London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202010808)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010808

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

13 April 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

The complaint is about:
1. the landlord’s response to repairs required in the kitchen and to internal doors in the property.
2. the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident became a tenant of the landlord through a mutual exchange to commence her tenancy at the property on 9 September 2019.
The landlord’s repairs responsibilities policy states that:
1. within a kitchen the landlord is responsible for:
  1. hinges (when the frame is defective)
  2. carcases and doors (when rotten or loose from walls)
  3. plinths and clips
  4. worktops
  5. grouting and silicone sealant
  6. kitchen fire doors and frames
2. the landlord is also responsible for:
  1. internal doors, frames and architraves
  2. fire doors, frames, hinges, glass and seals
  3. internal walls and plasterwork.
The landlord’s repairs handbook states that non-emergency repairs are carried out by a “mutually convenient appointment”.
The landlord has a vulnerable residents policy, which urges staff to consider whether a resident has a condition that may place them at greater risk in their home. It encourages staff to consider that they “think, respond and record” how they feel that the residents condition may affect them, how they should respond and how they should record this information so that all colleagues are aware.
The landlord operates a two stage complaint policy which states:
1. at stage one, residents will receive an acknowledgement within five working days, and a full response will follow within ten working days
2. if the resident is unhappy with the response, they can request to escalate to the next stage. The complaint will be reviewed by another member of staff and a final written decision will be send within 20 working days. If there is likely to be a delay, then the landlord will explain why and write again within a further ten working days. Any delays will be agreed with the resident.
3. after confirming its decision in writing, it will monitor progress until all outstanding actions are complete.

Summary of events

Records demonstrate that the landlord was aware that the resident was dissatisfied with the condition of the property shortly after moving into it. She raised a complaint on 24 September 2019 about this, which was considered as part of a previous investigation conducted by this Service.
On 27 October 2020, the Ombudsman issued a determination for the landlord which found service failings in the level of compensation offered for delayed repairs following a mutual exchange and its handling of a previous complaint. This investigation focusses on the resident’s concerns about repairs required to the kitchen and internal doors in the property as well the subsequent complaint handling, which the landlord accepted as a separate complaint after the previous investigation was issued.
On 5 January 2021 the resident contacted the landlord and advised that the kitchen unit had fallen off the wall and was balancing by one hinge. The landlord recorded the job as ‘completed’ on the same day.
On 8 February 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to make a complaint. She advised:
1. she had received no response to her recent emails and requests for “call backs” over a period of approximately three weeks
2. she had issues relating to the complaint she made in 2019. The landlord had replaced one kitchen door since the complaint, but there were still a number of issues that remained unresolved. These included:
  1. the boxing in around her boiler, which was poor and “barely hanging from the ceiling”. The gas engineer who attended to the annual gas safety check removed the boxing, but was unable to put it back together
  2. she had no living room door
  3. four kitchen cupboards had fallen off
  4. the kitchen worksurfaces were loose and did not meet the wall
  5. the kitchen tiles were falling off
  6. concerns that the door that the landlord had hung in the kitchen was fitted poorly, and she did not believe it to be fire safe. It had glass over the doorframe which was not reinforced. A carpenter who had recently visited the property had also noted these concerns
  7. there was a cupboard door within the kitchen to a larder that went under the stairs. It was hollow and had vents in it, and she had concerns as to whether it was fire safe
3. that the landlord’s repair jobs priorities seem to change “dependent upon the day and the individual who answers the phone”.
On 9 March 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to ask it to put into writing the reasons why it would not change the doors in the kitchen, and to confirm its stance with regards to her concerns with fire safety. She said that a carpenter had recently visited and said “I need to report that door because it isn’t right”.
The landlord responded to the resident the same day and advised it could not comment on what its operatives had said to the resident. If an operative believed a door was not fire compliant, it was for them to raise a “follow on job”. The landlord could not confirm if a new job had been raised as the “system was down”. However it advised the resident that “when we resume to normal”, it would raise works orders to:
1. box in around the boiler
2. trim the base unit
3. overhaul the front door, and door to the living room
4. ask a new supervisor to inspect the property.
On 9 March 2021, the landlord also responded to the resident with a stage one complaint response. It said:
1. an appointment had been arranged for 21 June 2021 to:
  1. replace the lounge door
  2. replace the kitchen cupboard door
  3. box in the pipework around the boiler
2. that the appointment was “subject to change” and the complaint had been closed
3. the resident was able to escalate the complaint if she remained dissatisfied, or contact the Ombudsman.
On 10 March 2021, the landlord emailed the resident and said that works orders had been placed as part of the resident’s complaint to replace the kitchen and lounge door, and renew the boxing. However it advised that the cupboard in the kitchen was fit for purpose and safe.
On 15 March 2021, the resident reported that the boxing in around the boiler was leaning forward and had a nail sticking out of it. She reported she was concerned it would fall. The landlord raised the repair as a ‘P1’ priority, and when it attended arranged to have a test done for asbestos on the ceiling. Subsequent testing showed that asbestos was present.
On 26 April 2021 the resident called the landlord and asked if it could attend quickly to repair her ceiling. The ceiling had been taken down that day, and she had been left with no light and no fire alarm.
On 7 May 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and advised that she was told by a member of its staff that she could not have works done to her kitchen because she had “inherited” certain repairs from the previous resident, where they had replaced the kitchen themselves. She asked to see a copy of the tenancy agreement where it made her responsibilities clear.
On 17 May 2021 the resident emailed the landlord, and included a video she had made of her kitchen. She advised that:
1. there were no protective strips at the end of the work surfaces
2. the work surfaces were not attached to the kitchen base units
3. the wall tiles were loose and stuck on top of on older layer of tiles
4. four wall units were stacked on top of each other, and not secured to the wall. Various other units were not secured to the wall and were breaking away
5. she had a “very heavy presence” of thick black mould that she had been unable to treat herself
6. the cupboards had “no backs” and therefore were in contact with the mould
7. the gas pipe was embedded in the electrical trunking behind the cooker. The pipe tracked around the length of the kitchen, and was not secure to the wall
8. when she moved in the kitchen was the only room with a double socket, and upon moving in an electrical test found it to be faulty.
The resident advised she wanted an escalation of her complaint. She said she wanted the landlord:
1. to respond and confirm when the property received a kitchen upgrade, and when the next one was due
2. to provide copies of documents which demonstrate that the previous resident signed a waiver before installing the kitchen themselves, and that she was made aware of this prior to signing the tenancy
3. to provide her with documents which demonstrated she was informed she would inherit the kitchen as a result of the previous resident upgrading it. She wanted evidence she had accepted the condition it was in and that the landlord would be doing no further repairs or upgrades to it.
On 18 May 2021, the landlord raised that there was damp and mould behind the cupboards, but the job was marked as ‘cancelled’.
On 28 May 2021 the landlord noted that the resident:
1. had called in “crying and unhappy”
2. her door had been measured up as part of her complaint but no one had spoken to her further about the other repairs
3. she was pregnant and she had been left with no ceiling in her kitchen
4. she felt “bullied” by the landlord
5. she wanted a member of staff to look into her situation urgently.
On 8 June 2021 the resident contacted the landlord again. She advised that:
1. she believed the landlord didn’t want to deal with her issues
2. the kitchen was “falling apart” and she was cooking in the dark. The ceiling had still not been repaired
3. she found it insulting that the landlord had “blamed cladding” for the delays she had experienced
4. the landlord had a lack of integrity, had lied and had “botched up jobs”
5. she wanted compensation.
On 10 June 2021 the landlord emailed the resident and said:
1. it was sorry it had not had the opportunity to contact her to update her on the kitchen ceiling.
2. there was “a long wait time for works due to high demand” and therefore the earliest date it could book works to “reinstate” the ceiling was 14 July 2021
3. it advised that the additional wait time would be taken into consideration when reviewing compensation.
On 24 June 2021, the Ombudsman raised concerns with the landlord in respect of its complaint handling, and asked the landlord to provide a stage two response by 1 July 2021.
On 25 June 2021, the landlord emailed the resident and advised that:
1. it was acknowledging her request for an escalation of her complaint
2. it had a new approach to complaints handling which meant it needed to carry out a thorough investigation in order to meet the requirements of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code
3. the new approach was taking longer than it expected, but it was learning from this
4. an officer would be in touch “as soon as the complaint is allocated” and it was sorry for the delay.
Records show that the resident contacted the landlord on a further four occasions in July 2021 to ask for an update. On 30 July 2021 the landlord noted it had a “lengthy conversation” with her about the kitchen and the doors. As a result, it had arranged for a contractor to remove the kitchen base units, and have its damp contractors apply a mould treatment.
From 30 July 2021 to 17 August 2021, several repairs were raised to address issues in the kitchen. These included:
1. treating mould behind the kitchen units
2. fitting a temporary light and later removing it to allow for plastering works to be carried out
3. reviewing the gas pipework
4. fitting a fire door to the kitchen cupboard and living room.
On 17 August 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to ask what will be happening at an appointment she had scheduled later in the week, as she was not clear. The member of staff noted this on the system and asked a colleague “has she been referred for a replacement [kitchen]?”.
On 22 August 2021 the landlord noted that after works had been carried out by its damp contractors, the kitchen was beyond repair. A new job had been raised to install a new kitchen and renew the drainage in the garden.
On 23 August 2021, the resident spoke to the Ombudsman and advised she had not received a stage two response with regards to her complaint. She said that the landlord started works on her kitchen ceiling on 18 May 2021, and completed the job on 7 August 2021. The delays meant she was without lights or a smoke alarm in her kitchen.
On 26 August 2021, the Ombudsman prompted the landlord about the stage two response and advised it to send a copy to the resident within five working days.
On 6 September 2021, the resident advised the Ombudsman she had still not received a stage two response. The Ombudsman sent another request for action to the landlord, and asked that a formal stage two response be issued no later than 15 September 2021.
On 9 September 2021, the resident called the landlord requesting an update on her kitchen. She was advised that there was a “backlog” and she will be contacted in due course for an appointment.
On 14 September 2021 the landlord issued a complaint response at stage two of its process. It advised:
1. it was sorry that the resident remained dissatisfied, and for the poor level of communication the resident had experienced from its maintenance supervisor
2. it had spoken to her about completion of the kitchen ceiling works and had made arrangements to complete the works over the weekend, which was outside of the landlord’s usual working hours
3. it had arranged for £400 compensation for the “inconvenience time and effort” the resident had experienced
4. that a £50 decorating e-voucher had been raised, which the resident had verbally accepted in place of the kitchen ceiling being painted by one of the landlord’s operatives
5. a recent inspection had been carried out by another maintenance supervisor, and repair works had been ordered to:
  1. renew the kitchen units and work tops
  2. replace the internal living room door
  3. replace the kitchen cupboard door with a fire compliant door
  4. carry out external drainage works to prevent possible further damp issues
6. an appointment had been booked for 16 September 2021 to proceed with the outstanding works
7. the resident’s complaint was concluded. It would continue to monitor the works that were in progress up until completion.
On 22 September 2021 the landlord’s records show that there was an argument involving the landlord’s gas engineer and the carpenter in the fitting of the kitchen. The gas engineer had gone to leave the property, leaving the resident without water. A member of the landlord’s staff noted that she witnessed inappropriate behaviour between the operatives, whilst on the phone to the resident. The landlord apologised for the behaviour of its gas engineer, and the carpenter was somehow able to reinstate the tap for the resident.
On 30 September 2021, the landlord’s repair records noted the following repairs as completed:
1. installation of air vents
2. installation of a new kitchen
3. installation of a fire door to the kitchen cupboard and living room.
On 9 May 2022, the resident contacted the landlord said that works to the drainage it had mentioned in its stage two response had not been done. The landlord raised another job and marked it complete on 13 May 2022.
The resident updated the Ombudsman on 21 March 2023. She advised that:
1. the landlord replaced all the internal doors and fitted a new kitchen in “late 2021”
2. despite the landlord saying that the kitchen cupboard door did not need to be a fire compliant, they replaced it with a fire door
3. the boxing in remained unfinished and was never replaced
4. overall she was happy with the works that the landlord completed, but was unhappy at the length of time it took for it to do the repairs
5. no further compensation was offered to the resident after the stage two response
6. the landlord was aware of its complaint handling failures from a previous investigation referred to the Ombudsman, however she experienced similar issues in bringing this complaint
7. she felt that other residents of the landlord were “struggling to get anything done” and wanted her complaint investigated by the Ombudsman to highlight its failures in order to help others.
On the 28 March 2023, the landlord advised the Ombudsman that:
1. installation of the kitchen and fire doors had been completed at the property
2. it would not “normally” box in pipework around the boiler, but as a goodwill gesture it had arranged for a carpenter to do this on 5 April 2023.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to repairs required in the kitchen and internal doors in the property

The timeline points to a delay of approximately two years in the landlord addressing the resident’s concerns about her kitchen and her internal doors, despite the Ombudsman’s previous findings. This timeline is based on her initial complaint on 24 September 2019 up until all the repairs mentioned within the landlord’s final complaint response were completed on 13 May 2022. The landlord is obliged under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to complete repairs within a reasonable time. A delay of approximately two years was unreasonable and raises concerns about the landlord’s repair practices.
During this time the landlord’s repair records evidence that the resident chased the repairs on multiple occasions. Between 8 February 2021 to 13 May 2022, there were at least 15 occasions where the resident had to contact the landlord to clarify when it would commence works to her kitchen and doors. This added to the resident’s frustration and affected her quiet enjoyment of the property.
Further there was a significant period of time between May to August 2021 where in addition to the substantive repairs she was complaining about, the resident was without a ceiling in her kitchen. The landlord’s records demonstrate on 28 May 2021 that she contacted it “crying and upset”, and requested that the repairs were completed more promptly, as she was without lights in the kitchen or a smoke alarm.
It is of concern that despite being aware that the resident had demonstrated signs of distress, the landlord did not respond to her for a further nine working days. It did not contact her by phone and it’s subsequent email stated that there was “a long wait time for works due to high demand”. The landlord said that the repair could not be completed for a further 25 working days. The delay was unreasonable, and the landlord failed to “think, respond and record” as referenced in its vulnerable residents policy. It made no service adjustments which considered whether it could attend the property within a quicker timeframe. The landlord did not consider the impact on the resident or show empathy to her situation, where she was pregnant at the time.
The landlord gave the resident conflicting information as to whether it would complete the repairs at all. For example, it had informed the resident that it could not do further works to her kitchen as she had “inherited” it as part of her mutual exchange. It also agreed to boxing in around her boiler on 9 March 2021, but informed this Service on 28 March 2023 it would “not normally” do this repair, but would as a gesture of goodwill. The inconsistencies in the landlord’s response were unreasonable and caused the resident significant inconvenience in trying to get affirmation of what it would or wouldn’t do.
Evidence highlights failures in the landlord’s record keeping. The landlord raised the same repairs on multiple occasions over a considerable length of time, which contributed to the resident’s frustrations. The lack of detail and cohesion between its repair notes hindered the landlord’s ability to communicate effectively with the resident and caused confusion between its own staff. For example, on 17 August 2021 one staff asked another “has she been referred for a replacement [kitchen]?”. Landlords should keep a clear record of its repairs and its communication with residents, by not doing so, its actions contributed towards the delays the resident experienced.
On 14 September 2021, in addressing the resident’s complaint at stage two of its process, the landlord appropriately recognised that it was responsible for delays and failures in relation to the repairs. The Ombudsman has considered whether its response offered reasonable redress and whether it resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily, taking into account the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: “Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes”.
The landlord demonstrated learning from mistakes and tried to put things right by offering £400 compensation, a £50 e-decorating voucher and assurances it would monitor the repairs through to completion. However the level of compensation was not proportionate to its failures and the repairs continued to be delayed. Further it is of concern that there was an incident shortly after the conclusion of the complaint where the landlord’s gas contractor and carpenter were arguing about works within the property which was witnessed by a member of the landlord’s staff. This was unprofessional and caused the resident further distress.
Overall there was maladministration with the landlord’s response to repairs required in the kitchen and internal doors in the property. Despite acknowledging its failures, there were further delays to the repairs the landlord had agreed in its stage two response. The resident was inconvenienced by this and had to continue to chase up the completion of the drainage works . The drainage works were completed eight months after the landlord’s final response, highlighting that the landlord had not followed through on its assurances it had made to see the repairs through to conclusion. A higher level of compensation has been ordered to reflect the impact of the additional frustration and inconvenience the resident experienced.

Complaint handling

The landlord was aware that the resident was unhappy with the condition of her kitchen, and had concerns about the fire doors in her property since the start of her tenancy in 2019. However the Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s complaint handling from the 8 February 2021, the complaint which prompted the resident’s most recent contact with this Service.
The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint and its stage one response was delayed by 12 working days, falling outside the expectations set within its complaint policy. This minor delay was unreasonable, yet the landlord made no apology for this, demonstrating a failure to acknowledge its own shortcomings in addressing the matter promptly.
Where the landlord did not contact the resident to acknowledge her complaint, it missed an opportunity to discuss matters fully and ensure that it was responding appropriately to all her concerns. The landlord failed to take ownership and address each point the resident was dissatisfied with. Its response focussed on the raising of three repair jobs, and did not address the other issues the resident was complaining about, including the overall condition of her kitchen and the lack of response she had received from the landlord.
Whilst the landlord provided a date the repairs would be done, it said that the appointment was “subject to change”. It gave no reason why the appointment might change, and therefore it did not reassure the resident that the repairs would be resolved on the proposed date. Indeed records demonstrate that the repairs were not completed on the date given and had to be addressed again in the stage two response.
The landlord was quick to close the complaint at stage one and did not take ownership, or advise how it would monitor all actions through to conclusion in accordance with its complaint policy. It failed to recognise the history of the complaint, and it did not consider its long-standing background to help resolve the issue for the resident as is the expectation within the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (CHC).
This Service had to intervene with the resident’s request for an escalation of her complaint and prompt the landlord on three occasions to provide a response. It is concerning that the landlord advised the resident on 25 June 2021 that the delay was as a result of “its new approach to complaints handling” which required it to carry out a “thorough investigation” as a result of guidance from this Service. This response was inappropriate, showed a lack of ownership of the resident’s concerns and did not set out to address when she could receive a final response. The landlord did not give any reassurance that conducting thorough investigations was already part of its standard complaints process.
It was unreasonable that the resident had to wait 85 working days for a response to her request for an escalation of her complaint. The delay was significantly outside what could have been expected within its complaint policy and was not in line with the CHC. As a result, the resident experienced time, trouble and inconvenience in contacting this Service for assistance in obtaining a response.
The landlord made no reference to its own complaint handling failures within the stage two response. It failed to take accountability and demonstrated that despite advising the resident it was reviewing its approach to complaints three months earlier, it had not learnt from outcomes. This is concerning, given the landlord was aware of its previous failures in addressing the same issues in its historic complaint the resident brought to this Service a year earlier.
The landlord made reference to a conversation that took place with the resident prior to issuing its stage two response, however no record of this conversation was seen. It is important that landlords keep contemporaneous notes of its contact with residents to ensure appropriate customer relationship management and transparency. It was appropriate that the landlord took steps to discuss the matter with the resident before responding to her formally. By doing so, it was able to establish what she remained dissatisfied with and address all of her concerns with regards to the outstanding repairs.
The landlord recognised that its repair delays had caused her “inconvenience, time and effort” and offered compensation for this. However it did not go far enough in compensating for the distress she had experienced, particularly around the time she was pregnant and without full use of her kitchen for a period of three months where it left her with no ceiling. It also did not compensate her for the time and trouble the resident had experienced in escalating her complaint.
The landlord did not monitor the repairs through to conclusion, as it had referenced in the stage two response. This caused the resident further inconvenience, and impacted an already fraught relationship where the landlord did not follow through on the commitments it had made to her.
Overall there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. The resident had to chase it for a response on multiple occasions, and this Service had intervene on multiple occasions. Its compensation did not go far enough to recognise the inconvenience and distress the resident had experienced in concluding the repairs. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it had learnt from outcomes and did not take accountability for its complaint handling failures.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to repairs required in the kitchen and to internal doors in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

Despite the landlord acknowledging its failures, its level of compensation was insufficient and it did not follow through on its assurances to see the repair works through to conclusion. The resident had to chase the landlord on a number of occasions causing her distress and inconvenience. Further, the landlord failed to utilise its vulnerable residents policy and consider its principles of “think, respond, record”. It did not show empathy to the resident’s situation at the time she was pregnant and the repairs were delayed for a prolonged period of time as a result.
The landlord failed to acknowledge its complaint handling failures. There were significant delays in obtaining a stage two response, and this Service had to intervene on three occasions. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it had learnt from a previous determination made by this Service. It failed to monitor the repairs through to conclusion, and in doing so did not put things right for the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. write to the resident to apologise.
2. pay the resident a total of £650 in compensation within four weeks. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against any arrears. The amount is in addition to the £400 the landlord has already paid the resident as part of its stage two response. The compensation compromises:
  1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by delays to repairs required in the kitchen and internal doors in the property.
  2. £350 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. conduct a review of this case, giving consideration to reviewing its complaint policy and any associated staff guidance to demonstrate learning from the outcome of this complaint. This review should be completed with reference to the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and must include:
  1. ensuring that all elements of a complaint are fully investigated
  2. ensuring that complaints are escalated in accordance with its policy and the Code
  3. ensuring that when engaging with residents, staff understand the individual circumstances of each complaint and are empathetic, even when a service failure is not found.
4. demonstrate how it will promote and retrain staff on its vulnerable residents policy and give consideration to adding pregnancy flags to its customer relationship management system.
5. conduct a review to highlight how it will monitor outstanding repairs, including reviewing working practices on repeated repairs and feedback from contractors.