing the fencing. The landlord confirmed it was only responsible for boundary fences and as the resident had dividing fences only, they were his responsibility. This was reasonable as it was consistent with the policy as per paragraph 12 of this report.
The landlord did however confirm it had asked the housing team to contact the resident to ensure it understood the concern correctly, and if needed an inspection could be arranged. While this was an appropriate suggestion, there is no evidence to confirm if this was done, or what the outcome was. This was a failure by the landlord.
When making any assessment the Ombudsman’s role is to ensure the landlord’s actions, communication and decision making complies with the relevant policy, procedure, tenancy agreement or legislation. In this case, the tenancy agreement made it clear that the landlord was responsible for boundary fences only and not dividing fences. As this was in accordance with the repair policy and the tenancy agreement, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a reimbursement of the fencing costs.

Complaint

The landlord has a 2-stage complaints policy which states it aims to acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days. Stage 1 complaints will be responded to within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. If at any stage the landlord cannot meet that timescale, it will communicate with the resident.
The resident contacted this Service on 9 May 2024 for assistance with his complaint. As there was no evidence that a formal complaint had been logged for the issues raised, the landlord was asked to raise a complaint and respond by 31 May 2024. The landlord acknowledged and responded on 13 May 2024 which was appropriate and within the timeframe given.
The resident escalated his complaint on 16 May 2024. While the landlord stated it acknowledged this on 25 May 2024, we have not seen evidence of this. An acknowledgement sent on 25 September 2024 has been provided and, the landlord’s acknowledgement was not consistent with the policy.
The landlord provided its final complaint response on 8 October 2024, 102 working days after it was requested. There was no evidence of any interim contact with the resident. The landlord’s response and lack of communication was unreasonable as it was not consistent with its policy.
In summary, the Ombudsman finds maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the complaint. The landlord did not comply with its policy in terms of response timescales and communication. While the landlord did offer £80 compensation for the delay, it did not address how it would learn from the failure to prevent a recurrence. Further, the level of compensation was not proportionate in recognising the failure or the inconvenience and distress experienced by the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of repairs to the roof.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reimbursement following repairs to a boundary wall.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reimbursement following repairs to fencing.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. write a letter of apology to the resident. This should acknowledge the failures identified and any learning taken from the case
2. pay the resident £500 in compensation. This is made up of the following:
  1. £300 for the failures in rectifying the roof issues, poor communication and the inconvenience and distress to the resident
  2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the highlighted failures in responding to the resident’s reports about the boundary wall
  3. £100 for the delays in complaint handling and the distress and inconvenience to the resident
  4. This is inclusive of the compensation previously offered by the landlord. Therefore, the landlord may deduct from this total any compensation it may already have paid in relation to this complaint
  5. The payment should be made directly to the resident and not offset against any debt that may be owed. The landlord must provide this Service with confirmation of the payments
3. arrange a survey by a suitably qualified person to identify any issues with the roof:
  1. Share a copy of the inspection report with the resident and us
  2. If issues are identified at the inspection, an action plan should be compiled, setting out steps to address them and a timescale to complete the associated work
4. conduct a review into the complaint handling of this case. The review should look to identify the reasons why the response was not sent in time and the lack of communication to the resident. The landlord should provide this Service with any learning highlighted to prevent a recurrence