London & Quadrant Housing Trust (201909237)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201909237

London & Quadrant H T

26 May 2021

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs in the property and a delay in activating her rent account.

Background and summary of events

The resident has a general needs assured tenancy with the landlord which is a housing association. The property type is sheltered accommodation and the support identified in the records is listed as “illness”. The property is a one bedroom bungalow. The tenancy was signed on 26 June 2019. The start date was 1 July 2019.
The tenancy agreement states that the landlord “will keep in repair and in working order all fixtures and fittings for sanitation, the supply of water, gas, electricity and space and water heating”. It also states that the resident is “responsible for doing minor repairs and replacements such as, but not limited to, cupboard and drawer handles, replacing broken glass, internal doors, locks, light bulbs, plugs, blocked sinks and washbasins, and shower heads as quickly as possible”.
The complaint policy states that the landlord aims to resolve complaints at stage one “then and there” but, if it cannot, it will be referred to the person best placed to help and a response issued within 10 working days, or a further 10 working days if required (with an explanation). It says it will monitor progress of agreed resolution until these are complete. The policy also allows the complaint to be escalated to stage two if the resident remains dissatisfied, with a response due in 20 working days (or longer, with an explanation). The policy also states the complaint may be referred to the Housing Ombudsman Service if the issue cannot be resolved locally or if the complainant agrees.
The compensation guidance states that (discretionary) awards “will depend on the circumstances of each individual case and must be appropriate and proportionate, taking into account the key principles of the compensation scheme as contained in the policy statement”. It can factor in considerations of inconvenience, distress or time and effort. There is no rule about the amounts, except for fixed awards for missed appointments (£20) or failure to respond to a query within 10 working days (£10).
The resident contacted the landlord on 21 July 2019 about repairs in her property by means of a web complaint form. The resident said that the tenancy started 1 July 2019, she moved in on 13 July 2019 and had not been able to pay rent as she was not on the system. She said:

“1.Boiler thermostat and timer not working 2.Two doors need to be planed down so I can open and close them 3.No number on the front door 4.Bathroom and kitchen painted in paint that is not suited to condensation 5.Cold water turn off valve not working 6.Outside tap valve not working 7.Drawer front broken in kitchen 8.Electric fused spurs in kitchen have no identification on them 9.One electric spur arcing when an appliance is plugged in 10.No in line isolation for any of the taps. My question, am I going to be charged full rent for the weeks that I have not been able to have access to any of (the landlord’s) services?”

The resident had also asked about which paint the landlord had used when it decorated her property as she wanted to touch this up. On 16 August 2019 the landlord apologised to the resident for having not heard back from its voids team about the works she raised. It also said it did not have a brand of paint it used for void properties so could not tell her which had been used for her property. The resident contacted the chief executive on 21 August 2019 about her frustration with the landlord’s service. She explained that she was unhappy about the response to her query about the type of paint it had used. The landlord responded to the resident on 21 August 2019 and logged the complaint; it explained that it did not have a specific brand of white paint in its properties so it could not provide this information, for which it apologised.
The records reflect some of the repairs that were raised and completed in August, September and October 2019. On 27 August 2019 there was a note the showed the repair records (“voids will be rectifying repair”). Further records show the landlord’s actions in response to the reports of the water tank overflowing, the mains water valve, a leaking tap, external leak from water storage tank as well as water pressure.
The resident’s complaint email of October 2019 to the Ombudsman outlined her concerns:
1. when viewing the property in July 2019 the resident said the service charge on the tenancy agreement was incorrect so this was taken away and never handed back with the correct information and her account was not activated
2. she never had a response to her formal complaint
3. the outstanding repairs were:
  1. low water pressure in the bathroom and in the hot water in the kitchen
  2. water tank overflowing onto the garden path
  3. external tap leaking when turned on
  4. two plumbers visited but did not complete the work, she took time off work to accommodate the repairs
  5. the landlord did not tell her the paint brand and name when she asked about this in order to undertake some decoration touch up work, she was told there would be no further communication about this issue when she enquired
  6. the landlord would not replace the windows and doors but told the resident she could do a home improvement form, she wanted these changed from wooden to UPVC energy efficient ones but could not afford to do this herself nor could she afford the bills for the heating going out under the door
  7. the boiler was an immersion tank one she wanted a combi boiler that was fed from the mains
4. the resident said that she changed the old handles of the kitchen cupboards and doors, she added a door number as there was none when she moved in, she changed the taps in the bathroom as the original ones were old and corroded, and she had written several complaint letters. She said she had been “fobbed off or no action has been taken”.
The resident said the outcomes she sought were:
1. the low water pressure to be resolved
2. the leak in the tank resolved
3. the boiler to be direct mains fed
4. the doors and windows replaced to keep the heat in
5. the tenancy agreement to reflect the correct rent
6. compensation for the time she was without access to the repairs service.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman several times in October and set out additional reports of repairs: she found a hole behind the bathroom mirror, she had no access to the landlord services and she was not on the system, nor did she have the correct rent amount. It is unclear if these were also communicated by the resident directly to the landlord, the Ombudsman did not convey these additional points.
The Ombudsman escalated the complaint to the landlord on 2 December 2019, citing two of the concerns (windows and water pressure) and asked it to contact the resident if it needed more information.
The landlord issued a formal complaint response in December 2019. Then, following its stage one response, there was ongoing correspondence. The complaint was closed without escalation to the end of the complaint process. This was because the outstanding dispute was over the level of compensation and the landlord had explained that it would not change the compensation amount, therefore, it considered the complaint to have reached the end of its process and there was no point in escalating it on this basis.
The landlord’s stage one response of 3 December 2019 considered the complaint to be about the water pressure and window repairs, it said:
1. The tenancy commenced on 1 July 2019.
2. The resident raised a plumbing repair on 15 August 2019, an appointment was booked for 11 September 2019 to “repair the mains water valve, a leaking tap, an external leak from the water storage tank, and to investigate low water pressure”. The landlord said its operative reported the repair complete on the same day and a new main stop valve installed.
3. It apologised that the resident’s contact of 19 September 2019 (“to register concern about customer service and management of repairs”) was not managed efficiently or answered promptly.
4. The resident reported the water pressure issue again on 19 September 2019, the landlord confirmed on 26 September 2019 that a recall was issued and the appointment date was scheduled for 18 October 2019.
5. On 18 October 2019 the operative attended to overhaul a ball valve “noted that the hot water cylinder is … on the floor level which will naturally impact water pressure. Water tanks benefit form being elevated so that water flows downwards and is assisted by gravity”. A separate report was logged on 1 November 2019, in response to which the landlord said it would ask the operative to also inspect the water pressure at the appointment on 30 December 2019.
6. It told the resident the property was not part of “forthcoming programmes for window renewal” and its process is to “repair and maintain existing fixtures and fittings”. It also said that renewal would not be considered when a component was deemed to be economically repairable.
7. It said that a repair order was issued on 19 November 2019 to overhaul the windows and an appointment would be scheduled for the 5 December 2019 to asses and complete repairs if needed.
8. It reiterated its apology for the management of its repairs service and explained the learning and development it took from the case, which was to brief the managers across the organisation about the case and issues. It said it interviewed staff, training was provided and it would reflect on performance.
The resident contacted the landlord the following day on 4 December 2019:
1. She requested an upgrade of the doors, if the landlord could not upgrade both windows and doors, on the basis that they did not provide property insulation and could easily be broken into. She explained she had arthritis so needed the property to be insulated to keep in the heat.
2. She could not report issues with the water pressure until August 2019 due to not being on the system.
3. The water pressure was “abysmal” as everything ran from the tank in the loft and immersion in the cupboard, the solution was to run everything from the mains water or install pumps.
4. She had taken several days off of work and this was unresolved.
5. She introduced a new complaint about the water temperature (no control over the water temperature). She explained her health issues (diabetes, circulatory issues and arthritis), so the water could burn her or her visitors without knowing. She felt the property was not suitable as advertised as being for over 55s.
6. She felt unhappy that no one had communicated with her apart from the letting officer, who she was satisfied with.
7. She introduced a new complaint about her reports from 1 October 2019 about a lamppost on the edge of the estate being out of order, and it was pitch black early morning and evenings.
8. She asked for all the repairs to be carried out on a Saturday or on the same day.
9. She wanted a repairs manager to inspect the property.
An operative attended on 5 December 2019 to draught proof the doors.
The landlord responded on 10 December 2019 and said it had updated the record to reflect her feedback, before stating:
1. The draft measures were installed to the front and garden doors, the windows and doors were deemed in good condition and did not require repair or replacement.
2. It would review the water pressure situation, an assessment would be undertaken in the forthcoming plumbing appointment and if there is nothing else it can do to improve the water pressure then it will let the resident know (and the resident can contact the Ombudsman).
3. It directed the resident to raise her concerns about the water temperature and the lamppost with the customer service centre as its complaint review only considered the water pressure and condition of the windows.
The resident asked the landlord if it was saying that she needed to put in further requests for repairs to the “scalding water and outstanding lamp post repairs” before contacting the landlord’s complaint team to ask for a call to arrange an appointment (10 December 2019).
The landlord’s complaint team reiterated its advice for the resident to contact the customer services team to report repairs unrelated to the window or water pressure, providing the details of the customer service team (12 December 2019). It also said that a visit was scheduled for 13 December 2019 at the property with the plumber and a surveyor, to assess the water pressure and locate a solution if one can be found.
On 8 January 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that the water pressure issue was resolved on 3 January 2020 following the inspection and it would close the case in two weeks if it had not heard from the resident. The resident contacted the landlord to confirm that the water pressure was resolved and so was another issue (not part of the complaint) but asked the landlord not to close the complaint until a door had been rectified. The landlord confirmed it would liaise with the surveyor to ensure the works were complete on 19 January 2020.
The landlord told the resident that a repair to the door (threshold strip) was complete and that it closed the complaint. The resident responded on the same day and told the landlord it could close the complaint, she also asked if the landlord would respond to her complaint about compensation related to the time taken to resolve the repair issue and the six weeks she was without access to the service to pay rent as she was still waiting for a response to this. The resident offered to send a copy of the original complaint (of October 2019).
On 15 April 2020 the resident sent a landlord a copy of a complaint form the resident filled on 21 July 2019 about a number of repairs. She asked the landlord to cross reference this with its records to provide compensation for the time she had been waiting for the repairs to be carried out. On 24 April 2020 the landlord enquired internally about the resident’s outstanding complaint concerns, including the delay in getting put on the system and the void works.
The resident emailed the landlord on 1 May 2020 and said:
1. Although the repairs were carried out in the relevant timescale following her report (reported on 14 August), she was denied reporting repairs before this as she was not on the system.
2. An operative serviced the boiler on 9 July 2019 and told her to control the heating from the thermostat because he knew the controller was not working. She said “had a post inspection been carried out following the void works this would have been picked up”.
3. The resident therefore set out her request for compensation (£1950) comprising:
  1. £50 per week for five weeks for “non access” which she calculated as 5 weeks, as she received a rent card on 7 August 2019 (£250)
  2. £200 for the time taken for the repairs
  3. £1,500 for the time taken off work, repairs not completed or operatives not turning up, including anxiety and stress.
The landlord replied on 5 May 2020 about the “unrelated repair issues”, it said it was waiting for feedback from the void team about the issues and said post inspections were completed prior to re-letting. It said the requested compensation was an excessive figure and it would review this before closing the case. The next day, on 6 May 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident again and said:
1. It received feedback from the voids team about the repair issues raised on 21 July and 21 August 2019. Some of the repairs had been booked and completed by operatives on 29 August 2019. Additional repairs were addressed in September 2019.
2. It acknowledged a service failure in the delay with the activation of the resident’s account details and that matters could have been dealt with more quickly.
3. It said there was a delay in resolving the repairs following the report in July although the voids team did then address the repairs swiftly following the second contact in August.
4. There was therefore an acknowledged service failure from the lack of response in July 2019, as the resident had to raise the repairs again in August 2019.
5. There was an acknowledged service failure from the delay in activating the resident’s details in July 2019, which meant her issues were not dealt with as quickly as they could have been.
6. It offered compensation of £320 for the time and effort the resident spent in contacting the landlord and the distress she experienced.
The resident queried the landlord’s offer of compensation as it did not factor in the low water pressure or other issues she mentioned in her previous emails, or the time she took off work where the operatives did not turn up or did not resolve the works. She asked the landlord to quantify how it came up with the figure it offered.
The landlord responded on 11 May 2020 and said that it could not consider compensation for loss of earnings, annual leave or time taken from work, it explained that this was because of the variation in resident’s circumstances and the need for it to be fair and consistent to all residents.
It said that it would award £400 after reviewing the resident’s points about the plumbing issues. It explained its compensation guidance allowed it to offer £200 for time and effort, £100 for distress and £100 for the length of time taken to resolve the repairs.
The resident asked for the compensation policy and then referred to the policy online. She asked the landlord to advise if it was £50 per repair (12 May 2020). The landlord responded on 14 May 2020. It said the compensation guidance document was for internal use only and the amount it offered would not be increased. It said that the case was closed. The language in landlord’s response to the resident’s query about the compensation conveyed the landlord’s opinion that the compensation was “generous” and the instruction for the resident to “confirm” her acceptance, as seen in the last part of its response “the amount is the maximum I can award, is generous and is not open to further appeal. Confirm your acceptance and I will arrange a rent credit to be added to offset the current arrears balance”.
The resident replied staring that the landlord had said on 6 May 2020 the case would be closed in 2 weeks (20 May) not 14 May and said this is why the landlord will “always have difficulty with responses and repeated failure demand”. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 14 May 2020 and asked that the issue be sorted out as she did not want to be “bullied” into accepting compensation from the landlord’s “unprofessional” email. She said that the complaint was closed on 14 May when it should have been two weeks from 6 May which was 20 May 2020.
The resident also contacted the chief executive, and the customer complaints team responded on 15 May 2020. The landlord’s response set out the history of repairs, it acknowledged a delay in picking these up initially but found that once it did they were progressed in a timely manner. The landlord iterated its acknowledged service failure and delay in activating the resident’s account. It explained its learning from the case (it briefed the senior managers of the case and issues, staff were interviewed and training provided to reflect on their performance). It set out the compensation sum of £400 for time and trouble in contacting the landlord, the time taken for issues to resolve, and distress experienced. It held that the resident was responded to appropriately, lessons had been learned and proportional compensation had been awarded. Finally, it said that “escalation of the complaint or further review will have no influence on the outcome. The complaint is closed” before signposting the resident to the Ombudsman.
The resident responded and said that the landlord had missed the point which was that the landlord gave her two weeks to accept the offer dated 6 May, but it reneged on that by saying it closed the complaint on 14 May 2020. She said that she was annoyed and frustrated by the complaint handler’s actions.
It was not disputed that the repairs were completed in a reasonable timescale once the landlord acknowledged these in August 2019. The outstanding dispute was over the landlord’s communication over the compensation and the closure of the complaint. The resident’s dissatisfaction was over her view that the landlord had been “unprofessional” and “bullying” when she asked about the compensation and when the landlord said it closed the case earlier than it agreed to.

Assessment and findings

There was a service failure in the landlord’s service in July 2019 as it did not take action in response to the resident’s report of repairs until August 2019, nor did it activate her rent account in a timely manner. Having acknowledged the failures the landlord offered redress, in the form of compensation to the resident and training to its staff, as per its complaint response. It offered £400 and offered a breakdown of how it came to this amount which included payment for distress, time and trouble.
The level of redress awarded by the landlord is reasonable as it is the amount the Ombudsman would award for those failings where there has been a considerable service failure but there has been no permanent impact on the resident. For example, where a resident has had to chase a response or there has been a failure for a considerable length of time to act in accordance with a policy, such as to address repairs.
In the circumstances of this complaint, after the initial delay (from July 2019 to August 2019) the landlord responded within a reasonable timescale to the resident’s reports about repairs in the property. Once the water pressure and windows/door repairs (draught proofing and then an additional repair not raised in the initial complaint) had been completed (December 2019 – January 2020), the resident asked about the original items from her complaint to the Ombudsman in October 2019, offering to send a copy of this directly to the landlord in addition to referring to her communication to the landlord of July 2019. The landlord did not consider these under its complaint response, but, once it was notified of the additional points its subsequent communication demonstrated that it investigated the issues with the voids team. As some of the repairs were raised to the Ombudsman but not the landlord and some of the repairs were raised as new points during the complaint response, the landlord’s actions were reasonable because it directed the resident to the correct team to report new repairs. It was reasonable for the landlord to engage with the complaint separately from the new repairs which were raised.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s query about the brand of the paint used was reasonable as it did not have this information. The evidence shows it enquired into this and then told the resident the outcome, with apologies for not being able to resolve her request. There is no evidence that there was a service failure by the landlord in the discussion about the paint although it is acknowledged that the landlord’s response did not resolve the issue.
The outstanding dispute was over the landlord’s communication. It was not necessary for the landlord to share its view on the compensation offer. It would have been reasonable for its communication to simply explain that it would not increase the compensation offer. However, this is not a service failure, nor is the differing communication about the case closure. This is because the outcome remained unchanged; there was no “adverse effect” on the resident as a result of the landlord’s communication. The resident was still offered a reasonable amount of compensation for the identified service failure and she was able to successfully escalate her complaint to the Ombudsman, as per the complaint policy.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord offered reasonable redress to the resident for its acknowledged service failure in its response to the reports of repairs and a delay in activating the rent account.

Reasons

The landlord acknowledged a service failure in the delay to address the resident’s repairs and activate her account and it offered fair compensation to reflect the inconvenience this caused. Its records demonstrate that it raised and completed the outstanding repairs and directed the resident to the appropriate team to report her new repair issues. It therefore offered a reasonable response to the complaint.

Recommendations

Within four weeks of the date of the report the landlord is recommended to:
1. Pay the resident the original £400 compensation (if this has not already been paid)
2. Provide the resident with the correct service charge information if this has not already been provided.