London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202208849)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208849

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

5 February 2023


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 scaffolding around his property.
    2. Response to the resident’s reports of a leak that affected the communal garden.
    3. Handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, residing in a two–bedroom flat.
  2. On 12 May 2022, the resident returned home after a short break, to discover that scaffolding had been erected around his property. He contacted the landlord to inform it of this, and to find out why the scaffolding had been installed.
  3. After failing to hear back from the landlord, the resident made a formal complaint about the scaffolding on 3 July 2022. Part of his complaint was also in reference to a leak that had flooded the communal garden. The resident’s complaint was escalated, following intervention by this Service, as the resident was not satisfied with the response he had received from the landlord.
  4. In relation to the scaffolding, the landlord advised that this had been raised in order to carry out disrepair works on the resident’s building. Some of the works had been completed, and the scaffolding would be removed as soon as possible. The landlord noted that it had sent him a letter on 6 May 2022, informing him that works would be carried out, but acknowledged that the use of scaffolding was not mentioned in the letter. The landlord also said that it had raised a 24-hour repair for the leak in the communal garden on 5 July 2022. It advised that the leak had been caused by a burst water main, located on another road at the rear of a property. It had informed the water supplier about the leak, who ultimately repaired the leak. It awarded the resident a total of £120 compensation, comprised of £60 for any inconvenience, £40 for his time and effort in bringing the complaint and £20 for the delay between its first stage and final stage complaints responses.
  5. The resident then contacted this Service, and advised that he was not happy with the landlord’s response to his reports about the scaffolding that had been raised around his property and about its response to the leak that affected the communal garden. The outcome that he sought was for the landlord to provide him with a date by which the scaffolding would be removed and for it to carry out remedial works to the damage that he believed had been caused by the leak.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of scaffolding around his property

  1. In this case it is not disputed that the landlord had failed to adequately inform the resident that scaffolding was to be erected around his property in May 2022 as part of repair works to the building. The landlord has acknowledged this failure, apologised and offered the resident £100 compensation for any inconvenience and for his time and effort in bringing the complaint.
  2. Understandably, the resident was confused by the landlord’s claim that the scaffolding had been erected on 21 June 2022, as he had reported that it had been in place since May 2022. When he queried this with the landlord, it was suggested to him that it was possible that the scaffolding had been raised in response to a guttering issue raised in March 2022.
  3. This was not an appropriate response by the landlord, it indicates poor record keeping by the landlord, or that the resident’s complaint was not investigated appropriately, either of which represent a failure by the landlord. The landlord would be expected to have provided correct information as to why the scaffolding had been erected from the outset, as it should have clear records of why this had been the case. Ultimately, the landlord utilised its complaints process to clearly explain the reason that the scaffolding had been erected and to offer a remedy to the resident for its failings.
  4. The landlord also acted appropriately by acknowledging, in its final stage complaints response, that the letter it had sent to the resident on 6 May 2022 had informed him that repair works would begin on 6 June 2022, but did not specifically state that scaffolding would be erected. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have clearly set out the works that were due to be completed and informed the resident that scaffolding would be erected in order to manage his expectations effectively.
  5. In its final stage complaints response on 5 August 2022, the landlord advised that the works were due to be completed on 19 July 2022 but that some of the works remained outstanding and the scaffolding would be removed as soon as the works had been completed. The landlord had the opportunity to provide the resident with an estimated timescale of how long the works would likely be extended for, within its final stage complaints response, but failed to do so.
  6. In general, the landlord acted appropriately by acknowledging that it failed to adequately inform the resident that scaffolding was to be erected around his property in May 2022 as part of repair works to the building, apologised and offering the resident £100 compensation.
  7. However, as part of his complaint, the resident also raised concerns about the scaffolding blocking light from entering his property and blocking him from entering the communal garden.  While the landlord’s final stage complaints response, did mention that the resident had concerns about the scaffolding obstructing the light, it failed to engage with the resident’s concern about the scaffolding obstructing light from entering his property and his concern that the scaffolding was obstructing him from accessing the communal garden. This was a further failure by the landlord, as it should have meaningfully engaged with both of his concerns, and appropriately addressed them.
  8. This failure was likely to have caused additional distress and inconvenience to the resident whose concerns remained unaddressed. As such, the landlord’s offer of £100 compensation for this element of his complaint is not considered proportionate given the overall impact on the resident. The landlord has therefore been ordered to pay the resident an additional £100 compensation, bringing the total compensation payable to £200.
  9. Further, as the resident report to this service on 26 January 2023 that the scaffolding was still in place, the landlord has also been ordered to contact the resident to discuss the scaffolding and to provide a timescale within which the scaffolding will be removed. The landlord has also been ordered to consider whether any further compensation would be appropriate given the length of time the scaffolding has remained in place.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak that affected the communal garden.

  1. The resident informed the landlord about a leak that was affecting the communal garden on 3 July 2022, and on 5 July 2022, the landlord raised a 24-hour job in response. Its contractor attended the resident’s property on the same day, and found that there was a burst mains pipe at the rear of another property, and that the water supplier had already raised their own repair job in response. The resident was informed of this by the landlord, in its first stage complaints response on 7 July 2022, and it confirmed to him, in its final stage complaints response, on 5 August 2022, that the leak had been repaired.
  2. It should be noted that because the burst pipe was not the responsibility of the landlord, the actions that it could take were limited. However, it did raise a 24-hour repair job as soon as it could, once the resident had informed it of the leak. This was an appropriate action by the landlord, because at that time, it would have been unaware of the cause of the leak. Its response time was also in line with its repairs policy, as the timescale for it responding to a non-emergency, was the earliest mutually convenient time. It would have been helpful, if the landlord had kept the resident up to date with any progress made by the water supplier, prior to its final stage complaints response, in order to manage his expectations.
  3. Therefore, it is determined that there was no maladministration by the landlord, in relation to its response to the resident’s reports of a leak that affected the communal garden. This is because it raised a job to attend the leak within its repair timescales; the leak occurred in an area that was outside of its control, and there was no responsibility upon it to repair the leak, and it did notify the water supplier of the leak.
  4. Although not forming part of the formal complaint to the landlord, the resident has said that part of the outcome that he is seeking, is for the landlord to carry out remedial works to repair the damage to the communal garden that he believes was caused by the leak. In order to address the resident’s concerns, a recommendation has been made that the landlord carry out a further inspection of the communal areas to see if there are any works required to that area for which it is responsible. It is also recommended that once the landlord has carried out the inspection, it provides the resident with a written update of its findings and details of what actions, if any, it intends to take.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that a first stage complaint will be responded to within ten working days of receipt of the complaint, and that it will issue its final stage complaints response within 20 working days of receiving a request by the resident to escalate the complaint. The landlord would be expected to address each aspect of a resident’s complaint within its responses.
  2. The resident raised his formal complaint on 3 July 2022, and the landlord issued its stage once complaints response on 7 July 2022, within the timescale in its complaints policy. The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated on 11 July 2022 and acknowledged his request on 13 July 2022. However, following a request for an update on his complaint, the resident was advised by the landlord on 26 July 2022, that it was unable to escalate his complaint because it was the water supplier’s responsibility to repair the leak.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy states that if the resident is dissatisfied with its first stage complaints response and asks it to escalate the complaint, it would escalate the complaint to its final stage. It would need to know why the resident was dissatisfied and what would resolve the complaint. The Ombudsman acknowledges that there are sometimes reasons why it would not be reasonable to escalate a complaint. However, the landlord should clearly list the reasons why it may choose not to escalate a complaint within its complaints policy. In this case, there were no reasons why a complaint would not be escalated listed within the landlord’s complaints policy. It is therefore unclear why the landlord felt unable to escalate the resident’s complaint, until after intervention by this Service on 28 July 2022.
  4. Additionally, part of the resident’s escalation request related to its response to his complaint about the scaffolding, and so his formal complaint should still have been escalated without the need for this Service to have intervened. Whilst this did not affect the overall complaint timescale, this caused inconvenience to the resident who needed to spend additional time and trouble pursuing the complaint and required the intervention of this Service to get matters resolved.
  5. Despite initially refusing to do so, the landlord issued its stage two complaint on 5 August 2022, which was 20 working days from the resident’s initial escalation request on 11 July 2022, and within its policy timescales.
  6. The landlord acted reasonably by acknowledging the impact on the resident and awarding £20 compensation in view of the inconvenience caused. The £20 compensation was in line with section 4.8 of the landlord’s compensation policy, where a fixed compensation award of £10 is awarded for a failure caused by either a delay in it responding to a query, or for a delay in its formal complaints response. Since the landlord believed that both of these failures had taken place, its award of £20 compensation to the resident was appropriate.

Determination

  1. Under paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord, in relation to its response to the resident’s reports of scaffolding around his property.
  2. Under paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s report of a leak that affected the communal garden.
  3. Under paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord, in relation to its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. That within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £200 compensation in respect of its failings with regards to his reports of scaffolding around his property, this is inclusive of the £100 compensation it had previously offered, if this has not already been paid.
    2. Contact the resident to discuss the scaffolding and to provide a timescale within which the scaffolding will be removed. The landlord is also to consider whether any further compensation would be appropriate given the length of time the scaffolding has remained in place.
    3. Confirm to this service that it has complied with these orders.
  2. It is also recommended that the landlord:
    1. Carry out a further inspection of the communal garden to see if there are any works required to that area for which it is responsible. It is also recommended that once the landlord has carried out the inspection, it provides the resident with a written update of its findings and details of what actions, if any, it intends to take.
    2. Pay the resident the £20 compensation it had previously offered for its complaint handling failure, if it has not paid this to him already.
    3. Review its complaints policy with regards to the reasons why it may not escalate a resident’s complaint and ensure any necessary training is carried out.