London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202109888)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109888

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

9 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of a leak into his property from above, resulting in damage to his bedroom ceiling.
2. Handling of the resident’s reports of a flood on his balcony, resulting in damage to his internal flooring.
3. Complaints handling.

Background

The resident occupies the property, which is a two bedroom flat, under a shared‑ownership agreement with the landlord. The resident’s property is on the third floor of a four storey building.
In May 2021, the resident reported a leak into his property that had caused damage to the bedroom ceiling. The landlord investigated but was unable to locate the source of the leak, indicating that it may be coming from the balcony of the property above. In July 2021, the resident reported that his own balcony had flooded due to a blocked downpipe and that water had entered his property, damaging his flooring. The landlord attended to rod the drainpipe, but no significant blockages were found.
The resident made a formal complaint about the delay in completing works to resolve the issues, and about its failure to respond via its out of hours service when he called to report the flooding to his balcony. The landlord apologised for the delays in completing works, highlighting the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on its resources. It also acknowledged and apologised for the failures in its communication, noting that lessons would be learnt, and training provided to staff. The landlord advised the resident that claims for damage to belongings fell outside the scope of its complaints process and should be progressed via its insurer. The landlord offered the resident £600 compensation in recognition of the service failure it had identified.
Following the final complaint response, works were completed to the balcony of the property above. Water and damp testing suggested that the leak was resolved, however, the resident continued to report water penetration through his ceiling after rainfall. The landlord inspected the resident’s property’s ventilation system, as it was noted that the staining appeared below the system’s ducting. No issues were found. In December 2021, the resident informed this Service that the leak had not been rectified and the drainage issues on his balcony had not been addressed. It is unclear whether the cause of the issues has now been identified and any required works completed.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s repairs responsibilities are set out in the resident’s lease. Clause 5.3 provides that the landlord is responsible for repairing, redecorating, and renewing the structure of the building, including the “load bearing framework”, roof, walls, and communal parts of the building’s drainage and ventilation systems.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will complete routine repairs “at the earliest mutually convenient appointment”. The Ombudsman expects routine repairs to be completed within a reasonable timeframe, which will depend on the particular circumstances.
The landlord has also provided a copy of an interim policy, dated 31 March 2020, which was put in place due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, limiting its repairs service to critical and emergency repairs whilst the policy was in force. The policy defines “critical repairs” as including issues where there is a “risk of harm to a person or to the property – if there is a leak that cause[s] damage to a property over time”. The policy states that critical repairs should be raised as routine repairs and the resident informed that they will be contacted with an appointment within 24 hours.

Handling of report of a leak

The landlord’s records show that the resident first reported staining on his bedroom ceiling in July 2020, at which time the landlord advised that he contact his neighbour to see if he could locate the source of the leak. There is no evidence that the resident got back in touch with the landlord after this initial report, so it was reasonable that the landlord did not take further action at that time.
According to the landlord’s records, the resident next reported the leak in May 2021. In line with the landlord’s interim repairs policy, a leak causing damage to the property should have been classified as a “critical repair” and the resident contacted within 24 hours. It appears that this was the case, as a job was raised on 12 May 2021 to investigate and trace the source of the leak, and this job was marked as completed on 14 May 2021. There are, however, no notes from the visit recorded on the landlord’s system and it does not appear that the outcome was reported to the resident, who called for an update on 25 May 2021.
On 25 May 2021, the landlord advised the resident that it was unable to get hold of its contractor and when the resident called again on 2 June 2021, there was still no update. The landlord had failed to obtain a report following the contractor’s visit. Its record keeping and processes for communicating with its contractor were inadequate.
The landlord’s system notes indicate that the contractor provided an update on 2 July 2021, when it reported that it had inspected the balcony of the property above, which was found to be full of water. It is unreasonable that it took almost two months for the landlord to obtain an update from its contractor after the initial inspection. It is also noted that the landlord’s records from this time do not evidence that it followed-up with its contractor to discuss what would be done to resolve the leak.
It was only after the resident raised a formal complaint that the landlord took action to progress the repairs to the balcony of the property above, which were completed at the end of September 2021. Whilst it is acknowledged that the COVID-19 pandemic impacted the landlord’s resources during this period, the landlord failed to provide updates to the resident between 14 May 2021 when the property was inspected and 27 July 2021 when it issued its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor.
As there was no progress with the works in August 2021, despite the landlord erecting scaffolding, the resident contacted this Service and asked the landlord to escalate his complaint. Had the landlord updated the resident and managed his expectations about the timeframe in which works would be completed, it may have been able to resolve the complaint at an earlier stage.
The resident emailed the landlord in August 2021 to complain about the delays in completing the works. He also reported that the staining had spread to a second room within the property and that mould had started to form. There is no evidence that the landlord provided a detailed response to the resident’s concerns, or organised further investigations, until it provided its final complaint response on 23 September 2021. The landlord should have responded to the resident’s concerns about the presence of mould by organising an inspection to determine whether this was related to the ongoing repairs issues, or whether it otherwise had responsibility for completing any works to address the damp and mould.
The landlord provided its final complaint response before the works to the property above had been completed. On 29 September 2021, the resident reported that the leak was ongoing despite the works having been finished. The landlord responded promptly by arranging for its contractor to attend but no damp was identified. It conducted further investigations by removing a portion of the resident’s ceiling but there was no evidence of a live leak. The landlord acted reasonably by carrying out further investigations, although it was unable to locate the source of the problem.
The landlord then arranged for its contractor to attend to inspect and service the property’s ventilation system, as it suspected this may be the source of the leak, however no issues were identified. The landlord also conducted a dye test from the balcony of the property above but, on inspection, no water had penetrated the resident’s property. The landlord then informed the resident that it would install a cover over an external vent and investigate whether an external wall needed re‑pointing. It is unclear whether these works were completed.
The Ombudsman appreciates the resident’s frustration that the balcony works did not resolve the leak, and that the landlord was unable to find the cause despite further investigations between September 2021 and December 2021. However, the landlord identified and apologised for its poor service up until the date of its final complaint response and offered £600. The Ombudsman considers that this offer provides reasonable redress for the service failure prior to the date of the final response. The landlord’s actions after that time demonstrated a genuine commitment to investigating and resolving the issue for the resident, albeit that the problem had not been resolved when the resident contacted this Service in December 2021 to provide an update.

Handling of report of flooding on balcony

The resident first called to report flooding on his balcony on 26 July 2021. He believed this was the result of a drainage issue and stated that the water had entered his property, damaging the flooring and several cardboard storage boxes. The resident had been unable to reach the landlord via its out of hours service when the problem first occurred.
The landlord apologised for the poor service the resident experienced when he called to report the issue. It acted appropriately by referring the complaint to senior managers of the relevant team and organising additional training for staff. The action taken by the landlord was proportionate to the service failure identified.
The landlord did arrange for a contactor to attend within a reasonable time to investigate the issue and clear the drains, however, no blockages were found. As the resident continued to report issues with the drainage on his balcony, the landlord should have conducted further investigations but there is no evidence that it did so.
The stage one complaint response did not distinguish between the two separate issues of the ceiling leak and balcony drainage. The resident was left frustrated by the vagueness of the landlord’s response, which did not provide detail as to how the drainage issue would be resolved. This resulted in escalation of the complaint to stage two, which may have been avoided had the landlord communicated better with the resident about the action it would take.
The landlord’s final complaint response did not explain how the landlord intended to deal with the drainage issue. The response referred to “ongoing issues” with the building, suggesting the resident’s concerns may be part of a wider problem, however, it did not provide further details. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the flooding on his balcony was wholly inadequate and his repeated requests for the landlord’s intervention were ignored. This amounts to maladministration.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to provide fair and proportionate remedies where maladministration or service failure has been identified. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies. It is evident that the landlord’s handling of the flooding of the balcony caused inconvenience and frustration to the resident. Financial compensation of £200 is appropriate here for that impact on the resident.
It was reasonable for the landlord to refer the resident to either his home contents insurers, or alternatively to provide contact details for its own insurers, for damage caused by an incident for which it did not accept liability. This was also the case for the damage to the resident’s ceiling. However, it is noted that where a landlord has failed to take action to address a repair within a reasonable time, it may be liable for damage to the resident’s property that has occurred due to the delay. For this reason, the Ombudsman recommends that the landlord consider whether it is appropriate to reimburse the resident for the damage to his flooring.

Complaints handling

The landlord aims to provide a response within ten working days at stage one of its complaints process. At stage two, it aims to respond within 20 working days.
In the resident’s case there were significant delays at stage two. The landlord initially failed to acknowledge the resident’s escalation request, which was made on 28 July 2021. Despite indicating that it would respond by 25 August 2021, the landlord failed to respond until 23 September 2021, following contact from this Service.
The landlord’s offer of compensation included an amount in recognition of the delay in providing the stage two response. The Ombudsman is satisfied that this provides sufficient redress for this aspect of the complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53(c) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident that satisfactorily resolves the resident’s complaint about its handling of his report of a leak into his property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of drainage issues and flooding on the balcony of his property.
In accordance with paragraph 53(c) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident that satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must confirm to this Service that it has complied with the following Orders to:
1. Pay the resident £200 in recognition of the failures identified in its response to the resident’s reports of drainage issues and flooding on his balcony.
2. Contact the resident to confirm that both the leak and balcony drainage issues have been resolved and, if not, arrange for any necessary inspections or works to be completed.

Recommendation

It is recommended that:
1. If it has not already done so, the landlord pay the resident the £600 compensation offered in its final complaint response of 23 September 2021.
2. The landlord considers whether it should reimburse the resident for the damage to his flooring, given the delay in addressing the drainage issues on his balcony.