London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202000305)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202000305

London & Quadrant H T

20 January 2021


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 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 lack of rent abatement for the period that the resident was temporarily decanted from her home.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident has a shared ownership lease with the landlord for a two-bedroom ground floor flat.
  2. The lease states: “If the whole or any part of the Premises (or the Common Parts necessary for access to it) is destroyed or damaged by fire or any other risks covered by the Landlord’s insurance so as to be rendered unfit for use then (unless the insurance money is irrecoverable by reason of any act or default of the Leaseholder) the rent or a fair proportion of it shall be suspended until the Premises (and the Common Parts necessary for access) are again fit for use”. 
  3. Under the terms of the lease, there is no obligation for the landlord to provide alternative accommodation to the resident.
  4. The landlord’s rehousing policy, which applies to secure, assured, and assured shorthold residents and those in supported housing, provides that rent must continue to be paid on the property during the decant period. On page three, it is stated that the policy applies to leaseholders and shared owners in the following way: “For non-emergency rehousing, leaseholders will be consulted under Section 20 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 and any rehousing arrangement would be negotiated by L&Q on an individual basis with the leaseholder.”

Summary of events  

  1. On 7 February 2020, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord regarding its handling of a communal waste pipe leaking into her bathtub and toilet. The complaint was accompanied by a chronology of events that occurred after she reported the issue at 10pm on 11 November 2019. She detailed that contractors had attended at 4.05pm on 12 November 2019 but were unable to stop her bathroom, bedroom, and hallway from becoming flooded with waste. On 13 November 2019, the resident was informed that she would not be able to remain in the flat while repairs were being undertaken. She was decanted to temporary accommodation on the evening of 14 November 2019.
  2. The resident expressed concern that the repair was not responded to with sufficient urgency, and that the landlord initially did not accept responsibility for decanting her. She further complained about the requirement that she continue paying rent on the property while it was uninhabitable. Lastly, she felt that the landlord was not responsive to her frequent updates on the situation.
  3. The landlord has a two-stage internal complaint process. The landlord’s stage one response of 25 February 2020 explained that corroded pipes had caused the main communal stack pipe to burst, leading to an upsurge of waste through her bathroom. It stated that her bathroom was excavated and the communal stack pipe was renewed on 15 November 2019. Following this, remedial works and a sanitary clean were undertaken. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience caused by the issue and the erroneous advice it had initially provided about her being responsible for the decant.
  4. The landlord confirmed that she was required to maintain her rent payments while she was in temporary accommodation; however, the cost of the hotel and food would be covered by insurance.
  5. It apologised for its handling of the complaint and explained that it had not responded to her emails as these were being handled by the insurance team, and it had decided to hold the response to the complaint until the resident had returned to the property.
  6. The landlord offered the resident £470 in compensation, comprising:
    1. £150 for distress
    2. £150 for inconvenience
    3. £150 for time and effort
    4. £20 for the delay in responding.
  7. The landlord advised the resident that she could take her complaint to the Ombudsman if dissatisfied with its response.
  8. The resident referred the matter to the Ombudsman as advised. Following contact from the Ombudsman, the landlord agreed to try and resolve the complaint by issuing another response.
  9. The stage two response was provided on 13 July 2020. It apologised for the time taken to complete the review and stated that it had attempted to contact the resident on several occasions without success. It confirmed that its insurance team had paid the resident £999.52 for the damage to her floor, damaged food, and parking costs.
  10. Following further consideration, the landlord had decided to increase its offer of compensation to £650, comprising:
    1. £200 for distress
    2. £200 for inconvenience
    3. £200 for time and effort
    4. £50 for the delay in the previous response.
  11. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, as she was not offered a rent abatement for the duration of the decant. She provided the Ombudsman with a copy of an email she had received from the landlord on 19 November 2019, which stated: “I have looked into the rent, and this would have to be reclaimed as per your compensation claim”.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord has made an offer of compensation to the resident for its acknowledged failings in this case and she has not escalated that matter to the Ombudsman for further consideration. The remaining issue is whether the landlord should have given the resident a rent abatement on the property.
  2. The landlord informed the resident that she was required to maintain rent payments over the period that she was unable to occupy the property. This was incorrect, as she was entitled to have her rent suspended under the terms of the lease. The landlord did not have copy of the lease and it appears that it may have relied upon its rehousing policy to establish the responsibilities of the parties; however, the parts of the policy relating to decants and payment of rent do not apply to leaseholders. As the landlord did not ask the resident for a copy of the lease in its consideration of this matter, it is not known whether it would have used it to identify its obligations if it had had the lease at hand. Therefore, the landlord’s failing cannot be attributed solely to record keeping.
  3. While there were failings in the landlord’s consideration of this matter, the resident was not significantly adversely affected because she was provided with alternative accommodation at no cost. A rent abatement in addition to this would amount to double recovery, which would not be a fair or reasonable outcome. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of the cost of the alternative accommodation, and the landlord should either confirm that the sum was greater than the rent paid by the resident for the property or refund the resident the difference.
  4. It is noted that a member of the landlord’s staff advised the resident that she could submit a claim for her rent, which demonstrates a lack of consistent understanding of the landlord’s obligations.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord provided the resident with incorrect information regarding her liability to pay rent. Under the terms of the lease, the landlord should have suspended the rent for the period that the property was not fit for use. However, there was no significant adverse effect on the resident, as she was not charged for alternative accommodation.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman orders that the landlord:
    1. pay the resident £75 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the provision of incorrect advice. This amount is additional to the £650 offered in its stage two response to the complaint.
    2. either confirm to the resident that the amount paid for alternative accommodation was equal to, or greater than, the amount she paid in rent, or refund the difference to the resident.
  2. The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above, within four weeks of the date of this report.
  3. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
    1. request a copy of the lease from the resident, so that it can ensure that the service it provides is consistent with its obligations under the lease
    2. provide staff training on the application of its rehousing policy in relation to leaseholders, and the importance of checking the terms of the lease.