Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202118979)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202118979

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

26 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 handling of:
    1. Repairs to the resident’s wet-room.
    2. The resident’s request for the wet-room to be changed to a standard bathroom.  
    3. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident became a tenant of the landlord in November 2019. The property is a flat with a wet-room in place of a standard bathroom.
  2. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord during June 2021 as he had been experiencing ongoing issues with his wet-room since moving into the property. He explained that he was not able to use the shower as there were issues with the drainage and the room would flood. This caused damage to the flooring and resulted in a leak into the property below. He added that his toilet bowl was loose and made a loud noise, which had also caused flooding and disruption to his neighbour. He had asked for the wet-room to be replaced with a standard bathroom but had only received minor repairs which had not resolved the issues. He added that he had not known what a wet-room was when he accepted the property and did not feel he needed one as he did not have a disability.
  3. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord initially advised the resident to contact its flooring contractor to arrange for the floor to be replaced following an inspection. It said it was unable to change the wet-room to a standard bathroom as a conversion could only be considered if a resident had a disability or support needs which required an adapted layout and it was not its policy to change a bathroom layout. It added that the resident had accepted the property as it was and had not raised concerns regarding the bathroom at the time. It later confirmed that the issues with the drainage and the flooring had been rectified. It apologised for the delay in repairing the resident’s leaking toilet and explained that it had needed to suspend all non-urgent works as a result of Covid-19 which had caused a large backlog of repair works. It confirmed that the works for the toilet had been arranged for 9 November 2021. It offered the resident £100 compensation in view of its delay in issuing its stage two complaint response.
  4. The resident referred his complaint to this service as he maintained that he did not know what a wet-room was when he agreed to the mutual exchange and did not feel he needed a wet-room as he did not have a disability. He wanted the landlord to replace the wet-room with a standard bathroom or give him permission to carry out the work himself.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s wet-room

  1. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of all fixtures and fittings for sanitation and the supply of water to the property. The resident is not permitted to make any improvements or alterations to the property without the landlord’s prior written permission.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the installations, including those for the provision of water and sanitation. The landlord has advised that it was also responsible for the flooring in the resident’s wet-room.
  3. The repairs policy says emergency repairs should be attended to make safe within 24 hours and routine repairs should be completed at the earliest mutually convenient appointment and within a reasonable timeframe. Where there are likely to be delays to repairs, the landlord would be expected to provide regular updates to the resident to manage their expectations.
  4. In this case, the resident reported that his shower pump was not working and causing his wet-room to flood on 14 June 2021. A plumber attended on the same day and found that the issue was electrical. A further visit took place on 16 June 2021 and it was established that a new part was required. The appointment to install the part was initially planned for 29 June 2021, however this was brought forward at the resident’s request and installed on 18 June 2021. The landlord acted reasonably by bringing the appointment forward as the resident had reported that he could not use the shower due to the drainage issues.
  5. The resident also reported that the flooring in his wet-room had been damaged by the wet-room flooding in his complaint on 14 June 2021. An inspection took place on 24 June 2021 which was within a reasonable timescale for non-urgent repairs. Following this, a repair order was raised on 2 July 2021 to complete an asbestos test of the wet-room floor before it could be replaced. The evidence shows that this was not carried out until 2 August 2021 as the resident had not previously been available for appointments. Following the assessment, there was some delay in the report being uploaded to the landlord’s system by the contractors. The flooring was then replaced on 29 September 2021. Whilst the landlord’s repairs policy does not specifically state how long repairs of this nature should take, the Ombudsman recognises that some repairs can take longer than others where there is a need to pre-inspect the property and carry out additional surveys before the work can be completed. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord had caused any unreasonable delay in arranging this repair.
  6. The resident had previously raised issues of his toilet making a noise when flushed throughout 2020, but was informed that the landlord was only completing emergency repairs at the time as a result of Covid-19. He initially reported that his toilet bowl was loose and leaking on 21 April 2021. The landlord has advised that repairs were completed on 23 April 2021 and the toilet bowl was re-fitted. The resident again reported that his toilet was making a loud noise and the leak had returned in his initial complaint on 14 June 2021, however, there is no evidence of any repairs being raised in relation to this issue until 9 November 2021 following a phone call with the resident, who advised that the issue was ongoing.
  7. It would have been appropriate, given the resident’s historical reports of repair issues related to his toilet prior to his complaint, for the landlord to have attended and inspected the toilet at an earlier date. The landlord has explained that as a result of Covid-19 it had a large backlog of works and supply issues which had contributed towards the delay. However, this does not account for the entirety of the delay between 14 June 2021 and 9 November 2021 (approximately 106 working days) and there is no evidence to suggest that the resident was provided regular updates on the progress of his repair during this period in order to manage his expectations. This is likely to have been inconvenient for the resident who had needed to report the issue again for it to be resolved.
  8. The landlord acted appropriately by apologising for the delay, however, an apology alone was not proportionate given the length of time it took for the landlord to address the matter and the impact this had on the resident. The landlord should offer the resident £100 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its failure to address the resident’s repair request within a reasonable timescale. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) which states that amounts in this range are proportionate where there has been service failure which had an impact on the resident but did not affect the outcome of the overall complaint.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a standard bathroom.

  1. The landlord has provided a satisfactory explanation as to why it would not consider replacing the resident’s wet-room with a standard bathroom. Whilst it is understandable that the resident did not want a wet-room and did not require one, the evidence shows that he accepted the tenancy and had not raised concerns about the wet-room at the time. The landlord is obliged to provide facilities for bathing, but would not be obliged to provide a standard bathroom in place of a wet-room at the resident’s request so long as the bathing facilities in the property were accessible. It is acknowledged that the resident did not know the details of how a wet room would function when he accepted the tenancy, however the landlord cannot be held responsible for this and it was not obliged to provide detailed information about the wet room as part of the mutual exchange process.  Furthermore, the landlord is entitled to consider bathroom replacements as part of a planned works programme and would not be expected to replace the bathroom unless it was beyond economical repair. There is no evidence to suggest that the bathroom was beyond economical repair or in need of replacement.
  2. The landlord has further explained that it would only consider converting the wet-room into a standard bathroom if a tenant has a disability or medical issue which prevents them from being able to use the facilities available. For example, a person may need a bath rather than a shower for medical reasons. For a landlord to proceed with a conversion, it would usually need evidence of the tenant’s medical needs and supporting evidence from an occupational therapist or other medical practitioner. The landlord acted appropriately by checking whether the resident had any reported disabilities which would prevent him from using the wet-room but could not find any supporting evidence to show that this was needed for medical reasons. In addition, whilst it is noted that the resident feels he should not have an accessible wet-room as he does not have a disability. As above, the landlord would not be expected to alter the wet-room for this reason as the resident was otherwise able to use the wet-room and bathing facilities. Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s request was reasonable and there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord would be obliged to change the existing wet-room to a standard bathroom.
  3. The resident has raised concern that the landlord had also refused to allow him to replace the bathroom himself. This concern was not specifically raised as part of the formal complaint through the landlord’s complaints process and there is a lack of evidence to confirm whether the resident had specifically asked the landlord to consider this. It is currently unclear what the landlord’s position is regarding his request. As such, it is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident regarding his request to replace the wet-room with a standard bathroom himself and confirm whether it would grant permission for the alteration. The landlord should clearly explain the reasons behind its decision to the resident. If the resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to this matter, he may be able to raise it as a separate complaint to the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it has a two-stage complaints process. At stage one, the landlord should provide a response within ten working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage two. 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 reason for the delay and provide a new complaint timescale which should not exceed a further ten working days.
  2. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code sets out requirements for member landlords that will allow them to respond to complaints effectively and fairly. The Code states that each complaint response must confirm:
    1. The complaint stage and the complaint definition.
    2. The decision on the complaint and the reasons for any decisions made.
    3. The details of any remedy offered to put things right.
    4. Details of any outstanding actions.
    5. Details of how to escalate the matter to the next stage if the resident is not satisfied with the answer, or, if this was the final stage, details of how to escalate the matter to the Housing Ombudsman Service.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint on 18 June 2021. The landlord had previously dealt with the resident’s concerns related to an appointment to have his shower pump replaced informally. The landlord issued its formal stage one complaint response to the resident on 28 July 2021, which was 18 working days outside of its policy timescales at stage one. The landlord had failed to acknowledge the delay at this stage and there is no evidence to suggest that the resident was adequately informed of the reasons for any delay at this stage.
  4. Furthermore, the landlord’s stage one response was brief; it directed the resident to several flooring companies and said that it would not replace the wet-room. The Ombudsman would have expected to have seen evidence of specific actions the landlord had taken to investigate the resident’s concerns and a conclusion on whether the correct process had been followed. It would also have been appropriate for the landlord to have explained the reasoning behind its refusal to replace the resident’s wet-room to more fully resolve the complaint at this stage. The landlord’s stage one complaint response does not demonstrate that the landlord had fully investigated the resident’s concerns or explained its position which is likely to have caused inconvenience to the resident. 
  5. The resident initially asked to escalate his complaint on 28 July 2021 as he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s escalation request until 3 November 2021 and provided its stage two complaint response on 12 November 2021, which was approximately 77 working days since the resident’s request to escalate. The landlord has taken reasonable steps to acknowledge and apologise for its failure to respond within its 20-working day timescale. It offered £100 compensation to the resident in view of the inconvenience caused.
  6. Overall, the landlord’s offer of £100 compensation is not considered proportionate when considering the impact of the service failures at stage one of the landlord’s complaints process on the resident, as well as the further delay at stage two. In view of this, the landlord should offer an additional £100 to the resident, bringing the total offer to £200 compensation for complaint handling. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which states that amounts in this range are proportionate where there has been service failure, but this did not affect the overall outcome of the complaint. 
  7. It is recommended that the landlord considers carrying out staff training for complaint handlers to ensure that the correct process is followed and residents are informed where there is likely to be a delayed response. It should also ensure that its complaint responses are in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to the resident’s wet-room, specifically in relation to its handling of repairs to the resident’s toilet.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for a standard bathroom.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders that the following actions are taken within four weeks:
    1. The landlord is to pay the resident £300, comprised of:
      1. £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the delay in completing repair works to the resident’s toilet.
      2. £200 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s poor complaint handling. This figure includes the landlord’s previous offer of £100, which can be deducted from the total compensation if it has already been paid.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord writes to the resident to confirm its position regarding the resident’s request for permission to change his wet-room into a standard bathroom himself. It should clearly explain the reasons behind its decision.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord considers carrying out staff training for complaint handlers to ensure that the correct process is followed and residents are informed where there is likely to be a delayed response. It should also ensure that its complaint responses are in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.