London & Quadrant H T (201912314)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201912314

London & Quadrant H T

22 March 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 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. repairs to the resident’s home;
2. the related complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a three-bedroom house. The tenancy agreement began on 29 March 1993.
The landlord added a note to the resident’s housing records in September 2020 to record that he has dementia and requires physical support. Its repairs records indicate that it was aware that the resident was ‘vulnerable’ at least as early as December 2018.
The tenancy agreement requires the landlord to ‘keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the premises including… internal walls… but not including internal painting and decoration’. It obliges the landlord to carry out repairs ‘within a reasonable time of being notified of the defect or disrepair’.

The tenant is obliged to ‘keep the interior of the premises in good and clean condition and to decorate all internal parts of the premises’.

The landlord has a maintenance responsibilities booklet that states the tenant is responsible for keeping the bathroom, WC and kitchen ‘clean and in good condition’, ‘cleaning mould’ and ‘keeping internal doors in good condition’. The landlord is responsible for repairs to items such as rotten units and water leaks. It says it will attend in the following timescales:

‘For emergency repairs, where there is an immediate danger to the occupant or members of the public we will attend within 24 hours.

For all non-emergency repairs we will arrange a mutually convenient appointment.’

The landlord has a complaints policy that sets out a two-stage process. At stage one, it says it will resolve matters or provide an action plan within 10 working days. At stage two, it is obliged to carry out a senior manager review but no timescale is prescribed.
The landlord has a compensation policy that allows it to award compensation as a gesture of goodwill or to recognise loss of amenity. It states that it will investigate all claims thoroughly and request receipts where necessary. It adds that it will offset any compensation against any rent debt owed to it.

Summary of Events

The landlord’s internal records show it recorded concerns about the condition of the resident’s property during late 2018 and early 2019 that had impacted its ability to carry out repairs:
1. it noted on 31 October 2018 that the resident’s bathroom was in a poor state of hygiene so it could not attend to flooring repairs
2. the resident’s son reported a lack of hot water on 7 January 2019 but the landlord replied on 11 January 2019 and advised that the property needed to be cleared and cleaned so its contractors could attend
3. a repairs note was made on 17 January 2019 where the landlord recorded a potential leak but that the property was ‘unsanitary to work in’
4. it noted a 28 February 2019 inspection that confirmed the property was in a bad state and that the surveyor had recommended a decant and environmental clean to allow it to be stripped back.
A complaint form was submitted by the resident’s son on 25 March 2019. He stated that the resident had been placed into a care home for a four-week period from 15 March 2019 but no works had begun yet. He noted that he had liaised with the local authority social care department to secure the care placement and the intention was for the local authority and the landlord to carry out a ‘deep clean and maintenance in order for both myself and his carers to be able to care for my father afterwards’.
Between March and November 2019, the landlord recorded the following actions related to the works at the resident’s home:
1. cleaning to the property and removal of rubbish and household waste was completed in early April 2019 as was the reinstatement of hot water
2. a leak from the bathroom into the living room was fixed on 25 April 2019
3. it had overhauled sub-flooring damaged by a leak, carried out an asbestos check, renewed parts of the kitchen and completed dry lining to the bathroom by the end of May 2019
4. made notes during May-July 2019 that decorations were needed throughout the property but that these were due to ‘neglect’ rather than leak damage and a decision would need to be taken on whether it would agree to complete these as part of a compensation package given the resident’s health condition
5. recorded all kitchen, bathroom and flooring works as completed on 21 June 2019 when its maintenance team stated that it was awaiting confirmation as to whether decorations had been agreed
6. its repairs records show that it completed the living room decorations on 25 July 2019
7. it noted on 15 August 2019 that the living room had been painted but the resident’s son wished the whole property to be decorated
8. its repairs records show that it completed carpeting to the living room, hallway, stairs and landing on 30 August 2019
9. its repairs records show further works were completed to the property in mid-November 2019, including re-hanging of internal doors, painting of the stairway, steam cleaning of toilet flooring and cleaning to window frames followed by a boiler re-commission on 29 November 2019
In the meantime, the resident’s son raised concerns with the landlord in May 2019 and July 2019 about rent account demands it had issued. He stated that he had been told the rent account would be frozen during the temporary accommodation period and that he was having to pay care home fees. Internal landlord emails in late June 2019 indicate that officers had attempted to establish what information was given to the resident and his son at the time of the decant but no records were found; it was noted that disturbance payments would only be made if a permanent decant was necessary.
The resident’s son submitted a further complaint to the landlord on 6 July 2019. He reported that his father had been moved into respite care in March 2019, at the landlord’s request, for works to proceed at his property that it said would last six weeks. He stated that his father had been in a care home for five months and there had been repairs delays despite assurances offered by the landlord. He mentioned that a rent arrears letter had been issued while they were also in arrears with the local authority for care home fees. The outcomes he was seeking were:
1. a rent reimbursement for the period his father had not been at the property
2. his father’s care home fees to be taken care of
3. compensation for loss of Personal Independence Payments (PIP) that were not paid because his father had been in a care facility
4. assistance in covering a Thames Water bill that was due to an internal leak at the property
5. compensation for his father having to be away from his property
6. compensation for him for time and trouble he spent in resolving the matter
7. an apology and assurance on lessons learned.
The resident’s son wrote to the landlord on 1 August 2019. He requested that it pay for the higher charge between the resident’s rent and the care home fees which he advised was the latter. He also mentioned claims for possessions lost during the house clearance, the lack of heating and hot water prior to March 2019 and inconvenience – the total claim was around £3250 according to the resident’s son.
The landlord’s internal records show that it made a note on 16 August 2019 that the complaint should be escalated given the resident’s vulnerabilities.
The landlord issued a complaint response on 12 November 2019. It concluded that:
1. works had been raised to put the property back to its former state and the landlord intended for the resident to be moved into a hotel but his son liaised with the local authority so his father was placed into sheltered accommodation
2. works had taken longer than they should have but this was partly due to the landlord taking on more works than it was required to (redecoration and carpeting)
3. works should be completed by 22 November 2019 and an apology was offered for the delay
4. compensation of £7406.39 would be awarded for 33 weeks of care home fees (once the offer was accepted and evidence of fees provided) plus £200 for distress and inconvenience
5. this was to be offset against rent arrears of £3428.64 to bring the total compensation to £4177.75
6. it had paid for £972.57 of carpets as a goodwill gesture and would also cover any top up paid for the resident’s care home costs
A statement of account dated 5 December 2019 has been provided to this Service that shows the charges incurred by the resident for his residential care by the local authority during the period 18 March 2019 to 17 November 2019 – the total for this was £3259.53.
The landlord made a revised compensation offer to the resident on 19 December 2019. It said that this was in light of confirmation of actual care costs and an administrative error being corrected. The following amendments were made:
1. the correct calculation for 33 weeks of care home fees at £163.83 per week was £5406.39 not £7406.39
2. the actual invoice costs provided for the residential care were only £3259.53 which the landlord would cover, bringing the total to £3459.53 (including the previously offered £200 for delay and inconvenience)
3. given the rent account shortfall was now £3952.05, all of the compensation would be offset and a rent account balance of £492.52 would remain
The resident’s MP chased the landlord on 27 March 2020 for the compensation award to be processed. The landlord replied on 1 April 2020 – it explained that there had been a revised compensation offer but that it had not been paid because the resident’s son stated they would contest the amount.
The resident’s son has informed this Service that they accepted the landlord’s compensation proposal in May 2020 but remained dissatisfied with that award.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.

Repairs

The resident vacated his property in mid-March 2019 and returned to it in mid-November 2019. The landlord has acknowledged that there were delays in it completing works during this period – it stated in its November 2019 complaint response that the works ‘had taken longer than we would have hoped for’. There is evidence of unreasonable delay during March 2019 when the landlord failed to raise works to clear the property and during May 2019 when it was awaiting confirmation of bathroom and kitchen renewal works from its ‘planned’ team. Eight months represents an unreasonable period for the resident to have been away from the property.
However, the range of works that the landlord had to complete was extensive and some of these could not be identified before the resident left the property. The initial repairs identified were a leak into the living room, a boiler fault and the bathroom renewal. These works were completed within two months of the resident vacating together with flooring works and renewal of some kitchen items. This was a reasonable timeframe to complete works given their scope and that some would be classed as improvements rather than repairs. Further, in order to allow repairs and improvements to proceed, the landlord had to carry out work that was not part of its usual obligations (cleaning of the property and removal of rubbish) – it demonstrated that it was willing to act beyond its usual remit given the circumstances of the case.
The landlord finished its scheduled works during July 2019 when it completed decorations to the damaged living room. Between July-November 2019, it considered and carried out additional requests from the resident’s son that were outside of its repairs obligations – this included carpeting parts of the property, decorations to areas that had not been damaged by the leak, mould washing to windows and re-hanging of internal doors. Given these works were outside of its usual responsibilities, it is reasonable that there was some delay while it considered whether it was appropriate to complete them. It decided to assist with these works given the resident’s vulnerabilities which demonstrates its willingness to assist given the circumstances. However, it is unreasonable that it took three months for the decorations and carpeting to be finished once it had decided to do so.
It is of concern that there is a lack of records from the time of the decant decision to demonstrate whether any consideration was given to the resident’s ongoing rent liability and how long the temporary placement was likely to be needed. The resident’s son has advised that he was told the rent account would be frozen but this Service has not seen any evidence to demonstrate this happened. The lack of records was noted by the landlord during June 2019 – if better records had been retained, this may have prevented some of the uncertainty that followed with regards to the resident’s rent account and what assistance the landlord could offer in terms of the care home fees and other costs related to the resident’s move.
As part of its complaint resolution, the landlord decided to pay the £3259.53 care home fees that were charged to the resident. Although the landlord decided that its policy did not require it to award a disturbance payment for the resident’s decant (because this was not permanent), it was logical that the resident would not have expected to simultaneously pay two sets of accommodation charges. The resident’s son made a request that the landlord cover the higher charge (between the rent and care home fees) and it was reasonable that the landlord used its discretion and chose to fulfil this request. This was despite it being the choice of the resident and his family for the resident to stay in a care home setting rather than the hotel the landlord offered. Further, the landlord covered the cost for the full eight-month care home stay even though it concluded the decant was partly needed due to the condition the resident had allowed the property to deteriorate to. It also added an additional award of £200 for delay and inconvenience. This was a reasonable approach for the landlord to take and it demonstrated that it considered the circumstances of the case and was fair in its offer of redress.
The landlord also considered that it had carried out works to the resident’s home that were outside of its obligations. It explained in its final complaint response that it had carpeted the property and carried out decorations that it was not obliged to with the carpeting costing £972.57. This Service has not seen evidence of the cost of these works but it was reasonable for the landlord to consider expenses it had incurred in carrying out goodwill gestures when it determined an appropriate compensation award.
The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance has an upper range of awards of £700+ for occasions where failures ‘have had a severe long-term impact on the complainant…, including physical or emotional impact, or both.’ The Guidance states that this includes instances where there has been a long stay in temporary accommodation. The total discretionary award of £3459.53 was therefore proportionate given the circumstances of the case.
The landlord’s initial care home fee proposal was miscalculated and not based on evidence of the costs incurred. It is not clear how it did reach the weekly figure it proposed but did state in its final complaint response that confirmation of the payments to the care scheme needed to be seen before it could process the payment. It was reasonable for the landlord to adjust the level of financial award to reflect the actual care home costs when it subsequently received these. Although the reduction in the level of compensation and the offsetting of this amount against rent arrears would have been disappointing for the resident, these decisions were appropriate and in line with the landlord’s compensation policy that states it will request receipts and offset against rent debt.
In summary, there were occasions during March-November 2019 when the landlord contributed to delays in the property being readied for the resident’s return. However, the works were extensive and a significant proportion of the period was spent by the landlord carrying out works that it was not obliged to as a goodwill gesture. The compensation awarded by the landlord is considered to have provided reasonable and proportionate redress for the service failures identified.

Complaint handling

The resident’s son submitted an initial complaint on 25 March 2019. The landlord’s complaints policy requires it to resolve the complaint or provide an action plan within 10 working days but it did not issue a complaint response until November 2019. Although the landlord was in regular contact with the resident’s son and offered updates on progress of works at the property, it did not issue a response to advise whether the complaint was upheld or not and how the resident could escalate it – this was inappropriate.
The resident’s son made a new complaint to the landlord on 6 July 2019 that set out the outcomes he sought. Again, the landlord did not respond within the timescale set out in its complaint policy – this was inappropriate. The landlord reviewed the complaint on 16 August 2019 when it decided to escalate the complaint for consideration by a senior manager given the resident’s vulnerabilities. Whilst the approach to escalate was reasonable, the landlord was aware of the resident’s circumstances several months prior to this and its delay in escalation of the complaint was therefore inappropriate. If it had escalated the complaint promptly, there may have been an opportunity for senior management to become involved and put things right earlier.
When the landlord did issue its complaint response on 12 November 2019, it apologised, set out what works had been (or were about to be) completed, explained that some of these were outside of its obligations and offered an appropriate financial award (see paragraphs 21-29). These were all reasonable actions and demonstrated that the landlord had investigated its handling of the repairs at the resident’s home.
However, it failed to answer the points the resident’s son raised about waiving rent, compensation for loss of benefits, compensation for his own expenses and a reimbursement of increased water charges. It may be that the landlord was unable to compensate the resident for these points, either because there was insufficient evidence or they were outside of its policy, but it would have been reasonable to communicate a decision to the resident’s son to offer clarity on what the landlord was, and was not, able to take responsibility for.
The landlord also failed to answer the question raised in the complaint about lessons that could be learned from the handling of the case. It is an important part of the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles that a landlord can consider whether it has learned lessons from an individual case to improve the way it delivers services to residents. It was unreasonable that the landlord was silent on this point.
In summary, there was an inappropriate delay in the landlord providing the resident with an initial complaint response and its eventual response did not fully answer the complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress for the service failures identified in its handling of repairs to the resident’s home.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the related complaint.

Reasons

The landlord was responsible for some delays during the eight-month period the resident was not able to live at his home. Its apology and award of £3459.53 were fair given the circumstances of the case.
There was a delay by the landlord in it answering the resident’s complaint. The eventual complaint response failed to answer all the points raised within the complaint.

Orders

The landlord to write to the resident to apologise for the complaint handling service failures identified in this report and to pay him compensation of £150 in recognition of the inconvenience and additional time and trouble caused by these failures.

The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord to carry out a case review of its handling of the repairs at this property to determine if any lessons can be learned and consider its record-keeping processes as part of this review; it should then write to the resident to advise if any learning points have been identified

The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within eight weeks of the date of this report.