London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202118898)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202118898

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

2 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

The complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to the front and back doors of the property.
2. The associated formal complaint into the matter.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a house.
On 22 March 2021 a pair work order was raised following a report from the resident that two fence panels had fallen in the back garden, and that the front and back doors were difficult to close and lock.
The contractor wrote to the landlord on 29 March 2021 and informed it that the mechanisms in the door locks were worn down and, due to the age of the doors, it would not be possible to replace the locks. The contractor recommended installing new front and rears doors.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 9 April 2021 and requested to raise a complaint. He described the elements of the complaint as:
1. A stage one complaint should have been opened when he made the report on 22 March 2021 and now wanted the complaint to be escalated to stage two.
2. He had experienced issues with the doors in the property for the last seven years, but the landlord had yet to resolve the matter.
3. The property was not secure due to the broken locks.
A stage one complaint response was sent to the resident on 22 April 2021. The landlord informed the resident that it had approved a quote for replacement doors and that its contractor would contact him to arrange an appointment.
Following a telephone call from the resident, the landlord wrote on 20 May 2021 to confirm that it had escalated the complaint to stage two of its internal process. The resident and landlord then corresponded about the repair between May 2021 and October 2021. On 6 October 2021 the landlord called the resident and informed him that its contractor had placed an order for the new doors, but due to difficulty in sourcing materials, there may be a further delay of up to 12 weeks before the doors would be available to install.
The resident contacted this Service on 15 November 2021 to express his dissatisfaction with how the repair was being handled and that he had yet to receive a stage two response from the landlord. This Service passed on the resident’s concerns to the landlord, which sent a stage two complaint response on 15 February 2022.
The landlord provided a timeline of the repair and the complaint, then confirmed that the new doors were installed on 14 January 2022. The landlord recognised that there had been delays both in completing the repairs and providing a response at stage two. The landlord apologised to the resident and offered £410 compensation, which it broke down as:
1. £150 under right to repair.
2. £40 for the resident’s time and effort pursuing the matter.
3. £60 for the inconvenience caused
4. £60 for the distress caused.
5. £100 for the delay in providing a stage two response.
Following further correspondence, the landlord increased its compensation offer to £450 by adding an additional goodwill gesture of £40.
In referring the complaint to this Service, the resident described the outstanding issues to the complaint as the landlord had not properly responded to his reports that the entrance doors were not secure, which he first raised in 2015 and again in 2017. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested that he received suitable compensation from the landlord in recognition of the length of time that the matter had been outstanding and suggested that a full rent refund from February 2021 to January 2022 would be reasonable redress.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours and all other repairs “at the earliest mutually convenient appointment”. Emergency repairs are defined as a repair that presents an “immediate danger to the occupant or members of the public”.
The repairs policy also states that the landlord will “adjust its service standards where a delay would put [vulnerable residents] at risk because of their condition”. The landlord’s vulnerable residents policy identifies vulnerability as “someone at risk in their home or at risk of being unable to comply with their tenancy requirements”.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is received, the landlord aims to provide a response at stage one within ten working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation of the complaint to the next stage. The landlord will then undertake a review of the complaint and provide a stage two response within 20 working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint. The policy also states if the landlord is unable to meet these timescales, that it will write to the complainant to inform them of the delay.
The policy goes on to describe the circumstances where the landlord will not progress a matter through its formal complaints process. This includes issues that occurred six months prior to the complaint being made.

Scope of Investigation

As part of his complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident has mentioned that his wife fell and was injured due to the damage to the back door and a step in the garden. He has said that unless the compensation is increased he would provide medical evidence to support his claim for these injuries. Whilst we do not doubt the resident’s comments about his wife’s health, it is outside the role of the Ombudsman to determine whether there was a direct link between the state of the door and step and the resident’s wife’s injuries. Matters such as this would be more appropriately dealt with as a legal liability claim through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one). The resident can contact the landlord and ask to raise a liability claim to its insurer if he wants to pursue this matter further or he could consider taking independent legal advice on raising a legal claim in court. The Ombudsman is unable to give legal advice and therefore we cannot comment on this aspect of the complaint further.

How the landlord handled repairs to the front and back doors of the property

The tenancy agreement notes that the landlord has a responsibility to maintain the structure and exterior of the premises including “doors, door frames and door hinges”. It was therefore obliged to visit the property and inspect the doors when informed by the resident of the issue on 22 March 2021.
Once on notice, the landlord was required to attend the property and carry out the necessary repair work within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with its obligations under the tenancy and in law. The law does not specify what a reasonable amount of time is; this depends on the individual circumstances of the case. Standard industry practice would be for a landlord to attend non-urgent repairs within 30 calendar days, although some repairs may take longer if the repairs are particularly complex or if parts need to be ordered. It was reasonable for the landlord not to consider the replacement of the doors as an emergency repair as, based on the advice given to it by its appropriately qualified contractors in the 29 March 2021 email, there was no evidence that the condition of the doors at that time presented an immediate danger.
It is not in dispute that there was a significant delay in completing repairs to the doors (from March 2021 to January 2022). This was recognised by the landlord in its compensation offer and apology in the stage two complaint response. Following the stage one response in April 2021, the landlord’s repair logs show that it raised works orders on several occasions to arrange the installation of new doors, but these were then cancelled by the contractor. It was not until October 2021 that the landlord was informed by the contractor that the reason for this delay was as a result of the door manufacturer experiencing issues with sourcing materials and it was not yet in a position to accept the work.
While the lack of materials to manufacture the doors was outside of the landlord’s control, the fact that it took five months from when the repair was first reported until the landlord discovered the reason for the delay was a service failure which should have been addressed by the landlord in its stage two complaint response. Once the landlord had accepted the advice to replace the doors, the reason for the delay should have been discovered in a timelier manner, then relayed to the resident to manage his expectations.
During the delay the landlord was contacted by the resident’s son on 11 September 2021, who advised that his parents had woken up on at least one occasion to have found the front door open during the night. There is no evidence that this was passed on to the landlord’s repairs team or that any inspection of the doors was scheduled to determine if the condition of the door had deteriorated to the point where a temporary repair was required to ensure the door was secure until the full replacement could go ahead. This was also a failure by the landlord which should have been addressed in the stage two complaint response.
During a telephone conversation with the resident’s daughter on 19 May 2021, the landlord’s notes state that it was informed of the resident’s health condition that made communication by telephone difficult. The resident also described himself and his wife as vulnerable when raising the complaint on 9 April 2021. In its evidence provided for this case, the landlord stated that it had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident or his family on its system.
It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have followed up on the resident’s daughter’s information regarding the resident’s vulnerabilities, to establish whether these should have been flagged on its system, particularly in reference to the resident’s preferred methods of contact. No evidence has been provided which shows that the landlord acted on this information.
While the landlord did offer £350 compensation for the overall delay in completing the work and for the stress and inconvenience that this caused to the resident, in light of the additional failures described above, it would be appropriate for it to pay additional compensation for distress and inconvenience.
The Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (which is available on our website) suggests a payment of £250 to £700 in cases of considerable service failure or maladministration by the landlord, but where there may be no permanent impact on a complainant. As examples for when this level of payment should be considered, the guidance suggests:
1. A complainant repeatedly having to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes, necessitating unreasonable level of involvement by that complainant
2. Failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs; to respond to antisocial behaviour; to make adequate adjustments
3. Repeated failure to meaningfully engage with the substance of the complaint, or failing to address all relevant aspects of complaint, leading to considerable delay in resolving complaint
Therefore, it would be appropriate for the landlord to pay a further £150 compensation for the five–month delay in discovering the reason why its contractor was unable to accept an appointment to install new doors into the property, for not arranging a further inspection of the doors when it was informed that one of the doors opened during the night, and for not following its vulnerability policy when informed by the resident’s daughter of his difficulty in making and receiving telephone calls.
During the complaint process, the resident also highlighted historical issues with the doors. The landlord’s repairs logs state a report was made about the condition of the back door on 10 April 2017; an inspection was arranged for 16 June 2017; a work order was then raised when the door was found to be loose which was marked as completed on 19 October 2017.
The repair logs do not show any other reports relating to the front and back doors until the report made on 22 March 2021. It was therefore reasonable of the landlord, and in line with its complaints policy described above, for it not to address the previous repairs of the back door as they had occurred more than six months prior to a complaint being raised by the resident.
This position is also in accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that we will not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. Therefore the Ombudsman is unable to consider the resident’s repair reports from 2017 for broadly the same reasons as the landlord.
As a resolution to the complaint, the resident has requested that the rent from February 2021 to January 2022 should be refunded as this would represent reasonable redress for the level of service failures he had experienced.
In line with the tenancy agreement, the resident is obliged to pay the rent for the property in full when it is due. In line with industry best practice, a partial rent refund may be offered by the landlord if one or more rooms of the property are unusable for an extended period of time due to repair issues. However, this would generally be a percentage of the rent rather than a full refund. Although the doors were clearly in need of repair and may have not been fully secure this did not mean that all or part of the property was unusable. Therefore, the landlord would not be expected to issue a rent refund, although as explained above it should offer additional compensation for the inconvenience and distress caused by its errors.
As part of his complaint the resident has said he was advised to withhold rent and hold it until the door repairs were completed. As the repairs were outstanding for nearly a year the rent arrears grew significantly during this period. The landlord’s records suggest that it agreed not to take action against the resident for withholding rent while the repairs were outstanding but it advised the resident to continue to pay the rent and not to withhold it. The landlord suggested that if the resident decided to withhold the rent, he should put it aside in a separate account so that he could pay any rent arrears immediately once the repairs were completed. Therefore, there is a lack of evidence to show that the landlord advised the resident to withhold the rent and rather, the available evidence suggests the landlord acted appropriately in advising the resident to continue to pay the rent, in line with the tenancy agreement and industry best practice.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord issued a stage one response to the complaint in a timely manner. However, following receipt of the stage one complaint response on 22 April 2021, the resident called the landlord on 20 May 2021 and requested an escalation of the complaint. The landlord sent an email to the resident on the same day to confirm the escalation and that it aimed to provide a stage two complaint response within 20 working days.
The landlord sent a further email on 25 June 2021 to inform the resident that it was making changes to its complaint handling to ensure it was in line with this Service’s Complaint Handling Code, and therefore there would be a delay in providing the response. The email did not provide a revised timeframe. This Service passed on the resident’s concerns of how his complaint was being handled to the landlord on 18 January 2022 and the stage two response was then sent on 15 February 2022.
The landlord recognised that there had been a delay in providing a stage two response. It apologised to the resident and offered £100 compensation in view of this. Although never explicitly stated, the landlord’s internal correspondence does suggest that the landlord waited until the work to replace the doors had been completed before it sent a stage two complaint response to the resident.
It is the established view of this Service that landlords should respond to complaints in a timely manner and it is not necessary to wait for repairs to be completed before responding to a complaint. A complaint response can be issued whilst repairs are outstanding and compensation can be awarded for any delays which have taken place and which are expected, based on the proposed completion date for any outstanding repairs. If there are further delays after the landlord has issued its final complaint response, the landlord can issue a further response and consider whether to offer additional compensation for the further delays. The significant delays in responding to the complaint would have been inconvenient for the resident as this prevented him from being able to refer his complaint to the Ombudsman sooner for independent review.
It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident for the delay in providing a stage two response and offer compensation. However, in considering the length of the delay (eight months) and the poor level of communication from the landlord during this period to keep the resident updated on the status of the complaint, a £100 compensation award was inadequate.
As a further example for when redress should be provided in the £250 to £700 range, the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests “significant failures to follow complaint procedure, escalate the matter or signpost the complainant”. Therefore, it would be appropriate for the landlord to pay an additional £150 to bring the total compensation award for this element of the complaint to £250.
The resident also expressed his dissatisfaction that the landlord did not escalate the complaint to stage two of its process when he raised a formal complaint on 9 April 2021 on the grounds that a complaint should have been opened when he reported the issues with the doors on 22 March 2021.
From the landlord’s repair and call logs, it is not clear if the resident explicitly requested to raise a complaint when the faults with the doors were reported. However, it was reasonable, and in line with its complaints policy, for the landlord to decline the resident’s request to immediately escalate the complaint and respond at stage one in the first instance.
In following its complaints policy, that landlord would be able to propose a resolution of the complaint at stage one, and if rejected, then look to review its decision and respond to the resident’s outstanding issues at stage two to propose a revised resolution.
Although the landlord’s resolution to the complaint was declined by the resident, it was reasonable for it to follow its complaint policy by providing responses at both stages of its internal process in order to attempt reach a resolution to the complaint and avoid the inconvenience caused to the resident in bringing the case to this Service to review. Therefore, there is no evidence of service failure for this element of the complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of how it handled repairs to the front and back doors of the property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

For the reasons set out above, the landlord is ordered to pay to the resident £300. This is broken down as a further £150 for repairs and a further £150 for complaint handling. This payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this Service when payment has been made.
The compensation award is in addition to the £350 compensation already awarded by the landlord in its complaint process which should also be paid if it has not been paid already.
Therefore the total compensation is £650 in respect of this complaint.
It is further ordered that the landlord, if it has not done so already, should contact the resident to determine whether he, or any other members of the household, have vulnerabilities which should be flagged on its system in line with its vulnerable residents policy.