London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202016813)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016813

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

27 November 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding his ceiling and report of a water leak.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is a fixed term assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy commenced on 24 November 2014. The property is a basement studio flat.
3. At some point in either 2018 or 2019 the resident raised a disrepair claim with the landlord. The landlord’s records show it completed all work relating to the claim in August 2019. The landlord has explained that the hole in the resident’s ceiling (which forms part of his later complaint) was not part of the claim.
4. The landlord’s records show on 6 February 2020 the resident reported his ceiling was cracked. The landlord raised a work order to plaster the ceiling. The contractor cancelled the appointment as they did not have available staff.
5. The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 30 April 2020. He said he reported a leak a few years prior, the landlord attended, but the problem persisted. He said there was a hole in his celling due to it collapsing from the leak. He said he reported the issue over two months prior. He said the landlord had advised him that day that “no one [was] able to assist [him] in this time due to the lockdown”.
6. The resident reported a leak from the property above on 5 May 2020. He said he had a hole in his ceiling which was falling in. The landlord attended that day to make safe. It recommended a plumber to attend and trace the leak. It noted that the “ceiling [was] half collapsed and the other half [was] not secure as long as the leak [was]not being fixed”. A plumber attended the neighbour’s property on 6 May and resolved the leak.
7. The resident emailed the landlord on 3 June 2020. He said the hole in his ceiling had not yet been repaired. He asked the landlord to contact him and explain the next steps. The landlord called the resident on 18 June, and advised it would book an appointment for the ceiling repair. It raised a work order the following day. Operatives attended on 29 June; it is unclear what work they carried out. On 8 July the landlord raised another work order to replace the ceiling. Operatives completed work on 16 July. It reinstalled a smoke detector on 28 July, and completed all decorative work to the affected area on 1 September 2020.
8. On 25 March 2021 following contact from the resident, this Service emailed the landlord. We explained that the resident was complaining about its handling of his request for it to repair a leak, the length of time taken to stop the leak and repair damages, and its response to his request for compensation. We asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint.
9. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 9 April 2021. It said when the resident reported a leak on 5 May 2020, it attended the same day to make safe. The landlord said that:
   1. It attended the neighbour’s property on 6 May and resolved the leak.
   2. The ceiling was fully repaired on 16 July 2020, and decorations were completed on 1 September 2020.
   3. The resident would need to contact its insurance team if he wished to pursue a claim for damages.
   4. It fully repaired the leak the day after it was reported.
   5. It acknowledged that it took approximately four months to complete decoration works following the leak from 5 May 2020.

The landlord apologised for the delay and offered the resident £480 for the length of time and distress caused over a four month period. The landlord also offered the resident an additional £100 for his time and effort pursuing the matter and concluded by explaining how the resident could escalate his complaint if he remained dissatisfied.

10. The resident escalated his complaint on 14 April 2021. The resident said that:
    1. He was dissatisfied with the landlord’s offer of compensation.
    2. The leak began in 2017, and he contacted his solicitor about it in 2018.
    3. “The leak was dealt with in August 2019 but then [he] had another leak in December 2019”.
    4. He raised a complaint on 30 April 2020.
    5. Following the leak from 5 May 2020, the contractor who attended advised the landlord would be in contact to rearrange the repair appointment, as it was “a big job that one man could not do”.
    6. When contractors reattended on 29 June 2020 they said “the job was too big for them and they could not fix this”.
    7. He wanted the landlord to consider the length of time it had taken to resolve the issue.
11. On 18 July 2021 the landlord apologised to the resident for its delaying resolving his complaint. It said one of its officers would contact him soon once they were allocated his complaint.
12. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 5 August 2021. The landlord:
    1. Explained its actions following the resident’s report of a leak on 5 May 2020 and said there had been a delay completing non-essential repairs during the COVID-19 pandemic.
    2. Said that as per its complaint process it would not investigate the resident’s reports of leaks in 2017, 2018, and 2019 and that it adhered to its obligations in terms of resolving the 2020 leak.
    3. Apologised for any distress and inconvenience caused and provided details for how the resident could make a claim with its insurers for damaged belongings.
    4. Offered the resident an additional £100 for its delay in issuing its complaint response and concluded by explaining how the resident could refer his complaint to this Service if he remained dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

13. The landlord’s repairs policy states it will attend to emergency repairs (when there is an immediate danger) within 24 hours. It is responsible for the structure and exterior of the home, including walls, roofs, and windows. It will only redecorate following a repair when it has an obligation to, or in exceptional circumstances (at its discretion). It will make good any surfaces affected by the repair ready for residents to redecorate. The resident is responsible for insuring their possessions. It recommends they take out home contents insurance.
14. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out that it will issue its stage one complaint response within ten working days, and its stage two response within 20 working days. The landlord’s compensation policy explains that it will offer residents £10 for failing to respond to a complaint in line with its target timeframes. It is at the landlord’s discretion how much it will offer for distress, inconvenience, and time and trouble.
15. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests awards of:
    1. £50 to £250 for cases where the Ombudsman has found service failure which had an impact on the resident but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident.
    2. £250 to £700 for cases where the Ombudsman has found considerable service failure or maladministration, but where there may be no permanent impact on the resident.
16. In the resident’s escalation, he referred to a leak which began in 2017 and was resolved by the landlord in August 2019. The Ombudsman requires complaints to be raised formally with a landlord within a reasonable period from when the issues complained about arose. Paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out that a reasonable period is usually six months. Given the amount of time between the original repair issue and the formal complaint, this investigation centres on the months following the resident’s report of 6 February 2020 until the landlord’s final response of 5 August 2021, a period of 18 months.
17. The resident reported a crack in his ceiling on 6 February 2020. The landlord arranged an appointment to attend, and then cancelled due to contractor availability. On 30 April 2020 resident raised a complaint about the landlord’s handling of the repair in April 2020. No evidence has been provided for this investigation to show the landlord responding to the resident’s April complaint, as it should have. Although this was an example of poor complaint handling, it is clear that events escalated, and as such it was reasonable for the landlord to prioritise attending to, and resolving the leak when reported on 5 May 2020.
18. Following the resident’s report of 5 May 2020, the landlord attended that day to make safe, then resolved the leak the following day. It fully repaired the ceiling on 16 July 2020 and completed decorative work on 1 September 2020. The landlord attended to, and resolved the leak within its target timeframe for an emergency repair. It then took four months to complete the decorative works.
19. Following contact from this service on 25 March 2021 the landlord logged a formal complaint from the resident regarding its handling of his report of 5 May 2020, the length of time taken to stop the leak and repair damages, and its response to his request for compensation.
20. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 9 April 2021 explaining that it had only been completing emergency repairs during the COVID-19 pandemic at that time. The total delay of four months was not unreasonable as it is understandable that the landlord would have prioritised emergencies given the circumstances. Nevertheless, the landlord offered the resident £480 for the distress caused by the delay plus an additional £100 for his time and effort pursuing the matter.
21. The resident escalated his complaint on 14 April 2021, the landlord then issued its final response on 5 August 2020. It is clear that this exceeded its target response timeframe of 20 working days and there was an unreasonable delay. This was recognised by the landlord which acknowledged its shortcoming and offered the resident a further £100 for its delayed stage two complaint response.
22. Overall, although the landlord failed to arrange a follow up appointment to repair the ceiling following his report in February 2020 and to respond to the resident’s complaint from April 2020, it did attend to and resolve the leak reported on 5 May 2020 within its emergency timeframe, and the delay completing follow on work was not unreasonable as explained above. Taking into account all the circumstances of the case, the landlord’s overall offer of compensation (£680) was suitable redress for its failings. The offer of compensation was in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance for situations where the Ombudsman has found considerable service failure or maladministration, but where there may be no permanent impact on the resident. As such, and given that the leak was not ongoing, the landlord provided the resident with reasonable redress for the failures identified.

Determination (decision)

23. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

24. The landlord’s offer of compensation was reasonable in the circumstances of the complaint. It attended promptly to resolve the leak, and the delay completing follow on work was not unreasonable.

Recommendations

25. That within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord is to pay the resident the £680 offered in its final response (if it has not already done so). The finding of reasonable redress being conditional upon the compensation being paid.