London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202114580)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114580

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

12 August 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:
  1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about overgrown trees.
  2. The landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident, who is a secure tenant of the landlord, first raised the issue of overgrown trees affecting her property in June/July 2020. This included damage to her patio and garden area. The landlord maintained that the issue was not its responsibility as it believed the overgrown area belonged to the Local Authority (LA). However, this stance changed multiple times over the following months due to lack of clarity over who owned the area. Due to COVID restrictions that were introduced over the following months, there was a delay in the landlord being able to address the issue and inspect the property. The next time the landlord attended the property was in May/June 2021.
  2. The resident submitted her formal complaint on 16 August 2021. Additionally, several emails prior to this complaint highlighted her concerns that her shed had been damaged from the overgrowth, that there were cracks in her patio and walls of the property, the drains had become blocked, and that there was a pest issue resulting from the overgrowth.
  3. After receiving no formal response, the resident contacted this Service on 3 November 2021. This Service requested for the landlord to provide a formal response. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord gave a formal stage one response, and instead the evidence shows that it only gave a final response, on 24 December 2021.
  4. The landlord’s final response confirmed that it still did not know who was responsible for the maintenance of the area. However, it did agree to trim any overgrowth that crossed the boundary line, and into the resident’s garden. On 27 January 2022, the landlord confirmed that it did own the area and was therefore responsible for the trees. An email sent to the landlord from the resident on 14 March 2022 states that contactors attended to cut some of the branches, however, the rest of the issues remained outstanding.

Assessment and findings

Policies & Procedures

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it ‘will write within 10 working days after [receiving] a complaint to explain the outcome of [its] investigation.
  2. Section 4.8 of the landlord’s Compensation Policy states that the landlord will pay £10 for ‘failure to respond to a formal complaint within the timescales published in [its] Complaints Policy’.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about an overgrown area

  1. It is unclear exactly when the resident first reported the issue to the landlord regarding the overgrown area, however, from the evidence provided, it is reasonable to assume that her first report was in June/July 2020. Following the initial report, the landlord maintained that the responsibility for the maintenance of the area was held by the LA. However, the landlord provided no evidence confirming that this was the case. In an email to the resident on 2 July 2021, the landlord said that ‘[It could] see from [its] records that it was confirmed by the property manager that the trees [were] the responsibility of [the LA]’. However, the landlord did not explain further why this was the case. It provided no evidence to suggest that this had been confirmed.
  2. It is important to understand how the landlord came to this conclusion, as not only was it confirmed not to be the LA’s responsibility, as stated in the landlord’s final response (24 December 2021), but the determination of whose responsibility it was had changed multiple times during the course of the landlord’s investigation into the issue, and for the most part, was not made clear to the resident. For example, the final response confirmed that neither the landlord nor the LA was responsible for the overgrown area. Following this, an email to the resident on 4 January 2022 stated that the landlord wanted the LA to arrange a regular maintenance programme to manage the trees. This would have suggested to the resident that the landlord understood the LA to be responsible, although as mentioned above, no evidence had been presented to suggest so. Then, on 27 January 2022, an internal email between the landlord’s staff confirmed that the LA did not own the area and it was in fact owned by the landlord.
  3. This confusion and failure to find a definitive answer regarding the ownership caused unnecessary delay in dealing with the overgrowth. It is important for the landlord to fully understand what land it owns and what areas it is responsible for as the landlord has a responsibility to maintain these areas. Should an issue arise, needless delay in addressing the issue can be avoided if the landlord is already sure of what responsibilities it holds. Additionally, following the internal email on 27 January 2022, there was no evidence to suggest that the landlord confirmed to the resident that it was in fact responsible for the area. It is important for the landlord to provide clarity to the resident, to reduce needless stress and inconvenience regarding the situation. This can have a detrimental effect on the landlord/tenant relationship.
  4. Given that the ownership of the area was a subject of dispute, the landlord would be expected to work with the LA in order to address the resident’s concerns adequately. The landlord did indicate intention to do this. Following a home visit conducted by the landlord around 13 October 2020, the landlord suggested that it would be carrying out a joint inspection with the LA to ‘get the trees pruned and removed where necessary’. However, the landlord has provided no evidence that this inspection was completed. It is important for the landlord to follow through with assurances made to the resident. If unable to attend, or maintain an assurance, the landlord must provide the resident with reasoning, and a timeframe as to when the resident could expect the agreed inspection to occur. Failure to do so further damages the landlord/tenant relationship. Additionally, it may convey to the resident that the landlord is not taking her concerns seriously.
  5. An email on 2 July 2021 also highlighted the landlord’s intention to work with the LA, as it confirmed that it had chased the LA on the resident’s behalf, and had also given the resident a number by which to contact the LA directly. However, again, the resident was not given closure, and was left with uncertainty regarding who held responsibility for the maintenance for the overgrown area, and when it would be addressed. Although it was encouraging that the landlord showed intent to work with the LA, its failure to keep the resident updated was further indicative of the landlord’s communication failings.
  6. Even though the responsibility of the overgrown area was in dispute, the landlord had informed the resident that it would cut the trees. On 8 June 2021, the resident stated in an email that the landlord had attended with a tree surgeon, who had informed the resident that the trees were scheduled to be removed in November. However, no confirmation of this work was provided, and when November arrived, no work on the trees was completed. Additionally, following the resident’s formal complaint, in an internal email on 16 August 2021, the landlord requested for the trimming of the trees to be arranged.
  7. However, due to the uncertainty regarding the ownership of the area at that time, it is unclear whether the landlord was requesting for this to be done by the LA, or whether the landlord was asking its maintenance team to do this work. The landlord had clearly identified that the trees needed trimming, and therefore should have ensured that whomever it believed to be responsible would undertake the work.
  8. In its final response, the landlord stated that although it did not yet know who was responsible for the trees, it would trim any branches that crossed the boundary line and onto the resident’s property. The trees were trimmed in March 2022, almost two years after the resident first reported the issue to the landlord. If the trimming of branches that crossed the boundary line had always been a possibility for the landlord, then it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have done this at an earlier stage. In not doing so, the area was left to grow further out of control over a large period of time, eventually resulting in the resident’s reports of a pest infestation, and her reported damage to the shed.
  9. On 16 August 2021, the landlord sent the resident its insurer’s information in order to claim for damages to the shed and patio. This was reasonable as damages to personal goods are generally made through an insurance claim. However, it is not clear whether the resident has pursued this. Whilst it was reasonable for the landlord to give its insurer’s details for potential damages, the landlord would be expected to pay compensation for the time and trouble that the resident experienced in pursuing the complaint.
  10. As mentioned above, the resident had been chasing the issue for almost two years since her first report to the landlord. This Service’s remedies guidance suggests that for instances where the resident was ‘repeatedly having to chase responses… necessitating unreasonable level of involvement’, a payment of £250 to £700 would be expected. It would be appropriate for the landlord to pay a sum in recognition of the time and trouble spent by the resident in pursuing the complaint.
  11. Although it is understandable that part of the delay was due to the COVID restrictions that were imposed by the government, the delay was principally caused by the landlord’s failure to identify that it was responsible for the area in question. Whilst t was reasonable for the landlord to investigate whether it held this responsibility, it took an excessive amount of time to obtain a clear understanding of responsibility here. This resulted in the failure to address the resident’s concerns about overgrown trees in a reasonable timeframe.
  12. There were other aspects of the resident’s complaint that were not appropriately addressed by the landlord. One of these concerns was the presence of pests that the resident had noticed at the property. The landlord acknowledged in its final response that the resident was seeking a ‘comprehensive treatment for rat infestation in the car park and surrounding areas’. However, there was no further mention of the issue. Additionally, a few months prior, in an internal email on 16 August 2021, the landlord asked for this issue to be dealt with, but no progress was made.
  13. The presence of pests is a serious issue that if left un-treated, has the potential to pose potential health risks to the occupants of the property and can also impact upon the property itself. At the first mention and acknowledgement of pests at the property, the landlord should have arranged for a contractor to attend, in order to identify the severity of the issue, and what could be done to rectify the problem. The landlord was fully aware of the issue, yet failed to appropriately acknowledge or act upon it.
  14. There is also no evidence of the landlord having acted in relation to the pest issue after it identified that it was in fact responsible for the car park area where the resident had said the issue had originated. This represents a serious failure on the landlord’s part as, by this stage, it was fully aware of its responsibility here.
  15. The same can also be said for the potential subsidence issue at the property. The resident mentioned throughout correspondence that she believed the roots of the trees were causing cracks on her patio and to the structural exterior of the property. This is a potentially serious issue, and one that should have been addressed at the very first report from the resident. The landlord should have sent a surveyor to the property to inspect the cause of the cracks, and to determine how serious the issue was. However, the landlord only acknowledged it as part of its final response. It stated that it had ‘raised an inspection request for a surveyor to attend [the resident’s] property in the new year. [It] will look at issues with subsidence and the visible cracks appearing on the side of [the resident’s] property. It is not clear whether this inspection has been carried out following the landlord’s final response.
  16. This service’s remedies guidance states that payments between £250 to £700 are appropriate for cases in which there was a ‘failing to address all relevant aspect of [the] complaint, leading to considerable delay in resolving the complaint’. There was clearly a failure by the landlord to appropriately address all issues of the complaint, and it is still unclear as to whether or not these issues have been resolved. Additionally, the substantive issue of the clearance of the overgrown area appears to have not been resolved. Internal correspondence following the landlord’s final response suggests that it is responsible for the maintenance and clearance of the area and therefore, the landlord would be expected to rectify the issue. The collective failures to appropriately address all of the resident’s concerns, and the time that it took to take action amounts to maladministration, with the highest amount possible under the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance considered proportionate in this instance.

The landlord’s complaints handling

  1. The landlord confirmed that the resident submitted her formal complaint on 16 August 2021. The landlord’s Complaints Policy states that it ‘will write within 10 working days after [receiving] a complaint to explain the outcome of [its] investigation. However, the landlord failed to provide a formal response within a reasonable time. It gave its response on 24 December 2021, after correspondence from this Service.
  2. This Service acknowledges that on occasions there will be circumstances that mean a complaint response cannot be provided by the designated timeframe. This is usually to be expected when complaints are complex and further investigation is required. Therefore, it would be reasonable to expect that a landlord would contact the resident, explain in detail the reasons for the delay, and provide a new timeframe whereby the resident would expect to receive a response. However, the landlord failed to provide any kind of formal response until correspondence from this Service prompted it to do so.
  3. Additionally, the landlord uses a two stage complaints procedure, which is a procedure that is in line with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. However, it failed to act in accordance with this policy. Rather than providing a stage one response, the landlord proceeded directly to the final stage of its complaints process. This failure to provide a formal stage one response meant that the resident did not have the opportunity to challenge the landlord and escalate her complaint. The Ombudsman’s view is that a complaints procedure with only one stage poses a number of risks and is not in keeping with the Ombudsman’s new Complaint Handling Code. Only allowing one response to a complaint is unfair as this does not allow sufficient opportunity for residents to respond to the landlord’s position, particularly where this includes information that may be new to the resident or where an issue has been overlooked.
  4. Having a further stage allows for a review, which brings a wider perspective and level of expertise to a complaint, and may ensure full consideration of both sides of a complaint. A complaint that progresses through both stages promptly also provides an opportunity for landlords to spot patterns, stop issues from escalating and to learn from outcomes. Complaints can provide independent, practical, and unique insights providing an early warning system for significant problems and acting as a catalyst for organisational learning.
  5. Section 4.8 of the landlord’s Compensation Policy states that the landlord will pay £10 for ‘failure to respond to a formal complaint within the timescales published in [its] Complaints Policy’. Although an offer of £10 would not be reasonable given the length of delay in response, the landlord’s own policy states that remedy should be offered, yet the landlord failed to make any kind of compensation offer in its response. This was a failure to act in accordance with its own policy
  6. The failure to provide the resident with an opportunity to progress her complaint through both stages of the procedure is a serious failure that amounts to maladministration by the landlord. Additionally, the landlord failed to provide the resident with any form of compensation for this, as its complaints policy suggests it should do. This Service’s remedies guidance suggests that payments between £250 to £700 are reasonable for instances in which there were ‘significant failure to follow complaint procedure’. There for, it is appropriate for the landlord to pay compensation within this range for its complaint handling failures.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports about overgrown trees.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £950 within 28 days of this investigation. This can be broken down to:
  1. £700 for the failures identified in response to the resident’s reports about the overgrown trees and foliage affecting her property.
  2. £250 for the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
  1. The landlord is also ordered to provide to the resident clear confirmation of who is responsible for the overgrown area, and a clear and detailed plan of how it intends to rectify the issues raised by the resident, including her reports about pests, the subsidence issue and the impact upon her shed. This is to be issued within 28 days of this investigation.
  2. In respect of both the above orders, the landlord is to provide evidence of compliance to this Service by the same date (within 28 days of this report).

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord conducts a review of how it progresses complaints through its procedure, and ensures that future complaints are handled in accordance with both the landlord’s own procedure, and the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.
  2. It is also recommended that the landlord conducts a review of its record keeping processes in order to ensure that contractor notes, and notes regarding any visits are provided in future investigations. Additionally, this should include any correspondence or evidence that has caused the landlord to come to any conclusions regarding repair and maintenance responsibilities.