London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202111792)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111792

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

11 March 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak in the property, and his subsequent compensation request.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord in a four-bedroom house.
The resident contacted the landlord at 10.45am on 2 October 2020 and reported an uncontainable leak from a pipe in the kitchen, which had caused flooding to the kitchen and bedroom. The landlord raised an emergency work order, advised the resident a contractor would attend after 5pm and marked the job as complete at 8.50pm. The job required two people for further work to resolve the leak, so a follow-on job was raised on 5 October 2020 and an appointment was booked for 15 October 2020. It is not clear from the repairs records whether the leak was contained on completion of the appointment.
The resident emailed the landlord on 4 October 2020 as the leak was still ongoing and due to poor weather, the leak and subsequent damp had gotten worse. He said the bedroom and kitchen walls had large damp areas, and “the floor in the kitchen is requiring us to put towels down constantly to enable us to still use this area”. He sent pictures of the damage and asked the landlord to fix the issue promptly before there was more structural damage or potential damage to his belongings.
The resident called the landlord on 15 October 2020 to confirm whether the appointment would be attended. He was later informed the appointment had been “suspended” and as a result he raised a complaint. He said he was concerned about the condition of the property as the leak was getting worse, particularly when it rained. He was dissatisfied with the lack of communication from the landlord regarding the repairs. The landlord acknowledged his complaint the following day.
An appointment was booked for 22 October 2020 for an assessment of the leak. The attending contractor recommended unblocking the rainwater pipe, and a follow-on work order was raised to do so.
The resident emailed the landlord on 26 October 2020. He said the contractor had identified “the drain leading to the car park was blocked and needed to be cleared out”. He said there was significant mould in the kitchen and bedroom.
The landlord emailed the resident on 30 October 2020 stating that a contractor had attended to unblock the drain, however it was a larger job than anticipated, so the repair was not completed. It said it would provide further updates once it had confirmed the next action it would take.
The resident emailed the landlord on 1 November 2020, following an emergency appointment the previous evening, as the kitchen ceiling had fallen through. He said a contractor had attended the property and had cleaned, but not repaired the ceiling. He said the kitchen was inaccessible as the floor was covered in water and there was severe damp and mould. He also listed further repairs that he said would need to be completed “all due to ignoring previous emails and phone calls I sent over about our growing concern of the issue”. He asked for a contractor to attend to the leak and “fix the issue, not just clean up” as cleaning only helped the issue for a few hours before the water began to leak again. The landlord responded the following day and said a contractor would attend on 3 November 2020 to investigate the leak and carry out remedial works.
A contractor attended on 3 November 2020 and the landlord emailed the resident to inform him it had identified the source of the leak as from “the gully pipe”.
Mould treatment was completed on 6 November 2020. Following the appointment, the landlord emailed the resident and said it had confirmed that the repair was a latent defect so the developer would contact him regarding further repairs. Once the leak was resolved it would repair the further damage.
From 11 November 2020 to 18 November 2020 internal emails between the landlord and the developer discussed whether the leak was a result of a latent defect and which of them had responsibility for the repair.
The resident emailed the landlord on 12 November 2020 further expressing his dissatisfaction with the condition of the property, the landlord’s handling of the repairs and its communication. He said that as the kitchen ceiling had fallen through and it had “been consistently flooded” since the leak was reported, meaning it was not fit for habitation. He said the bedroom was also uninhabitable due to the carpets and cupboards being “completely sodden” and the noise generated by the leaking pipe. The contents of the room had to be moved to other areas of the property, which had caused disruption.
Following correspondence with the resident, his MP emailed the landlord on 19 November 2020. She said that the resident had informed her the leak had been ongoing for over seven weeks and the property was uninhabitable. She asked it to address the resident’s concerns outlined in the email he sent on 12 November 2020. The landlord sent an acknowledgment the following day and said it would respond within ten working days.
An internal email on 19 November 2020 states that although the landlord thought the developer should be responsible for the repair, it had arranged an appointment for the following day to complete the repair as the issue had been ongoing for too long.
According to the landlord’s complaint response a contractor attended on 20 November 2020, completed a test to confirm the repairs were successful, and cleaned the site.
The landlord emailed the MP on 27 November 2020. It apologised for the delays and said it was a result of ongoing discussions with the developer about the repairs. It said that due to the impact on the resident, it had decided to complete the repairs, rather than wait for the developer. It said the leak had been resolved and the remaining remedial works would be completed the week commencing 7 December 2020. When the works had been completed, it would review its compensation offer.
The resident emailed the landlord on 9 December 2020 confirming the work had been completed.
The landlord sent its stage one complaint response on 13 January 2021. It apologised for the amount of time it had taken to resolve the leak and complete the subsequent repairs. It offered him a total of £300 compensation, broken down into £100 each for inconvenience, distress, and time and trouble.
The resident emailed the landlord on 25 January 2021 and stated that he found the compensation amount unreasonable as it took two months to resolve the issue. He said the property was uninhabitable and he still had to pay the full rent amount during this time. He asked for the complaint to be escalated.
The landlord rang the resident on 5 February 2021. He said he wanted reimbursement for the rent paid while issue was ongoing. The landlord advised it would not be able to as the property was still occupied. It said it could offer 25% reimbursement of the rent as the damp and mould in the bedroom meant it could not be used. The resident asked to escalate the complaint.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation on 12 February 2021.
The landlord sent a letter to the resident on 11 March 2021 apologising for the delay in its response time. It said it aimed to respond by 26 March 2021.
The landlord sent its stage two response on 19 March 2021. It reiterated the timeline of events and the actions it had taken to resolve the leak and the damage caused. It said the repairs should have “been managed more effectively”. It had provided further training to staff and contractors regarding the issues identified in the case. It offered him compensation of £100 for inconvenience, £100 for distress, £100 for time and effort, £20 for the missed appointment on 15 October 2020 and £20 for its delayed response. It also offered £406.69 for not having use of one of the bedrooms, which it calculated as 25% of the rent for the period of 67 days it was uninhabitable, it offered £746.69 It signposted him to this Service if he remained dissatisfied.
The resident emailed the landlord on 24 March 2021. He queried its calculation for the loss of the bedroom, and asked why no compensation had been offered for the loss of the kitchen despite the landlord acknowledging that the ceiling had fallen through.
The landlord responded on 16 May 2021. It said it “used the information of our system to work out the weekly rent” on which to base the loss of bedroom compensation. It also explained that it was unable to consider loss of the kitchen as during a phone call on 5 February 2021 he gave evidence showing he was still able to use it.

Assessment and findings

The tenancy agreement states the landlord is obliged to keep the exterior and structure of the property in good repair.
The landlord’s repair guide states:
1. It is responsible for maintaining walls and external pipes.
2. It is responsible for repairs to penetrative and rising damp.
3. It is responsible for repairs to ceilings when cracked (5mm+) or severely crumbling.
4. It is responsible for repairing any leaking pipework.
5. Emergency works that occur out of hours will be made safe within four hours and a follow-on repair will be completed at “earliest mutually convenient appointment”.
The landlord’s compensation policy states:
1. It will offer compensation to acknowledge impact, inconvenience, distress and time/ effort.
2. It will offer a rent refund for loss of a facility, which will be based on the weekly rent amount and time without the facility.
3. It will offer compensation for loss of “communal amenities/services”, including when a repair exceeds its timeframes.
4. It will pay £10 for failure to respond to a query within 10 days and failure to adhere to complaint timeframes.
5. It will pay £20 for a missed appointment.
6. It will not offer compensation until repair issues have been resolved.
The tenancy agreement and repairs policy both confirm that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure of the property and resolving leaks. It was therefore necessary for the landlord to investigate the resident’s reports of the leak in his property and take appropriate action to resolve any issues it identified. It is unclear from the repair records what the condition of the leak was following completion of the appointment. Further correspondence between the landlord and the resident indicates that the leak had not been contained as the resident stated on 4 October 2020 (two days after the initial report) that he had to put towels down constantly to be able to use the kitchen. In addition, he said on 12 November 2020 that the kitchen had been consistently flooded since it was first reported. If the leak was ongoing, basic good practice would be for the landlord to at least attempt to implement interim measures to limit the impact the leak had on the resident; there is no evidence indicating that it did.
Following the initial appointment, follow-on work was raised for 15 October 2020, and then rescheduled for 22 October. The reason for the change of dates is not apparent from the evidence provided, but, in the face of the apparently ongoing leak, the added delay was significant. The landlord then identified the source of the leak on 3 November 2020, but the repair works to fix it were further delayed due to discussions between the landlord and the developer regarding responsibility for the repairs. The landlord authorised the works to be completed by its contractor, rather than the developer, on 19 November 2020, which were completed the following day. The fact the works were completed the following day once they were raised, indicates that they could have been completed earlier if the landlord had wanted to. The discussions with the developer therefore caused an additional 12 working day delay to the resolution of the leak.
If a property is a new build and still in it defects period it would be understandable for a landlord to discuss with the developer whether repairs were the result of latent defects. However, if a leak is ongoing and having an impact on the resident, such discussions should not delay further work to resolve the problem, as seems to have been the case here. Again, there is no evidence of the landlord attempting interim measures during this time to limit the impact on the resident. Overall, it took the landlord from 2 October 2020 to 20 November 2020 to stop the leak and further remedial works were completed by 9 December 2020. When considering the impact the resident had been reporting to the landlord, this was an unreasonable delay.
The landlord acknowledged that the repairs were not handled in line with its policy and as a result it offered a total of £746.69 compensation. The compensation for the missed appointment and the delayed complaint response time was reasonable, and in line with the landlord’s policies and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for similar circumstances. The landlord offered £406.69 compensation due to the bedroom not being habitable while the leak was ongoing. Although the landlord calculated the compensation in line with its policy (a percentage of the whole rent), the amount of rent used in the calculation does not match what the resident’s tenancy agreement says the rent is. The resident also disputed the calculation, to which the landlord did not provide a clear explanation or respond when further queried. As a result, this element of the complaint is unresolved, and was a service failure.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code also sets out that the Ombudsman expects landlords to “address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate”. The landlord did not consider for the damage to the kitchen or address the resident’s concerns about it in its complaint responses. The resident raised the issue of the kitchen being uninhabitable on several occasions, citing having to clean up the water to access it, health implications of the mould and the ceiling falling through. As the landlord deemed the kitchen to be habitable, following information the resident provided it with on 5 February 2021, it was reasonable for it to not offer compensation for the loss of the room the same way it had with the bedroom. However, the resident had raised the issue in his complaint, and the landlord needed to consider the matter and whether any specific compensation was due. It did not do so, and that was a significant failing.
Overall, there were clear delays to the repair works. It is not clear from the landlord’s repair records whether the leak had been made safe or whether it remained uncontainable while the repairs were ongoing, but the indications are that the leak continued, hence the compensation for the bedroom being uninhabitable. The landlord acknowledged the excessive delay and the impact on the resident, and its apologies and compensation were suitable and reasonable remedies to its repair failings. However, its calculation of the compensation for the loss of use of the bedroom does not appear to use the correct level of rent, it failed to explain its calculation when asked, and it failed to properly consider the damage to the kitchen and resultant impact on the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

In light of the issues highlighted in this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £250 for failing to consider the damage, and the apparent impact of the leak to the kitchen.
2. Provide a clear explanation to the resident about its calculations of the payment for the loss of the bedroom (i.e. why the rent it used is different to the rent in the tenancy agreement), and recalculate if a mistake was made.
This compensation is in addition to the compensation offered by the landlord previously, which should now also be paid, if it has not been already.
Evidence of compliance with the above orders must be provided to this Service within four weeks of this report.