London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202104623)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202104623

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

20 May 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 response to:
    1. The resident’s request for reimbursement of costs for repair works he had undertaken.
    2. The resident’s queries about its repairs processes, specifically during periods of lockdown as a result of Covid-19.
    3. Repairs to the resident’s bathroom in 2019.
    4. The associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s handling of repairs to his bathroom in 2019 is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.
  3. Paragraph 39 (e) of the Scheme states that:
    1. The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising;
  4. In the resident’s complaint correspondence, he has advised that historic bathroom repairs in his property had not been carried out to a satisfactory standard, but there is no evidence of a formal complaint being raised until May 2021. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical, it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues. Therefore, whilst the historical incidents provide contextual background to the current complaint, this assessment focuses on events from December 2020 onward, which is six months prior to the formal complaint being made to the landlord.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord 
  2. The resident raised a complaint in May 2021 as he wanted the landlord to reimburse him for costs of £3000 associated with repair works he had completed in the property himself to his bathroom, staircase and an internal cupboard. He said he was dissatisfied with the quality of work the landlord had completed to his bathroom in 2019 and noted that his stairs and bathroom had become dangerous to use. He said he had called the landlord who had advised that it was only completing limited repair works as a result of the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic on its service. The resident added that was not informed by the landlord as to what type of repair would be considered an emergency during lockdown and he felt the landlord had not been clear and transparent about this.
  3. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord spoke to the resident who explained that he had not reported repair issues to the landlord as he did not think that most of the repairs would be considered an emergency. The landlord confirmed that it had not received any reports of repair issues related to the work the resident had carried out and noted that the resident had experienced a leak in his bathroom in January 2021 which he had not reported. It explained that it would not be able to reimburse the resident for the costs he had incurred by employing his own contractors as he had not reported the repair issues to the landlord prior to arranging his own contractors. It provided a copy of its repair responsibilities handbook and advised the resident to report any repairs in the future. The landlord also acknowledged its delay in issuing a stage two complaint response and offered £60 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the delay and the time and trouble the resident had sent pursuing the matter.
  4. The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudmam as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and wanted reimbursement for the costs he had incurred. He added that the landlord had not explained what it classified as an emergency repair. He also explained that there had been a negative impact on his mental health and felt that the landlord had forced him to go into arrears on his rent account as he had needed to spend money on repairs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has said he considers that the issues affecting his property have impacted his health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments.  However, it is beyond the remit of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the issues reported and the resident’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reimbursement of costs for repair works he had undertaken.

  1. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance booklet confirms that the resident is responsible for reporting repairs to the landlord in a timely manner. The resident would also be expected to gain permission from the landlord before making any alterations to the property. The landlord is responsible for repairs needed due to water leaks, the structure of the property including staircases and installations for heating including radiators among other issues. The landlord would only be responsible for arranging repairs for issues it had been made aware of. The landlord’s website and policies confirm that during the pandemic, it was only able to undertake emergency repair works
  2. In this case, the resident has requested reimbursement of £3000 associated with expenses he had incurred by independently carrying out repair work to his staircase, radiators, bathroom and cupboard throughout 2020 and 2021. It is not disputed that many of the repairs reported to have been done independently are likely to fall within the landlord’s repair responsibilities, however, this would not mean that the landlord would be obliged to reimburse the resident for the cost of carrying out the work.
  3. In line with general practice and the resident’s responsibility handbook, the resident would be responsible for reporting repair issues affecting their property for which the landlord is responsible (whether these are emergency repairs or non-urgent repairs). It is noted that the resident had advised that he did not contact the landlord to report these repairs as he was unsure as to whether they would be considered an emergency repair or completed during the lockdown period, however, the resident would be responsible for reporting any repair issues regardless of their priority, if they were the landlord’s responsibility to fix. The landlord would not be responsible for repair issues which had not been reported. In this case, there is no evidence to suggest that the resident had reported repair issues related to his staircase being unsafe or had reported further issues with his bathroom following repairs being carried out in 2019. As such, the landlord was not made aware of the issues and did not have the opportunity to explain its position regarding the repair issues to the resident or take steps to rectify the issues reported.
  4. Furthermore, prior to carrying out any alterations to his property, the resident would be required to gain written permission from the landlord. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord was made aware of the resident’s intention to carry out repairs independently or that the resident had discussed this intention with the landlord prior to the works starting. In addition, there is no evidence to suggest that the resident had discussed the cost of the works prior to these being carried out. If a tenant decides to proceed with repairs independently and incurs repair costs, they would need written confirmation that the landlord agrees to reimburse these costs in advance, otherwise they cannot rely on the landlord refunding any of these costs. The landlord would not be expected to offer compensation to the resident in view of these costs as there is no evidence of any service failure by the landlord.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s queries about its repairs processes, specifically during periods of lockdown as a result of Covid-19.

  1. The landlord’s website and policies confirm that during the pandemic, it was only able to undertake emergency repair works. The resident’s tenancy agreement sets out which repairs would be considered an emergency or urgent. During the course of the complaint, the resident had advised that he had not reported repair issues to the landlord as he was aware that it was only completing emergency repairs but did not know if the repair issues he was experiencing would be considered an emergency. The landlord acknowledged that the resident was seeking further confirmation of what type of repairs were being undertaken during the lockdown within its stage two complaint response.
  2. As detailed above, the resident would be responsible for reporting repairs to the landlord regardless of whether they would be considered an emergency or non-urgent repair. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have addressed this aspect of the resident’s complaint given that it had confirmed that the resident was seeking further information about its repair categories as part of his desired resolution. The landlord failed to provide any further information related to its processes within the response. It is noted that the landlord referred the resident to its resident’s responsibility handbook; whilst this handbook does set out the repairs the landlord would be responsible for, it does not provide information as to which repairs would be considered an emergency or any further information about the service the landlord was operating whilst the lockdown restrictions as a result of Covid-19 were imposed. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have signposted the resident to his tenancy agreement and provided further information about the impact of Covid-19 on its repairs service to more fully resolve the complaint.
  3. As such, there has been service failure by the landlord in that it has not fully addressed this aspect of the resident’s complaint. In view of the inconvenience caused to the resident by this failing, the landlord should offer the resident £100 compensation. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which states that amounts in this range are proportionate in instances of service failure where there was an impact on the resident, but this was of short duration and did not affect the outcome of the complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy confirms that it has a two-stage complaints process. At stage one, the landlord should respond within ten working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint. At stage two, the landlord should respond within 20 working days. If, at any stage there is likely to be a delay, the landlord would be expected to contact the resident, explain the reasons for any delay and provide a new complaint response timescale which should not exceed a further ten working days. The landlord would be expected to address each aspect of a resident’s complaint or explain the reasons why it cannot do so.
  2. In this case, the resident raised a complaint on 18 May 2021. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 27 May 2021 which was reasonably within its ten working day timescale. The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated on 27 May 2021, but the landlord did not issue its stage two complaint response until 21 July 2021, which was 18 working days outside of its twenty working day timescale.
  3. The landlord has taken reasonable steps to apologise to the resident for its delayed response and offered £60 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the delay and the time and trouble the resident had spent pursuing this matter. The compensation award was in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance, as set out above. The landlord has, therefore, offered compensation that the Ombudsman considers was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the landlord’s failings.

Determination

  1.  In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of response to the resident’s request for reimbursement of costs for repair works he had undertaken
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s queries about its repairs processes, specifically during periods of lockdown as a result of Covid-19.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation in respect of its handling of the associated complaint, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves this aspect of the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders that the following actions are taken within four weeks:
    1. The landlord is to pay the resident £100 in recognition of its failure to address his concerns about its repairs processes, specifically during periods of lockdown as a result of Covid-19.
    2. The landlord is to write to the resident and provide further information regarding its repair categories, including what type of repair would be considered emergency, urgent and non-urgent.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident £60 as previously agreed in relation to the inconvenience caused by its delayed stage two complaint response and the time and trouble the resident had spent pursuing the complaint if it has not already done so.