London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202122410)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122410

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

10 June 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 concerns how the landlord handled repairs to a window in the property.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a flat in a communal building.
3. The resident has had an ongoing issue with repairs to a window in the property. A work order was raised by the landlord on 29 January 2020 to repair the window, but was cancelled due to restrictions placed on the landlord’s services as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic and national lockdowns.
4. On 29 January 2021, the resident called the landlord and requested to raise a complaint. The landlord’s notes of the call described the elements of the complaint as:
   1. The repair had been outstanding for over a year and she was concerned that the glass would fall out of the rotten frame. The resident noted that the glass had fallen out of a window with a similar issue in a neighbour’s property.
   2. The resident did not believe that the work would be affected by the Covid-19 pandemic as it would take place outdoors.
   3. The landlord’s communication during the period had been very poor.
5. A stage one complaint response was sent to the resident on 1 February 2021. The landlord apologised for the length of time it was taking to complete repairs. It confirmed that it had arranged an appointment for 6 April 2021 and advised the resident that due to the limited availability of its maintenance team, that the appointment may need to be rescheduled as it was currently prioritising emergency repairs.
6. On 4 May 2021 the resident requested to raise a new complaint as the 6 April 2021 appointment did not go ahead, and that no notice or reason for the failed appointment was given other than it being rescheduled for 18 June 2021.
7. Following further correspondence between the resident and the landlord, the original complaint was escalated on 21 July 2021 and a stage two response was sent on 17 August 2021. The landlord informed the resident that:
   1. The original work order was raised on 29 January 2020 and an appointment arranged for 4 April 2020. However, due to the national lockdowns, all of the landlord’s day-to-day repairs were suspended and it only attended emergency repairs. This resulted in the work order being cancelled.
   2. The resident called the landlord on 15 July 2020 where she was advised that due to government restrictions, non-emergency repairs were still suspended and asked the resident to contact if the integrity of the window frame worsened to where it became an emergency issue.
   3. Following the complaint being raised and the resident expressing her concerns with the condition of the frame, the landlord arranged an appointment on 6 April 2021. This appointment was cancelled and rebooked under its current Covid-19 restrictions. The landlord apologised for not informing the resident of the change and the reason why it needed to be rescheduled.
   4. The appointment was rescheduled for 4 June 2021. This appointment also did not go ahead. The landlord’s records did not give any reason for the failed appointment. The landlord apologised to the resident for not attending and not being able to provide an explanation for why it did not attend.
   5. The appointment was rebooked for 18 June 2021; however, the appointment did not go ahead as the resident refused the repair as she wanted the window to be replaced.
   6. It recognised that as the original inspection for the window occurred in January 2020, the condition of the window may have worsened. It had consulted with its contractor and maintenance team and had agreed to replace the damaged half of the window. A new work order had been raised and it would be in contact to arrange an appointment.
   7. The landlord accepted that its communication relating to the window had been poor and that there had been confusion in how to escalate the complaint which had caused a delay in providing the stage two response. The landlord apologised and offered the resident £140 compensation, which it broke down as £40 for the two missed appointments and £100 for its poor communication and delays in the complaint process.
8. In a telephone call with this Service on 10 January 2022, the resident described the outstanding issues to the complaint as the window had yet to be repaired and she had received no updates from the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

9. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours and that it will arrange a mutually convenient appointment to attend all other repairs. Emergency repairs are defined as a repair where there is “an immediate danger to the occupant or members of the public”.
10. During the period of the complaint, the landlord was operating a restricted service due to the Covid-19 pandemic. This resulted in repairs that were deemed non-urgent being postponed. The landlord continued to respond to repairs deemed critical during this period. It defined a critical repair as “an emergency or very urgent works that should be completed ‘in days’ and that cannot be safely left for any longer than that”.
11. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy. When a complaint is raised, the landlord will provide a complaint response within ten working days. If the complainant remains dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation to the next stage. The landlord will then undertake a review of the complaint and send a stage two response to the complainant within 20 working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.
12. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider compensation when it has failed to follow its policies, procedures or guidelines; for loss of facilities or amenities in the home; failure to respond to a complaint within its target time; or failure to complete repairs within its agreed response time. The policy also states that the landlord will consider discretionary payments that recognise individual household circumstances.

How the landlord handled repairs to the window

13. In its stage two complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that there had been delays in completing repairs to the window and that the resident had received poor communication from is contractor and staff members. The landlord apologised, explained what steps it had taken internally to improve its procedures and offered £140 compensation for its service failures.
14. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
15. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistakes and explaining what it did wrong. It put things right by apologising to the resident, making changes to the work order to undertake a partial replacement of the window, and awarding appropriate compensation. It looked to learn from its errors by making changes to how it responded to the resident’s queries and appointed a single point of contact. The landlord also escalated the matter internally to senior management to identify any other lessons that could be learned.
16. The compensation payment was made in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and is broadly in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (which is available on our website). This suggests a payment of £50 to £250 in instances of service failure resulting in some impact on a complainant. As examples of when this level of redress should be considered, the guidance suggests:
    1. Repeated failures to reply to letters or return phone calls.
    2. Failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact 
17. In this case, while the work order was originally raised in January 2020, as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic and government restrictions, the landlord was unable to undertake the work. The landlord would not be expected to offer compensation for events outside of its control. The landlord’s records show that it contacted the resident and made her aware of the reasons for the delay and the circumstances in which it would be able to arrange an appointment.
18. However, once a new work worker was raised on 29 January 2021, the landlord would be expected to complete repairs to the window in a timely manner in line with its repairs policy. The landlord has accepted that this did not happen, that two appointments failed to go ahead and that its communication and the information provided to the resident was not up to standard. The landlord also accepted that the information provided to the resident relating to how to escalate the complaint was confusing and caused a delay in escalating the complaint to stage two. A compensation payment of £140 was therefore reasonable in the circumstances.
19. Therefore, for the reasons set out above, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.
20. In bringing the case to this Service, the resident has stated that the repair to the window remains outstanding. The landlord’s correspondence shows that following the end of the complaints process, its contractor was unable to complete the repair and the work was assigned to a new contractor. The landlord’s repair records show that a new work order was raised on 17 January 2022 to renew half of a window. It is not clear from the evidence whether this work has been completed.
21. Therefore, it is recommended that the landlord write to the resident to advise her on the current status of the window repair. It should also review its compensation offer based on the ongoing delays to complete repairs to the window since it sent the stage two response, and then inform the resident of its decision.
22. If the resident is dissatisfied with the landlords review of its compensation offer, she would first have to raise a new complaint with the landlord and allow it to respond before it could be considered by this Service. This is in line with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman can only consider complaints that have exhausted a member’s complaint procedure.

Determination

23. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident in respect of how it repairs to a window in the property which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint.

Recommendation

24. It is recommended that the landlord write to the resident to advise her on the current status of the window repair. It should also review its compensation offer based on the ongoing delays to complete repairs to the window since it sent the stage two response, and then inform the resident of its decision.