London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202127773)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127773

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

24 November 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 regarding the landlord’s handling of:
    1. A leak affecting the resident’s property and subsequent related repairs.
    2. The resident’s associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a two-bedroom flat within a block of similar properties. She has resided there since 2008.
  2. A repair order was initially raised on 18 January 2022 as there was a leak from the resident’s bathroom into the flat below. An operative attended on the same day and identified that follow-on work was required to drain down the hot water cylinder and replace a leaking fitting. The resident contacted the landlord the following day in relation to follow-on works. She reported that the leak had not been resolved and that her bath panel had been damaged by the operative.
  3. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 20 January 2022. She expressed concern that the leak had not yet been resolved and that she had been told she would receive a call back but did not. She also raised concern that no follow-on work to replace her bath panel had been raised. She later expressed dissatisfaction that she needed to chase the landlord for updates on a regular basis and had received no contact from the contractors regarding the works required. She also requested that the landlord provide a schedule of works and compensate her for the distress and inconvenience she had been caused.
  4. The landlord arranged for a further survey of the leak, which was completed on 1 February 2022. Following this, a new repair order to replace the hot water cylinder was passed to a subcontractor on 23 February 2022. An appointment to replace the bath panel was scheduled for 17 March 2022, however, the panel did not fit correctly, and a different panel therefore had to be ordered. Landlord repair records indicate work to renew the hot water cylinder was completed on 23 March 2022. Further follow-on works to re-plaster and tile the resident’s bathroom walls were carried out in April 2022. However, the resident continued to report that the leak was ongoing.
  5. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord initially apologised for the inconvenience caused by the outstanding repairs. It confirmed an appointment to replace the bath panel was scheduled for 17 March 2022, however it transpired that a different panel was required, and an appointment had been scheduled for 13 May 2022 to fit this. It apologised for the delay in completing work to the resident’s plastering and explained the operative who had initially assessed the work required had left the business and it had therefore had to re-inspect. A new contractor had provided a quote for the work on 25 April 2022, but this had been delayed and the works were therefore scheduled to be completed on 9 May 2022. The landlord advised the resident would need to pursue a claim through its insurance team for any damage that had been caused to her personal belongings as a result of the leak and provided details on how to do so. It also apologised for its lack of communication and the delay in acknowledging the complaint. It offered a total of £325 compensation, comprised of £150 for inconvenience, £100 for distress caused, £50 for the resident’s time and effort in changing the repairs and £25 for failures in its complaint handling.
  6. Additional works to resolve the leak were carried out on 12 May 2022. The resident then raised concerns about the outstanding work to plastering within her airing cupboard which housed her water tank, noting that the plaster and brickwork was crumbling. The landlord confirmed that it would need to ensure that the area was dry following the leak and that the next available appointment to assess the works required was 18 August 2022. The resident referred her complaint to this Service on 31 May 2022 as she remained dissatisfied that the repairs to the plastering in the airing cupboard following the leak remained outstanding. She wanted the work to be completed in a timely manner and did not feel that the landlord’s offer of compensation was sufficient.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In correspondence with this Service, the resident has raised further concerns regarding the length of time taken to complete additional plastering repairs following the completion of the landlord’s complaint procedure. However, as these concerns have been raised with the landlord as a formal complaint in May 2022, these issues have not yet exhausted the landlord’s internal complaint procedures. As a result, in accordance with Paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this investigation will not consider matters which have yet to exhaust the landlord’s complaints procedure.

The landlord’s handling of a leak affecting the resident’s property and subsequent related repairs

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy confirms it is responsible for repairs required to internal walls and plasterwork as well as installations for the supply of water, including pipework. It states emergency repairs should be attended to within 24 hours. The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms a leaking water tank, pipe or cistern, would be considered an emergency repair. The policy confirms routine repairs should be completed at the earliest mutually convenient appointment.
  2. In this case, it is not disputed there was delay in carrying out repairs following reports of a leak within the resident’s property on 18 January 2022. After the initial report of a leak, the landlord acted appropriately by attending the property on the same day. This was in line with its emergency repair timescales. While the landlord’s repairs policy does not specify a target for completing routine repairs, the Ombudsman would expect routine repairs to be completed within a reasonable time frame, which is usually four to six weeks. As the hot water cylinder was not replaced until 23 March 2022, around eight weeks after the leak was reported, this therefore constituted a delay.
  3. It should be noted it can take more than one attempt to resolve issues such as leaks as it can be difficult to identify the cause of the issue at the outset. In some cases, different repairs may need to be attempted before the matter is resolved. Therefore, the delay would not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord. The landlord was entitled to rely on the opinions of its qualified staff and contractors when deciding what work to undertake. However, evidence shows the resident needed to chase the landlord in order to get updates on the progress of the repairs, which was likely to cause her distress and inconvenience.
  4. There is also no evidence to suggest that all the works identified as being necessary following the leak were fully completed until 12 May 2022, approximately five months since the initial report of a leak. Additionally, there also appears to have been avoidable delay, particular concerning the replacement of the resident’s bath panel. The landlord advised a further inspection was required as an operative had left the company. This raises concerns over the landlord’s record keeping, as its repair records should be regularly updated to allow it to provide a consistent service and for its scheduled repairs to be unhampered by inevitable staff turnover. However, it was otherwise reasonable for the landlord to wait until the leak had been resolved before completing further works to the tiling and plaster within the property to ensure that no additional damage would be caused by the ongoing issues.
  5. The landlord also acted appropriately by referring the resident to its insurance provider for any claims for damage to her belongings as a result of the leak. Although there is insufficient evidence to show the landlord was directly at fault for causing the leak, it was reasonable for it to advise the resident to contact its liability insurer. Landlords are entitled to have insurance policies to cover the cost of liability claims and the landlord would not be expected to consider a claim for damage to the resident’s possessions outside the insurance process. The Ombudsman cannot investigate the actions of the landlord’s insurer and therefore will not comment further on the insurance process or the outcome of any claim.
  6. The landlord has acknowledged and apologised for the delay in completing repairs and the time and trouble the resident spent pursuing these. It demonstrated it had learnt from the complaint by acknowledging its failings and confirming it would provide feedback to staff to prevent the same issues occurring in the future. The landlord also offered compensation to the resident that was intended to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused and the time and trouble the resident spent chasing it for updates. It is noted the resident sought additional compensation as she had not been able to use her bathroom in full during this time. The landlord acted appropriately by confirming it would only consider paying compensation for the loss of a room where the resident was left without complete use of the room. This is reasonable and in line with the landlord’s compensation policy. It was, however, appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
  7. Where the landlord has acknowledged failings and offered redress, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether what has been offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances and whether it was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  8. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistake and apologising to the resident. It put things right by awarding £300 compensation. The compensation offered was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (available on our website) which states that amounts between £100-£600 are considered proportionate in instances of considerable service failure or maladministration but where there is no permanent impact on the resident. Examples include a complainant repeatedly having to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes, necessitating unreasonable level of involvement by that complainant or failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs. The landlord offered compensation that the Ombudsman considers to have been reasonable redress, proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in this case.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states it has a two-stage formal complaints process. At stage one, the landlord should respond 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 should contact the resident, explain the reason for the delay and provide a new response timeframe, which should not exceed a further ten working days.
  2. In this case, the resident initially raised a complaint on 20 January 2022 and the landlord acted appropriately by responding the following day. The resident initially asked for her complaint to be escalated on 16 February 2022 and the landlord confirmed on 4 March 2022 the allocation of the complaint was taking longer than expected due to staff availability. It acted appropriately by apologising for the delay and providing a reasonable explanation, but it should also have provided an estimated timescale for response. It should also have provided the resident with updated on the progression of her complaint in order to adequately manage her expectations. This would have ensured it acted in line with its policies.
  3. As a result of the landlord’s poor communication, the resident needed to repeatedly seek updates on the complaint and needed to spend additional time and trouble pursuing a response with the support of this Service. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 1 April 2022, asking it to provide the resident with a stage two complaint response by 19 April 2022. The stage two complaint was not acknowledged by the landlord until 4 April 2022, over a month after her initial request. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 5 May 2022, which was significantly outside of its published timescale for response by 34 working days from her initial request.
  4. The landlord acted appropriately by acknowledging the delay in issuing its stage two complaint response and offering £25 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused. However, this amount is considered disproportionately low given the time and trouble spent by the resident in pursuing a response and the lack of clear communication by the landlord. As such, the landlord is to pay the resident an additional £50 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its complaint handling, bringing the total to £75. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance as detailed above. Amounts between £50-£100 are considered proportionate in instances of service failure which had an impact on the resident but did not affect the overall outcome of the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation in respect of its handling of a leak affecting the resident’s property and subsequent related repairs, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and Recommendations

Order

  1. The landlord is to pay the resident an additional £50 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling within four weeks, bringing the total award to £75. For clarity, this is on top of the £25 previously awarded as part of the landlord’s overall compensation offer of £325 (and therefore bringing the overall total to £375).

 Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident the £325it previously offered as compensation if it has not already done so.
  2. It is recommended the landlord addresses the additional plastering repairs if it has not already done so. It should also contact the resident to address the separate complaint regarding these issues.
  3. It is recommended the landlord considers further training for complaint handlers to ensure that complaints are dealt with in line with its policy and that residents’ expectations are adequately managed when there is likely to be a delayed complaint response.