London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202122952)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122952

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

1 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 the landlord’s:
   1. response to the resident’s reports of damage to the bedroom window;
   2. complaints handling.

Background

2. The resident has been an assured tenant at the property of the landlord since 28
   September 2016. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing.
3. The resident raised a complaint on 1 December 2021. She reported that there was a crack on the inside of one of the bedroom windows. The resident advised that she had not caused the damage and as such, she wanted the landlord to replace the window. In her complaint escalation, the resident advise that she had previously reported that there was a mark on the window when she moved into the property. At this time, the landlord had advised that nothing could be done.
4. In the landlord’s final response, it advised that in line with its repairs policy, it was unable to repair internal window cracks. It advised that its maintenance supervisor had assessed the photos provided by the resident but determined that the repairs could not be authorised. It also advised that it had reviewed the communication history with the resident, but could not find evidence of her reporting a mark on the window when she first moved in. It advised that it could complete the repair as a rechargeable repair and provided advice on how the resident could find a suitable contractor to complete the work. It apologised for the delay in issuing the complaint response and offered £100 compensation for its delay.
5. In the resident’s complaint to this service, she advised that she remained dissatisfied as the landlord had refused to replace the window and it looked unsightly and she thought it was dangerous. She advised that the window had broken during a period of extremely cold weather and she thought that potentially this could have been the cause.

Assessment and findings

Window

6. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is not responsible for completing repairs to window glazing. It also states that it will not “make safe, board up, or re-glaze cracked or smashed windows where a ‘CAD’ or crime reference is not provided.” The landlord also explained to the resident in its stage one response that it does not carry out such repairs, as internal window cracks do not occur naturally.
7. When the resident reported the crack in the bedroom window, the landlord promptly responded the following day, and advised that in line with its repairs policy, it was unable to complete the repair and that she would have to arrange for it to be completed herself. This was a reasonable response as the landlord clearly explained its policy to the resident, and appropriately managed her expectations.
8. In her complaint escalation, the resident thought that the landlord had implied she had caused the damage to the window, as it said it had not occurred naturally. She also added that when she moved into the property, she had reported that there was a mark on the window, while the property was in the defects period, but the landlord advised nothing could be done. She further suggested that the damage to the window could have been a deterioration of this initial mark.
9. As the resident had provided additional information, it was appropriate that the landlord further investigated the complaint. The landlord advised it had reviewed its communication records and photos from the time period of the resident moving into the property, but could not find any evidence that damage was reported or recorded. The landlord has also provided its full communication history with the resident to this service, which does not include any such reports. This was a reasonable investigation into the resident’s concern, and its conclusion that it could not correlate the current damage with a previous issue was reasonable.
10. The landlord also sent pictures provided by the resident to its maintenance supervisor, who determined the landlord was not responsible for completing the repairs. It would have been helpful for the maintenance supervisor to have attended the property to assess what may have caused the crack and whether this impacted the landlord’s repair obligations. Given that the damage was only minor and was observable in the pictures, this investigation was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances. It was nevertheless reasonable that the landlord relied on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors in determining responsibility.
11. The landlord’s repair policy also states that it would assume responsibility for the repair if the resident provided a crime reference number. The resident was made aware of this policy, and there was no indication that the damage was caused by criminal activity, therefore the landlord would not have been responsible for the repair. Furthermore, in its complaint response, the landlord explained that its decisions had to be evidence based, and in the absence of evidence as to the cause of the damage, its determination that it was not responsible was reasonable.
12. In summary, the landlord’s finding that it was not responsible was reasonable based on the evidence. It was also appropriate that the landlord provided support to the resident by signposting her to websites where she could find a contractor to complete the work and offered to complete it as a rechargeable repair. The landlord also appropriately apologised that the resident thought it had suggested that she had caused the damage.

Complaints handling

13. The resident escalated her complaint on 3 December 2021 and the landlord did not issue its stage two response until 4 March 2022, which vastly exceeded its 20-working day response timeframe, outlined within its complaint policy. As the stage two response was delayed, it may have caused a delay in the resident completing the repair herself. However, overall the delay would not have impacted the outcome of the complaint as the landlord had initially promptly confirmed its repair responsibilities, which did not alter after the landlord’s further complaint investigation.
14. The landlord acknowledged its service failure cause by the delay and offered £100 compensation. The compensation was in line with this service’s remedy guidance, which states that awards of £50-£250 are appropriate in cases where there has been a “failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact,” as was the case here.
15. In the circumstances, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s offer of compensation amounted to reasonable redress for distress and inconvenience caused by the delay.

Determination

16. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of damage to the bedroom window.
17. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure in respect of the complaints regarding the landlord’s complaints handling.

Recommendations

18. The landlord to contact the resident within four weeks of the date of this determination and reiterate its offer of £100 compensation, unless already accepted by the resident.