London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202103887)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202103887

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

28 March 2022


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 request for compensation for damage to bathroom floor tiles following a water leak in the property. 

 

Background and summary of events

 

Background

 

  1. The resident is the secure tenant of a three bedroomed house and with their consent, a relative acts on their behalf when communicating with the landlord and has also been nominated as a representative in bringing this matter to this Service. For ease of reference, both the tenant and the representative will be referred to in this report as “the resident”.

 

  1. In February 2020 the resident complained to the landlord about repair issues which remained outstanding at the property. It was not until late 2021 that the majority of them were completed. The landlord was obliged to defer non-emergency repairs during some of that time due to COVID-19 restrictions but has accepted there was still some delay and has offered compensation for service failings.

 

  1. The resident maintains that some floor tiles in the bathroom were damaged as a result of a water leak, and this was then exacerbated by the delay in dealing with the issue. They want the damage to be repaired by the landlord or for it to offer compensation for the cost of repairs. The landlord refused to compensate for this expense, and the resident was invited to make an insurance claim. An offer was made by the insurers to settle the matter (without an admission of liability) but was rejected by the resident as being inadequate. The issue that the resident wishes this Service to resolve is whether the landlord should offer compensation for this item and if so, how much. 

 

Summary of Events

 

  1. The landlord has produced a computerised summary of the repairs logged against this property. It shows the following:

 

  1. On 10 September, 24 October and 12 November 2019 repairs were raised for four wooden drawer fronts which had come off in the kitchen at the property. On 30 October 2019 a comment had been added that it was children at the property who had caused the damage although this was disputed.

 

  1. On 11 December 2019 it raised a repair for a leak in the bathroom.

 

  1. On 7 January 2020 it raised a repair to replace three kitchen cupboard doors and two drawer fronts and to install a fire door to the kitchen.

 

  1. On 4 February 2020 it raised a repair for a leak in the bathroom.

 

  1. On 10 February 2020 a repair was raised due to a leak in the bathroom.

 

  1. On 27 February 2020 it attended the property to sort out the kitchen cupboard doors and drawer fronts and to fit a fire door.

 

  1. On 2 March 2020 the landlord attended the property and completed the repair of the leak in the bathroom.

 

  1. However, the resident was dissatisfied with the way these matters were being handled and issues remained outstanding, and they verbally complained. On 27 February 2020 the landlord emailed the resident acknowledging that it had logged a complaint and that “this is for the ongoing toilet leak and the kitchen cupboard units”.

 

  1. The landlord’s internal records then show that on 27 March 2020 it sent a text to the resident explaining that it had had to suspend works due to the government’s announcement on COVID-19 restrictions. On 31 March 2020 it suspended another repair job due to the pandemic and on 16 April 2020 it advised the resident that a separate repair to the shower at the property had had to be postponed, again for the same reason. Further on 22 April and 8 June 2020 it suspended works again due to the pandemic. By July 2020 the records refer to works being handled by the landlord’s “COVID-19 Recovery Project”.

 

  1. On 10 August 2020 the landlord’s complaints handler contacted the resident and confirmed it would now be attending the property that day for the kitchen unit repairs as arranged with its maintenance team. It was aiming to monitor the progress of the repairs and committed to keeping the resident updated.

 

  1. On 12 August 2020 the resident confirmed to the landlord that as far as they were concerned, the following issues remained outstanding: new electric shower; replace bath; renew flush pipe to toilet; refit toilet pan; replace faulty basin taps; front wooden gate dropped and lock not working; replace kitchen cupboard units draws/doors; repair bathroom skirting following leak; and “windows”. It also noted that an issue with the fire door had been reported, namely that there were gaps between door and frame and that the door had not been painted.

 

  1. The landlord responded, suggesting a surveyor inspection was required and confirmed it would look to set up a suitable date shortly. It apologised for the delay in dealing with the ongoing issues which it agreed was unacceptable.

 

  1. On 13 August 2020 the landlord emailed the resident giving appointment dates for each of the six outstanding categories of works at the property ranging from 26 August to 2 September 2020.  With regard to the fire door the landlord commented that photographic evidence on its system suggested it had been left in good working order when fitted on 27 February 2020 although it required painting. However, a carpenter had been asked to assess the door at one of the forthcoming appointments.

 

  1. On 26 August 2020 the resident contacted the landlord regarding the floor tiles in the bathroom. The landlord’s operative had already looked at them and concluded that any damage was not down to the leak which had been reported and that, in any event, they were “tenants own tiles” and they would have to take responsibility for them. The resident was advised that had the tiles been affected by the leak they would be moving, which they were not. The landlord suggested the resident look at making a claim on their contents insurance or if they had none, they could try to claim against the landlord’s insurance and should contact its insurance team. The landlord emailed the resident confirming its view and providing contact details for its insurance team.

 

  1. On 27 August 2020 the landlord attended to repair the kitchen units and identified materials that needed to be ordered for the job and it was rescheduled for 28 September 2020. It was noted the landlord’s operative had failed to inspect the fire door, but this would be done at the later visit. The resident was advised of this.

 

  1. The landlord’s complaints handler provided updates to the resident by way of summaries of the current situation on 3 September and 21 September and 12 and 16 October 2020.

 

  1. On 23 October 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident with a formal response to the complaint. It gave a history of the repairs and confirmed that most repairs had been finalised, except for the fire door which was yet to be painted but would have to wait until “normal service” was resumed, and the resealing of the kitchen skirting board, which would be done once a separate pest issue had been dealt with.

 

  1. The landlord conceded that the service it had offered fell short of the standards it aimed to provide and that the repairs should have been managed more effectively and completed more swiftly. It explained that repairs had had to be postponed due to the pandemic but there had been a period between November 2019 and March 2020, before that time when there were delays. In recognition of the impact on the resident, the landlord offered compensation of £290 as “a goodwill gesture”. It stated it would close the complaint if it had not heard from the resident within the next seven days.

 

  1. On 26 October 2020 the resident responded stating they were not satisfied because the kitchen cupboards opened to the left instead of the right and the kitchen kickboard had not been sealed. Neither were they happy for any compensation to be applied to the rent account. The landlord’s view was that the kickboard issue could not hold up the complaint because it had not originally been part of it and the kitchen cupboards were fit for purpose. It stated it would consider the suggestion that a cheque be sent for the compensation. Later that day the landlord confirmed the cheque could be sent. The resident then emailed that day stating they would accept the £290 by cheque. The complaint was closed.

 

  1. On 10 May 2021 the insurance company’s handling agents emailed the resident and made an offer of £150 in respect of the damage to the bathroom floor tiles but without admitting liability for the damage.

 

  1. The resident then contacted this Service as they were not happy with the offer. They stated the landlord’s delay in dealing with the aftermath of the leak had made the damage worse and they considered it should shoulder the cost of repairing it. This Service raised the issue with the landlord and on 19 May 2021 it acknowledged this communication to the resident, allocated a new complaint reference and stated it understood the complaint to be about “the landlord’s handling of repairs concerning a leak which caused further damage to tiles, resident would like the original offer of £150 reviewed”. The landlord confirmed it would investigate the position and provide a response within ten working days.

 

  1. On 4 June 2021 the resident chased for an update having heard nothing further and this Service also chased for a response on his behalf.

 

  1. On 8 June 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident with its response in accordance with the first stage of its complaints procedure. It noted that the outstanding issue with the complaint was the level of compensation. The resident had been offered £150 in respect of damage to tiling. The landlord had reviewed the situation and concluded as follows:

 

  1. A repair was raised on 10 February 2020 upon the report of a leak to the bathroom at the property. An attendance took place on 2 March 2020 as the issue had been categorised as a routine repair to be attended to within 20 working days. The landlord conceded that it should have raised an urgent repair to be dealt with in five working days and it apologised for the length of time it took for the matter to be attended to.
  2.  Following this, its records show that on 11 March 2020 a new repair was raised with respect to other tiles and the skirting boards in the bathroom and an asbestos survey was required. This was not attended to until 25 August 2020 (due to COVID-19 restrictions) when an operative determined a carpenter was required to renew the skirting boards and this happened on 28 September 2020. They advised that new boards were not required after all, and they were able to repair and paint them instead.
  3.  In the meantime, an appointment was scheduled for 29 July 2021 to plaster and repaint the bathroom and toilet walls.
  4.  The landlord noted that the resident had made a claim against its insurance and an offer had been made to them of a payment of £150 which had been declined. The landlord now intended to reconsider the question of compensation having regard to its compensation policy and also to the fact it was only carrying out emergency and critical repairs during April 2020 to April 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Indeed, it had introduced an interim policy which stated that because it had not been able to offer a normal service due to government restrictions, discretionary awards of compensation had been “paused” until further notice.
  5.  However, it could make exceptions to this and was minded to in the resident’s case. By way of explanation for its calculations it explained that “the level of impact is multiplied by the number of months the issue was ongoing, this is capped at a maximum of 12 months”. It noted, in addition, that there had been three missed appointments which were usually awarded at the rate of £20 each.
  6. It offered total compensation of £565.00 made up as follows:

Inconvenience £20 x 12 = £240

Time and effort £20 x 12 = £240

Missed appointments x 3   = £  60

Delay in stage 1 response = £  25

 

  1. Separately on 8 June 2021, the landlord confirmed to the resident that the offer of £150 was through the insurance liability claim and the offer of £565 was separate to that and based on the service failings that had been identified. The next day it confirmed to the resident that the insurance offer had been made as a gesture of goodwill and the resident needed to contact the insurers direct to discuss that offer. In the meantime, it enquired as to whether he accepted the offer of compensation made for the service failures.

 

  1. On 14 June 2021 the resident emailed a response and confirmed he accepted the £565 offered “for the service failures”. They confirmed they were in touch with the insurance company and pursuing a payment for the damaged floor tiles. The landlord acknowledged this the same day and stated it would process the payment and close the complaint. On 16 June 2021 the landlord’s staff member authorised a cheque for £565.

 

  1. On 5 July 2021 the resident contacted the landlord again commenting that the insurers had referred them back to the landlord on the question of the broken tiles and the landlord was referring them to the insurer – they were going around in circles. The landlord responded the same day, explaining that the reason the damage to the tiles was being handled as an insurance claim was because the landlord was not accepting responsibility for them. The insurance claim was separate to the complaints process. It asked whether the resident wanted to reactivate the complaint and escalate it to be reviewed under the second stage of its complaints procedure. The resident confirmed the next day, 6 July, that he required the review to be carried out.

 

  1. On 2 August 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident with the outcome of its review in accordance with the second stage of its complaints procedure. It noted the escalation request was made because the resident was dissatisfied with the way an insurance claim was being handled relating to the tiling. It confirmed that its complaints process could not and would not influence the outcome of that claim or any financial amount offered by the insurers.

 

  1. As far as the compensation it had offered for service failings was concerned, it maintained its view that the offer had been fair and proportionate and had been calculated appropriately in accordance with its policy.

 

  1. It did, however, offer a further £25 in compensation to reflect the fact there had been a delay in the review response being sent to the resident. This took the total compensation offered to £590.

 

  1. The resident has explained to this Service that his preferred remedy to this remaining issue is for the landlord to repair the tiles or for it to pay £400 as compensation for the damage.

 

Agreements, policies and procedures

 

  1. The landlord operates a Repairs Policy which contains the following provisions: –

 

  1. Residents are responsible for insuring their own possessions with contents insurance.

 

  1. The landlord can undertake repairs which are the resident’s responsibility, but it is then entitled to charge for them.

 

  1. The landlord does not undertake repairs to fixtures and fittings installed by the resident.

 

Assessment and findings

 

  1. There is no dispute that the landlord was responsible for dealing with the water leak and that there were delays in sorting the situation out (along with other repairs) not all of which could be excused by the COVID-19 restrictions.

 

  1. It was appropriate that the landlord subsequently acknowledged these delays. The landlord offered £290 to account for its service failings, later increasing this to £565, and a further £25 at stage two for the delay in its complaint handling. This Service notes that the compensation offered was accepted in resolution of the inconvenience, time and distress, missed appointments, and delayed complaint responses.

 

  1. The resident asserted, however, that the leak and subsequent delay in undertaking works also resulted in damage to the bathroom tiles. While the landlord acknowledged its delay and the redress reflected this, no compensation was offered for the cost of repairing the floor tiles in the bathroom, and it is this issue that remains outstanding for this Service to consider.

 

  1. Under the landlord’s repairs policy, as set out at paragraph 29 above, it states that the resident is responsible for maintaining/repairing their own fixtures and fittings. It requires them to make their own insurance arrangements. There is a valid argument, however, for the resident to state that where damage has been caused because of a failing in the landlord’s service, the landlord should shoulder the consequences of its actions/omissions. This does however only apply if the damage to the tiles was caused by the delay in dealing with the leak – which was the failing complained of. The landlord’s operative reported that in his opinion the damage to the tiles was not caused by a water leak – in which case it could not have been caused by a delay in repairing it. While the resident disputed this, no evidence has been provided to contradict this and from which a causal link between the landlord’s inaction and their loss can be confirmed. Accordingly, this Service has been unable to determine the cause of damage.

 

  1. It was reasonable, nonetheless, that the landlord directed the resident to its insurer, in order for the matter to be resolved via an insurance claim. As the landlord had not accepted liability, it would not have made an offer of compensation.

 

  1. What’s more, as the resident remained unhappy with the offer of compensation made by the insurer and still sought resolution from the landlord, it was reasonable that the landlord agreed to respond this under its complaints process.

 

  1. Being that the matter in dispute was the amount of compensation offered by the insurer, however, the landlord would not have been able to adjust this as per the resident’s request. This is as the insurance claim was a separate matter to the complaints process and the landlord would not have had any bearing on the decision arrived at or the financial amount offered by the insurer. It was reasonable, nonetheless, that the landlord explained this to the resident.

 

  1. It was also appropriate that in the landlord’s complaint response, it reviewed its handling of the resident’s previous complaint, identifying further oversights and adjusting its previous offer of compensation to reflect the perceived extent of its service failure.

 

  1. The landlord’s handling of this matter was therefore reasonable. While the Ombudsman cannot see that within the final response, the landlord provided details on how the resident could best pursue matters further with the insurance team, the Ombudsman can see that in June 2021 the landlord did signpost the resident to the insurer to discuss the offer. This was appropriate.

 

Determination (decision)

 

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of its handling of the resident’s request for compensation for bathroom floor tiles following a water leak in the property. 

 

Reasons

 

  1. There is no dispute that the bathroom tiles were the resident’s fixture/fitting and the landlord was not obliged to maintain or repair them. Its policy was to require the resident to make an insurance claim. The claim was made to a separate entity over whom the landlord did not have control.  Whilst there is an argument for compelling the landlord to pay for damage where its service failing, namely delay, has caused a problem, there is no evidence in this case to confirm the damage complained of was linked to any such failing on the landlord’s part. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to have referred the resident to the insurer to have this matter resolved, and the landlord would not have been able to change the decision / financial compensation awarded for this.