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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202123742)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123742

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

30 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 is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about his front door.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a flat located on the first floor.
  2. On 2 April 2019, the resident contacted the landlord to ask for his front door to be changed from an inward-opening door, to an outward-opening door. The door had initially been set this way during works prior to the resident’s complaint. However, due to the works having taken place before the landlord took over ownership and management of the property, there are no records from this period. Therefore, the date and details of the works are unclear. On 9 May 2019, a contractor attended the property and noted that the door was in
    “perfect working order” and that it would pose a health and safety risk if it were to open outwards. Agents of the landlord also attended the property on 22 May and 11 June 2019 and confirmed the same finding as the previous contractor.
  3. The resident submitted a formal complaint on 11 March 2021 and expressed that he would like the door to be changed to an outward-opening door. The Landlord gave its stage one response later that day. It explained that the door had been changed due to fire safety regulations. The landlord also noted that the door had been inspected by an agent, and the notes from the inspection confirmed that the door was in working order.
  4. The resident requested an escalation of his complaint to stage two on 29 March 2021, and the landlord noted internally that it had until 12 April to respond. For the following months, the resident chased the landlord’s stage two response and asked for somebody to inspect the door before the stage two response was written, so that the landlord could see and understand his situation. On 18 November 2021, a fire safety inspection was completed. It found no fault with the door aside from a recommendation to install a self-closer on the door.
  5. The stage two response was issued to the resident on 24 January 2022 and determined that after liaising with the fire safety department, and the surveyor who had attended the property in 2019, the landlord could not change the door back to an outward-opening door as it opened onto a communal area. The landlord explained that the health and safety of its residents was the priority. However, the landlord did acknowledge the service failure in its “considerable delay” in responding to the resident’s stage two escalation. It apologised for the inconvenience and distress caused. The landlord offered £140 in compensation. This was broken down to £60 for distress, £30 for service failures and £50 for the delayed response. The resident accepted the compensation offer, and came to this Service requesting that the landlord change its mind regarding the door.

Assessment and findings

Policies & Procedures

  1. Section 3 of the landlord’s Complaints Policy states that a stage one response should be given within ten working days.
  2. Section 3 of the Complaints Policy also states that the landlord will write to the resident with its final response within 20 working days of the request to escalate. If the landlord can’t, the landlord will explain why and write again within a further 10 working days.
  3. The landlord’s Compensation Policy states that the landlord may offer a goodwill payment in recognition of the time and trouble the customer may have taken to get the issue resolved.

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has mentioned to this Service that part of his concern regarding the door was that it caused difficulties for his father who has mobility issues. It is not clear that this was formally raised as part of the complaint process. Therefore, this aspect of the resident’s complaint has not been investigated. Additionally, it is not clear whether the resident’s father is a permanent occupant of the property. Had the resident raised this during the complaint procedure, the landlord could have provided appropriate advice, including whether an occupational therapist’s assessment from the local authority should have been pursued by the resident.
  2. It should also be noted that the landlord’s offer of compensation included £50 for the delay in providing a stage two response. The resident has expressed satisfaction with this aspect of the landlord’s remedy to his complaint but has made clear that he remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision not to amend the front door. As the resident has not requested the Ombudsman to investigate the landlord’s complaints handling, this issue has not been referenced any further.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about his front door

  1. In 2019, the resident’s front door was replaced and changed to an inward-opening door. The exact date that the door was changed is unclear as it was done prior to the merging of landlords. The current landlord doesn’t have any contemporary records of the works, and it has confirmed that no records were made available to it about these works when it took over ownership and management of the property.
  2. On 2 April 2019, the resident requested for the landlord to “correct the front door” as he wanted it to open outwards. Due to the lack of records, the landlord was unaware of the reasoning for the original works and subsequently inspected the door in order to consider the resident’s request. It should be noted that on 4 January 2022, during the landlord’s investigation into the complaint, the landlord in an internal email, noted that it believed the door had been fitted under a Fire Risk Assessment as “[The landlord] cannot see anything on the system to indicate it was a repair job.” Although the landlord had stated that it believed this was the case, it was unverifiable due to the lack of records from this time.
  3. An inspection took place on 9 May 2019 and found that it would be a potential health hazard for the door to open outwards. Additionally, the inspection found that the door was in “perfect working order.” Because of these reasons, the landlord was justified in deciding not to progress with changing the door. The landlord was not required to change the door itself, as the door was not damaged, and therefore it would not have been a repair issue. Additionally, due to the potential health and safety risks of having a door that opened into a communal area, the landlord was reasonable and fair to prioritise the health and safety of the residents of the building. Further inspections of the door took place on 22 May 2019 and 11 June 2019, which concluded the same.
  4. The resident submitted a formal complaint on 11 March 2021. Although this Service was aware from the landlord’s records that this was when the complaint was made, the landlord failed to provide copies of both the resident’s original complaint, and his stage two escalation request. This investigation has progressed based upon the information that was available, however, it is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. It is therefore recommended that the landlord conduct a review of its record keeping processes, ensuring that there is a clear audit trail for complaints, which provides details of specifically when contact was made, what was said and what the agreed next steps and expectations were.
  5. The landlord gave its stage one response on 11 March 2021. It explained to the resident that the door was changed in regard to fire safety regulations, and that under said regulations, the resident’s request could not be permitted. It also noted that the door was in perfect working condition. Although the landlord was right to deny the request due to fire safety regulations, it did not explain to the resident exactly what the regulations were that prevented the landlord from accepting the request. This would have provided reassurance and clarity to the resident.
  6. The landlord should have made clear to the resident how an outward-opening door would have created health and safety risks for anybody else in the building, as well as the resident’s safety should the door get blocked. It is important to keep the resident informed of the processes and information that has led to the landlord making a decision against the resident’s request. Transparency, and detailed explanations help to improve the tenant/landlord relationship. This is particularly important when the landlord wants to convey that the health and safety of the resident, and the other occupants of the building, was its priority.
  7. The resident requested escalation of his complaint on 29 March 2021. However, as previously mentioned, no record of the complaint has been provided to this Service. In the months proceeding the escalation request, the resident asked the landlord on multiple occasions for somebody to survey the door. The resident wanted to make clear that in his view, the inward-opening door posed a health risk to him as it caused him to stand on steps in order to open the door.
  8. On 6 January 2021, an email from the landlord’s fire safety department advised that “as long as the resident has sufficient room to open the door inwards without having to step backwards onto the bottom step, there would be sufficient space.” Later that day, in another internal email, the landlord noted that it had reviewed a photo of the area and that “the photo does show standing room between [the] door edge and the bottom stair.” Additionally, in line with the resident’s request to have somebody assess the door, a surveyor had attended the property on 18 November 2021 in order to carry out a fire risk assessment. The surveyor found no issue with the door in its current state, and raised no concerns about the door opening inwards, nor with the space between the door and the stair.
  9. The landlord gave its stage two response on 24 January 2022. The landlord stated that after liaising with the fire safety department, and the surveyor who attended the property in 2019, it had determined that it could not change the door to an outward-opening door as it would open on to a communal area.
  10. Much like the landlord’s stage one response, although it was justified in its decision to not change the door, it did not offer a sufficient amount of detail to the resident to explain what health and safety risks it would have posed. In an internal email on 6 January 2022, the landlord explained that if the door opened onto a communal area, it would leave the landlord “open to litigation if an injury occurs, [i.e.], if a person, adult or child is standing/waiting in the communal area [and] somebody tries to leave said flat and is [struck] by the door.” Additionally, the landlord stated that “if an object or article is left within the communal area, this could also limit the opening of the said door in an emergency again risking harm to person/persons trapped within the property.” These justifications are fair and reasonable points regarding its decision to not change the resident’s front door, which should have been included in its formal responses.
  11. As part of its stage two response, the landlord offered £140 compensation, £60 of which was in recognition of the distress in pursuing the complaint, and £30 was offered for its service failures (£50 being for the delayed stage two response, as discussed above). This Service’s remedies guidance states that payments between £50 and £250 are for “instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the complainant” and for service failure that “may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant.” The combined total of £90 for distress and service failure was therefore reasonable in the circumstances and in line with what the Ombudsman would expect.
  12. In summary, the landlord’s responses could have provided greater clarity as to exactly why his request to change the door would have posed further health and safety risks to all occupants of the building. While this lack of clarity would have caused some distress to the resident, the landlord’s final verdict would have remained the same. As noted above, the landlord’s decision not to invert the door was reasonable. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s offer of compensation amounted to reasonable redress for the distress caused to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord take steps to establish a system of record keeping that ensures that all contact from a resident (and any representatives) is recorded and retained so that it can be provided to this Service upon request, in response to a complaint.