London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202108116)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108116

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

2 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

The complaint is about:
1. The level of compensation offered by the landlord for its handling of a repair to the resident’s balcony door.
2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
The resident raised a repair with the landlord on 21 February 2020 to address his balcony door which was not closing properly and was letting in draughts.
The landlord left voice messages on 1 and 2 April 2020 and spoke to the resident on 17 April 2021 to advise that the repair had been suspended due to the impact of the corona virus pandemic which meant that it was only carrying out critical repairs.
The resident called the landlord on 21 August and 2 September 2020 for an update on the repair. It informed him on both occasions that his repair was with its Covid-19 project team and directed him to its website which specified that it was still only carrying out critical repairs.
The resident raised a stage one complaint with the landlord on 15 September 2020 in which he expressed his dissatisfaction with the length of time taken to arrange a repair to his balcony door. He said that there was a 1 cm gap along the top of the door which was letting a draught into his property, making it cold. The resident disputed that corona virus social distancing measures still applied which would prevent workers attending his property and said that he had been told his repair was in a queue, but the landlord was “not transparent” about his position in this queue.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 25 September 2020 to acknowledge his complaint and advised him that it would aim to respond to his complaint within ten working days.
The resident chased the landlord for a response to his complaint on 13 October 2020. It promised to call him back the following day with an update on his repair.
The landlord advised the resident on 20 October 2020 that it had asked for his balcony door repair to be taken off hold and would provide an appointment for the repair as soon as possible.
The resident called the landlord for an update on 6 November 2020. He said that it had not been truthful with him and requested it escalate his complaint.
The landlord completed the repair to the resident’s balcony door on 17 November 2020.
On 20 November and 4 December 2020, the resident asked the landlord to provide compensation to him for the time taken to address the repair.
On 14 December 2020, the resident sought the intervention of his MP to progress his complaint with the landlord.
The landlord provided its stage one complaint response to the resident’s MP on 4 January 2021. In this, it found that there had been service failures in its handling of his complaint and its communication to him, and therefore it would be in contact with him to offer compensation for this. The landlord asserted, however, that there had been no service failure in the handling of the repair. It explained that, since March 2020, due to the corona virus pandemic, it had only been carrying out critical repairs and information about this was available on its website. Therefore, the landlord said that it would not be paying compensation for the length of time it took to address his repair.
The resident relayed his continued dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage one complaint response to it on 1 February 2021. He contended that the landlord had sufficient time to address the repair before the impact of the corona virus because lockdown began on 23 March 2020, but he reported it on 21 February 2020. The resident also said that he was “outraged” that the landlord considered his balcony door, which let a draft into the property, to not be a critical repair.
After acknowledging the complaint escalation on 12 February 2021, and discussing it with the resident on 16 February 2021, the landlord issued its final response to him on 5 March 2021. It confirmed that, in response to his repair request for the balcony door on 21 February 2020, it had originally made an appointment for the repair for 20 April 2020. After receiving the resident’s stage one complaint, it made an appointment for 10 November 2020, which was then rescheduled for 17 November 2020, on which date the repair was completed.
The landlord confirmed that it upheld its previous decision not to compensate him for the length of time taken to perform the repair as this was in line with its interim compensation policy. It said that this policy was in force from 1 April 2020 onwards to cover the “unforeseen challenges” posed by the corona virus pandemic to its ability to provide normal services and its financial pressures. This meant that the landlord ceased all discretionary compensation payments “until further notice”.
The landlord, however, said that it considered matters on a case-by-case basis and therefore made a discretionary offer of compensation of £280. This comprised:
1. £25 for its delay in providing its stage one complaint response.
2. £50 for its delay in providing it’s a final complaint response.
3. £25 for its lack of communication.
4. £180 for the inconvenience and distress caused by the delay.
The resident contacted this Service on 6 July 2021 to express his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response as he felt that the level of compensation offered did not adequately reflect the level of distress and the effect on his health. He said that the cold draught from the balcony door resulted in his experiencing coughs and colds.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that is responsible for repairs to external doors. This policy states that it considers emergency repairs to be those which pose an immediate danger to the occupant or members of the public. These repairs are to be attended within 24 hours. For other, routine, repairs the landlord states that it will aim to complete the repair at the earliest mutually convenient appointment.
The landlord’s complaints policy provides for a two-stage complaints procedure. At stage one of this procedure, it is to provide its response within ten working days of receipt of the complaint. At the final stage of this complaint procedure it will provide its final response to the resident within 20 working days of the complaint escalation request. If it is unable to meet these timescales, it is to explain why to the resident.
The landlord’s interim compensation policy, effective from 1 April 2020 onwards, states that all discretionary compensation is suspended from 1 April 2020 onwards until further notice. Exceptions to this are payments to residents who source their own accommodation when unable to live in the property, reimbursement for costs resulting from the landlord’s failure, and “where there is a clear reputational risk to the business as a result of [its] service failure”.

The level of compensation offered by the landlord for its handling of a repair to the resident’s balcony door.

The resident has said that the effect of the draught from the defective balcony door impacted negatively on his health. It is beyond the expertise of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between the balcony door repair and subsequent ill-health experienced by the resident. He may wish to seek independent legal advice on making a personal injury insurance claim if he feels that he has experienced detriment to his health as a direct result of the landlord’s actions or lack of action. This assessment will therefore consider whether its actions were reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
It must be kept in view that the landlord has a responsibility to consider the well-being of both its tenants and its staff when making decisions about repairs. In light of the impact of the corona virus pandemic, it was reasonable for the landlord to reduce the potential exposure to harm of both its staff and its residents. It was reasonable, therefore, for it to suspend non-critical repairs from the onset of the pandemic in March 2020.
There was no evidence that the balcony door repair was an immediate danger to the resident or others. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to treat this as a non-emergency routine repair. The resident has contended that this repair should have considered a critical repair however, there was opportunity for him to inform the landlord of this between 21 February and 17 April 2020, when it informed him that the repair would be suspended. This further indicates that the repair was not an emergency or critical.
It would reasonable for the landlord to consider critical repairs as those which are emergencies and those which would lead to significant detriment to the property or resident if unresolved. There was no evidence that there was significant detriment to the property or the resident as a result of not carrying out the repair sooner.
As a result of suspending non-critical repairs, it would be conceivable for a landlord to develop a large queue of repairs once the corona virus restrictions eased. Therefore, while there was a significant period between the report of the repair on 21 February and its completion on 17 November 2020, this was not unreasonable in all the circumstances of the matter.
It is noted, however, that there was a lack of communication from the landlord on when the resident could expect his repair to be addressed. It would be expected a landlord to provide updates to a resident when there was an outstanding repair. From the additional involvement required of the resident to chase an appointment date from the landlord, on 21 August and 2 September 2020, and during the course of his stage one complaint, it is clear that it was not forthcoming with information about this. There was, therefore, a failure on the landlord’s part to communicate effectively about the repair and manage the resident’s expectations.
The landlord’s interim compensation policy above confirms that all discretionary, non-statutory, compensation was suspended from 1 April 2020 onwards, except in certain specific cases. However, in its final complaint response to the resident on 5 March 2021, it offered £205 compensation specifically for issues relating to the progress of the repair. This was offered outside of its policy and therefore in excess of its obligations.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available to view at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Remedies-Guidance.pdf, provides for payments of between £50 and £250 where there has been a “failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact”. Therefore the £205 compensation the landlord offered the resident was reasonable as there was no service failure involved in the progression of the repair and adequately addressed the poor communication it exhibited.
Therefore, the landlord offered a reasonable level of redress to the resident for the failures it displayed in communicating with the resident about the repair and the level of likely inconvenience caused to him by the additional effort required to progress the matter.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

As confirmed by the landlord’s compensation policy above, it was to respond to the resident’s stage one complaint within ten working days and his complaint escalation within 20 working days. He raised his stage one complaint on 15 September 2020, and it issued its stage one complaint response on 4 January 2021. The landlord therefore took 76 working days to provide its stage complaint response and this necessitated the intervention of the resident’s MP. This was an unreasonable delay and was significantly in excess of the ten working-day timeframe specified in the landlord’s policy above.
The resident raised his final stage complaint through is MP on 14 January 2021 and the landlord provided its final stage complaint response on 5 March 2021. This was a period of 36 working days and exceeded the 20 working-day timeframe specified in its complaints policy above.
The landlord therefore delayed excessively in progressing the resident’s complaint. It acknowledged this in its final stage complaint response and offered £75 compensation for its failures in handling the complaint. This was broadly in accordance with our remedies guidance above, and was offered in excess of the landlord’s interim compensation policy above. This offer, therefore, was reasonable as it was offered in excess of the landlord’s policy and, while there was a failure by it to handle the complaint within its specified timeframes, there was no evidence that this caused significant detriment to the resident as his repair was completed within a reasonable period, considering the circumstances, after he initially raised his complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the opinion of the Ombudsman, resolves the complaints satisfactorily concerning:
1. The level of compensation offered by the landlord for its handling of a repair to the resident’s balcony door.
2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord acknowledged its failures in communication in the handling of the repair and made an offer of redress, in excess of its policy, which proportionately addressed the level of failure and the inconvenience caused to the resident.
The landlord acknowledged its failures in the handling of the resident’s complaint and made an offer of redress, in excess of its policy, which proportionately addressed the level of failure and the inconvenience caused to the resident.

Recommendations

The landlord should:
1. Pay the £280 compensation it offered in its final complaint response, comprised of £205 for its handling of the repair and £75 for the handling of the complaint, to the resident, if it has not done so already.
2. Review its communication procedures about repairs to ensure that residents are kept suitably updated on the progress of outstanding repairs and manage their expectations.