London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202104391)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202104391

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

8 November 2021

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

The complaint is about:

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for adaptations to the smoke alarms/lighting.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for adaptations to the bathroom.
The landlord’s handling of hot water and heating issues.

Background and Summary of Events

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord and has an assured tenancy.

The landlord’s compensation policy says that from 1 April 2020, it will only make statutory compensation payments to residents and, apart from a small number of exceptions, no discretionary or proactive compensation payments will be made until further notice. This was in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. The policy explains that one statutory compensation payment that will continue is the right to repair.

The right to repair scheme says that if repairs costing less than £250 are not completed within the statutory target times, the landlord will pay compensation. This is £10 plus an additional £2 per day for every day the repair is not fixed (capped at £50). The statutory expected response time for heating or hot water not working between 1 May and 31 October is three days.

The landlord’s compensation policy in place prior to 1 April 2020 says that £20 will be paid for its failure to keep an appointment without at least 24 hours’ notice. The policy also says that a payment of £10 would be made for the landlord’s failure to respond to a formal complaint within the timescales published in its complaints policy.

The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will write within ten working days after a complaint is received to explain the outcome. If the resident is dissatisfied, the complaint will be escalated to stage two. The policy says the landlord will make contact within two working days to give the resident the opportunity to explain their side of things. The landlord will then write with the outcome within 20 working days of the request to escalate.

The landlord’s repairs policy says that for routine repairs, it will aim to complete the repair at the earliest mutually convenient appointment. For emergency works where there is an immediate danger to the occupant or members of the public, the landlord will attend within 24 hours.

The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy says that a major adaptation is treated as “capital expenditure, representing a significant change in the fabric of the property with an expected lifespan of 10 years or more”. The policy says they are works of a more complex nature and should be based upon the assessment and recommendation of an occupational therapist. The policy says that, in general, minor adaptations will be carried out without delay. Minor adaptations do not require a therapist’s report.

Building Regulations say that since 1992, smoke alarms in new-build properties should be mains-operated.

Summary of events

On 2 November 2020, the resident told the landlord that her immersion tank was not working. This repair took place on 5 November 2020.

The landlord received a letter from the resident’s therapist on 25 November 2020. This letter has not been provided to this Service, but it is understood that it asked the landlord to replace the hard-wired smoke alarms with battery ones, and to make alterations to the lighting in the property.

On 1 December 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to see if it had provided a response to her therapist’s letter. It was noted that she intended to have a ceiling plastered in her home at the end of January 2021, and she wanted the electrical work to be completed before then.

The resident’s therapist emailed the landlord on 10 December 2020 to say the resident was experiencing difficulties with the bathroom as she was not able to have a shower. The therapist explained that this was impacting the resident’s independence and her medical conditions and requested that a shower pump be installed so the resident could have a shower.

In late December 2020, the landlord advised the resident that smoke alarms must be mains powered and could not be powered in any other way. With regards to the shower, it said it had not been able to locate her therapist’s report, and that it was still waiting for a response from her therapist about this. The landlord then corresponded with the resident’s therapist about the resident’s bathroom requirements and raised a job for the work to be done.

On 13 January 2021, the landlord spoke to the resident, and then followed up the conversation in writing on 15 January 2021. It said:

It had received a letter from her therapist but required a report instead. It said the reason for that was because a report would detail the type of light and lumens required and provide further detail about why the smoke alarms needed to be altered.

The landlord referred to the therapist’s letter which said that the property’s current lighting/alarm system was installed throughout the property making it hard to avoid. The therapist had requested that the smoke alarms be removed and replaced with battery alarms. Appropriate lighting could then be installed, though the therapist said the resident was not expecting the landlord to arrange this.
The landlord said that its electrical compliance team would need to give details to the governing body as to why the change in the type of smoke alarms was required. It said the resident’s therapist has not explained why the current smoke alarms could not be fitted to a new lighting system. It said that if the resident wanted to fit new lighting, she would need to submit a tenant improvement form. However, it said it would not want the resident to incur the costs of undertaking the work herself if the reason was due to a disability. It said that if her therapist submitted a report with further details, it could undertake the work instead.
Finally, in respect of the resident’s request to alter her bathroom, the landlord said it had not received a letter about this. It asked that her therapist provide a report about this too.

The resident’s therapist wrote to the landlord on 16 April 2021. The therapist asked the landlord to remove any florescent lighting throughout the property and explained the reason for that was due to the resident’s sensitivity to ultraviolet and blue spectrum lighting. The therapist provided the landlord with some guidance around suitable lighting but said that if further advice was required, the landlord should advise the resident of this and that the resident should consult with an ophthalmologist as this would be outside the therapist’s scope of expertise.

The resident’s therapist also requested that the trunking be removed throughout the property, as well as the four hard-wired smoke alarms (to be replaced with two battery smoke alarms). The therapist also recommended that a level access shower be installed. Finally, the therapist said that a report would not be supplied as this would contain information that would not be necessary for the landlord, which is why they were sending this letter with the specific recommendations listed.

On 17 May 2021, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint straight to stage two. She said her therapist had sent emails to the landlord but had not received a response. She was unhappy that the landlord had requested a full report, yet her therapist had advised her this was not necessary.

The landlord contacted the resident on 25 May 2021 to confirm it had actioned her request for a stage two complaint response. It advised her that it had a backlog of complaints, but she would be contacted as soon as her complaint was allocated to someone.

In response, the resident emailed the landlord to say she was vulnerable, and that when she had moved into the property it was very cold, and she had a concrete floor with no hot water of heating for seven days. She said she had tried to explain this to customer service, but nobody had helped her. The resident asked the landlord to add this concern to her complaint.

Also on 25 May 2021, the landlord contacted its electrical manager to see if the resident’s therapist’s request in respect of the lighting could be accommodated. The electrical manager said that in terms of meeting any medically required lighting levels, in terms of both lumens and frequency, this would need to be requested by a medical professional and agreed with lighting specialists. The electrical manager pointed out that lighting levels and frequencies differ greatly based on an individual’s condition and needs. The manager also said that removing the hard-wired smoke alarms would be a deviation from the fire regulations and outside the landlord’s fire policy.

The landlord contacted the resident on 26 May 2021 to discuss her concerns. The resident explained she had been without heating or hot water when she first moved into the property in October 2020. She also said she felt “bullied” and “harassed” because she had been asked to provide a full report from her therapist, but her therapist told her she did not need to do this and thought she had provided enough information for the landlord. Also, the resident said she found having a shower easier, but the bath would need to be turned before a shower could be installed. Finally, the resident said the lights in the property did not agree with her, and she was also unhappy that the smoke alarms were attached to the lights with trunking, which she wanted to be removed.

The landlord advised the resident it would provide its stage two response by 10 June 2021. On 10 June 2021, the landlord spoke with the resident and apologised for the delay in completing its investigation.

On 15 June 2021, the landlord’s internal emails referred to the resident’s therapist’s report, and that the landlord wanted a full report on official headed paper.

The landlord spoke with the resident’s therapist on 16 June 2021 and confirmed it would arrange a fire safety risk assessment to ascertain the best way forward to making adjustments to the fire alarms and trunking. It also confirmed that it would ask the resident to consult with an ophthalmologist to assist it with making alterations to the light that would help with her wellbeing.

On 24 June 2021, the landlord issued its stage two complaint response. This said:
1. It had provided feedback to the relevant team in relation to the resident being without heating or hot water for seven days. It offered her a loss of heating payment of £35, which it said was in line with its compensation policy.
1. It explained that it had not intended to make the resident feel “bullied” or “harassed” by requesting a copy of her therapist’s report. It said it had contacted her therapist directly, and it was agreed that because the letter of 16 April 2021 had the local authority’s heading at the bottom, the landlord would accept this and move forwards with arranging for the therapist’s recommendations to begin. It confirmed the letter had been passed to the relevant manager, who would be in touch with the resident in the next day or so. The landlord gave the resident that manager’s contact details.
2. It said that before it could make changes to the setup of the lighting, it wanted further advice specifying the resident’s lighting needs. It asked her to consult with an ophthalmologist through her GP or via an optician, as it said this fell outside the scope of her therapist’s expertise. The landlord explained that its electrical specialist could make suggestions, but said they were not medically trained to provide advice for alternative lighting that would be suitable for the resident’s personal needs. It also pointed out that any changes to the lighting would need to comply with regulations.
3. In respect of the smoke alarms, the landlord said that because of regulations, it was not able to replace the hardwired smoke alarms with battery operated ones, as this would compromise the resident’s safety. However, the resident’s request for the removal of the trunking was under consideration, but depending on the workmanship involved with this, they may have to come to some sort of compromise. It said a decision would be made on this and communicated to her.
4. The landlord said that its operative had visited the resident on 28 May 2021 to assess the configuration of the bathroom. Following this, it had been agreed for: – the bath to be moved away from the fan; a pump for a shower to be fitted under the bath; a shower curtain and rail to be fitted; and the tiles to be extended. It confirmed the works had been allocated to a contractor who would be in touch with the resident to arrange this.
5. The landlord also addressed some concerns the resident had later raised about a leaking toilet and a banister. It acknowledged there had been a missed repair appointment.
6. The landlord acknowledged there was a delay in restoring the heating when the resident moved into the property, and that the resident had experienced delays in trying to arrange for her therapist’s requests to be agreed and carried out, which had caused increased anxiety to the resident. It also acknowledged that the matter had caused the resident a lot of time, effort and inconvenience.
7. The landlord offered the resident total compensation of £230. This was broken down as: – £35 for loss of heating for seven days (based on £5 a day); £150 for the time, effort and inconvenience; £25 for the late stage two acknowledgment; and £20 for the missed appointment.

The resident responded to the landlord the same day. She said she found the compensation it had offered to be inadequate, given the level of “stress” that the landlord had put her through. The resident said she found it incredible that the landlord required more time to assess the smoke alarm situation, given that this had been reported more than six months earlier. She said the minimum compensation she would accept was £500. The resident also asked the landlord to provide its response within 28 days in respect of the trunking.

At the end of June 2021, an internal email sent by the landlord noted that there was suspected asbestos in the resident’s bathroom within the bath void, and testing would need to be carried out before any work could take place.

The asbestos testing took place in July 2021. Following this, a repair job was raised by the landlord for the work to take place to the bathroom. The landlord also agreed to remove the trunking to five smoke detectors and chase in the electrical cables into ceilings and walls. The landlord advised the resident of this on 16 August 2021, and a repair job for this work was raised at this time.

In August 2021, the landlord paid the resident an additional £100 compensation for further delays with the repairs being done up to that point.

On 28 Oct 2021, the landlord told the resident that an asbestos report showed there was asbestos present in the ceilings, and the ceilings would need to be taken down in order for the trunking to be removed. The landlord said it had referred the matter to a specialist to arrange this.

The landlord has advised this Service that it will consider making a further payment to the resident once the works are complete, as it acknowledges there have been further delays.

Assessment and Findings

The resident’s request for adaptations to the smoke alarms/lighting

The landlord spoke with the resident the month after it had received her therapist’s letter requesting the adaptions and made her aware that the smoke alarms would need to be mains powered. The landlord then provided a more formal response in January 2021, and explained it wanted a report.

Although the resident was unhappy that the landlord wanted a report from her therapist, the landlord explained the reason for that was because it wanted more detail about the changes needed to the lighting, and to understand why the smoke alarms needed to be changed from mains powered to battery.

Given that the landlord needed to know what type of lighting was needed, it does not seem unreasonable for it to require more information around this. Furthermore, the landlord said its fire policy was to provide hard-wired smoke alarms (in line with building regulations – see point 9), and so for the landlord to consider the resident’s therapist’s request that the smoke alarms be changed to battery-operated, it again does not seem unreasonable for the landlord to ask for more information relating to this this.

The resident’s therapist provided more information to the landlord in April 2021. This provided further detail around the requested alterations. Though the therapist did say that if further detail was needed around suitable lighting for the resident, then the landlord ought to ask the resident to consult with an ophthalmologist. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to ask the resident to do this, so that it could establish the most appropriate lighting for her needs and consider whether or not it could accommodate this.

This Service finds that it was reasonable in the circumstances of this case that the landlord then made the decision that it would not change the smoke alarms to battery-operated, as this was contrary to building regulations and it thought it may compromise the resident’s safety. Its decision to arrange a fire safety risk assessment to enable its further consideration, in respect of removal of the trunking, was also reasonable.

It is not known whether the fire safety assessment went ahead, though the landlord agreed in August 2021 to remove the trunking in the property. However, the trunking was attached to the ceiling, and the landlord found out in October 2021 that there was asbestos in the ceiling that needed to be removed first. This Service concludes that, in its actions, it appropriately recognised that there were processes and safety considerations which had to be adhered to.

Keeping in view the issues discussed in preceding paragraphs, the landlord recognised that the resident was caused inconvenience by the time taken to action the request for adaptions, and this was taken into account in its compensation offer, which will be addressed later.

The resident’s request for adaptations to the bathroom

The resident’s therapist initially wrote to the landlord regarding the bathroom adaptations on 10 December 2020. The landlord had received this as it corresponded with the therapist about the matter and raised a repair job for a shower pump (in line with the therapist’s request). However, the landlord caused the resident unnecessary confusion as it advised her in December 2020 and January 2021 that it had not received her therapist’s correspondence.

An inspection of the bathroom did not then take place until the end of May 2021, which was five months after the initial request had been received. It is accepted that the adaptation would be considered a major adaption (see point 8) and was therefore of a complex nature. Though it is considered that the landlord could have arranged for an inspection to take place much earlier than it did.

Subsequently, following the inspection, it was agreed that the bathroom could be reconfigured in order to allow the resident to have a shower. Overall, the landlord therefore gave the matter proper consideration, and made arrangements to accommodate the resident’s requirements.

Again, the landlord recognised there had been delays with the matter, and this was taken into account in its compensation offer, which will again be addressed later.

The landlord’s handling of the hot water and heating issues

The landlord’s repair log indicates that the resident reported the issue on 2 November 2020, and this was fixed on 5 November 2020. However, the landlord said it took seven days to carry out the repair (presumably this was based on the resident’s recollections).

Assuming it did take seven days to carry out the repair, under the right to repair scheme, the resident was entitled to £18 compensation. The landlord offered her £35 – this was reasonable as it exceeded the amount the landlord was obliged to pay.

Compensation

The landlord offered the resident total compensation of £330 (£230 in its stage two response, and a further £100 after that). Out of that amount, £250 was offered in respect of the delays, and time and trouble caused to the resident. This represents a reasonable level of redress for the delays and is line with this Service’s guidance on remedies for service failure resulting in some impact to the resident including time and trouble, as well as delays getting matters resolved.

The landlord also offered £35 for the delayed repair to the immersion tank. This was higher than the landlord needed to pay under the right to repair scheme, and so was fair. The landlord also offered £25 for a late stage two acknowledgement, and £20 for a missed appointment. The resident has not specifically complained about those points but taken together with the £250 offer in respect of the distress and inconvenience (which reflected that there was a medium impact to the resident), the total figure of £330 was appropriate and proportionate in the circumstances.

The landlord has recognised that the trunking has still not been removed and says that it will consider a further compensation payment to the resident once the work has finished. This Service considers its offer to be fair in the circumstances of the case and to have demonstrated a willingness to resolve the issues and put things right, which is in accordance the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress which, in the ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily in respect of:

49.1. Its handling of the resident’s requests for adaptations to the smoke alarms/lighting.

49.2. Its handling of the resident’s request for adaptations to the bathroom.

49.3. Its handling of hot water and heating issues.

Reasons

The landlord caused the resident unnecessary confusion when it mistakenly advised her that it had not received her therapist’s email in respect of the bathroom adaptations. Although it had raised a repair job soon after it received the therapist’s correspondence, an inspection did not take place for some time. Though it did then give due consideration to the matter, and agreed to the adaptation, which was fair.

The landlord also took too long to consider the therapist’s request for adaptations to the smoke alarms/lighting. However, its refusal to change the smoke alarms to battery-operated ones was not unreasonable, given this change would mean the landlord would not comply with building regulations. It was also not unreasonable for the landlord to ask the resident to see an ophthalmologist before it complied with her therapist’s request to make alterations to the lighting in the property. This was in line with her therapist’s advice. Though it did agree to replace the trunking, which seems reasonable. There have been delays since it agreed to do this in August 2021, though this has largely been due to the discovery of asbestos in the ceilings.

Although the landlord caused some delays, it recognised this and offered the resident £230 total compensation for the time and trouble, and inconvenience caused to her. That was a fair and proportionate amount in the circumstances.

The landlord also offered reasonable compensation for the delays in repairing the immersion heater, as well as the delay in its complaint handling and the missed repair appointment.

In identifying whether there has been maladministration the Ombudsman considers both the events that initially prompted the complaint and the landlord’s response to those events though the operation of its complaints procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to offer redress. As the landlord has done so here, no further action is required.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord to pay the resident the £330 compensation previously offered, as the finding of reasonable redress has been made on that basis.

The landlord to take steps to remove the trunking at the earliest opportunity once the asbestos has been removed from the ceilings, and it is safe to do so.