London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202123452)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123452

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

19 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 handling of the resident’s report of repairs to the shower.
This report also considers:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak to the bedroom from the shower.
2. The landlord’s complaints handling.
3. The landlord’s record keeping.
4. The landlord’s offer of compensation.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak to the bedroom from the shower is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which “are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.”
The complaint brought to this Service concerned the landlord’s handling of a report of a leak from the shower to the bedroom, however this was not raised with the landlord as a formal complaint. The initial reference to this issue was made by the resident to the landlord via an email on 9 February 2022. This had followed on from the landlord having acknowledged the resident’s complaint which it deemed as being made on 24 January 2022. Where a complaint has not exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure, it will not normally be considered by the Ombudsman. This is as it is important for a landlord to first have the opportunity to respond to an issue under its internal complaints procedure, before the Ombudsman will investigate and comment on it. As such, if the resident wishes to pursue this matter, he will need to ensure that the matter has exhausted the landlord’s complaints process before it can be considered by this Service.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a joint tenant of the landlord and occupies the property under an assured tenancy with his mother. The property is a two-bedroom ground floor flat and the tenancy began on 19 August 2017.
For the ease of the report all further reference to resident shall mean the son, who has referred the complaint to this Service.
The landlord has stated it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident’s mother although it notes she is elderly.
The tenancy agreement sets out that the landlord is responsible to keep in good repair and in working order any installation it has provided which includes the supply of water and baths.
The landlord defines a complaint as “a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by L&Q, our colleagues, or those acting on our behalf”.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints process as follows:
1. Stage one sets out that the landlord in the first instance will “aim to resolve the complaint there and then”. If it is unable to do so it would refer the matter on to the correct area who would contact the resident by the end of the next working day. The landlord aims to respond back on the matter within 10 working days with an outcome.
2. If the complaint cannot be resolved at the first stage, it is passed to be dealt with at stage two by someone not previously involved. It will contact the resident within two working days to provide them with the opportunity to explain the issue. It will aim to provide a response within 20 working days.
If the landlord at either stage of the complaints process was unable to meet the intended response time, it would write to the resident within a further 10 working days to provide an update.
The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that it was responsible for showers which it had fitted. The policy explained in relation to service standards that:
1. It would aim to complete the repair at the earliest mutually convenient appointment.
2. In the case of emergency works it would attend within 24 hours.
3. If emergency works occurred out of hours, it would attend within four hours to make safe and lower the immediate risk. Any follow-on repair would then be completed at the earliest mutually convenient appointment.
Under the repairs policy no categorisation in terms of the type of repair is provided for repairs to showers including waste and supply pipes which were leaking.
The landlord’s compensation policy explains that “in line with our customer promise, where we get things wrong and fail to provide a quality service we need to put things right. This may include paying compensation”. The policy sets out in terms of compensation that this “may be a mix of statutory based payments, our own discretionary based payments, goodwill gestures (e.g vouchers) and part refunding of service charges”.
The compensation policy states under the section relating to loss of facilities and amenities “we may pay compensation, in the form of rent rebate, if a customer is not able to use a room(s) in their home because of a repair issue that is our responsibility, and which causes prolonged and unreasonable disruption. Payment calculation can be found in the compensation guidance”.
In terms of service failure, the compensation policy sets out that the landlord would make the following fixed payments:
1. A payment of £10 for a “failure to respond to a query within 10 working days”
2. A payment of £10 for a “failure to respond to a formal complaint within the timescales published in our complaints policy”.
3. A payment of £20 for “failure to keep an appointment without at least 24 hours’ notice”.
In terms of an emergency defect which includes an uncontainable leak, the compensation policy set out that there would be a payment of £10 made per day in the event it was not made good within 24 hours. This was subject to a maximum payment of £100 per defect.

Summary

On 10 December 2021, the resident reported via the landlord’s website that the shower at the property was not working. The resident explained that the shower was the only washing facility in the property and that when they had attempted to switch the shower on it was tripping the main power in the property.
The landlord arranged for an electrician to attend. The landlord’s repair logs do not show on which date the electrician visit took place. The resident states that the electrician had informed him that the shower needed replacing and they would inform the landlord.
The resident says he was contacted by the landlord on 14 December 2021 to provide pictures via WhatsApp of the shower so that it could be replaced. Following this an appointment was scheduled by the landlord to fit a replacement shower.
The landlord emailed the resident on 16 December 2021. It explained that the matter was being dealt with by one of its contractors who would be dealing with the issue of replacing the shower. It stated the contractor would contact him directly within the next five working days to confirm the specific time and date of the appointment.
Following replacement of the shower on 23 December 2021, the resident informed the electrician who had attended that this had not resolved the issue as the water pump was not working correctly. This was an issue which only became apparent with the new installation. The landlord’s contractor explained that that it would follow up the matter with the landlord.
The resident emailed the landlord on 27 December 2021. He also completed a web form. He explained in both of these documents that he had reported the issue online and via phone and had been waiting 45 minutes until he was able to get to speak to someone about the matter. He stated the matter was frustrating and that the lack of a shower or other bathing facilities was beyond his comprehension. The resident requested a response from the landlord within seven days or he would contact the Housing Ombudsman about the matter.
The landlord sent an automatic acknowledgment on 27 December 2021 in response to the email from the resident. This email stated “we are currently experiencing high levels of contact. We will respond to all emails as quickly as possible”.
The landlord replied to the resident on 30 December 2021. It apologised for the delay in responding. It explained that it was contacting the contractor as the job had been showing as being completed on its repair logs. Having contacted the contractor, the landlord sent the resident a second email the same day. It explained that further works were required to sort the matter out urgently and that the maintenance team would contact him directly with an appointment.
The resident sent a further email to the landlord on 31 December 2021. He stated that the contractor who had attended the property on 23 December 2021 had informed him that further parts were needed which it would report back to the landlord. He asked the landlord when the contractor would be returning to fix the matter.
The landlord emailed the resident on 5 January 2022 to explain it had asked the contractor to update him and acknowledged the matter “would be a worry”.
The landlord raised a work order for the shower pump not working on 10 January 2022 and it assigned the work order to a plumbing contractor.
The resident has provided screenshots of several messages from his mobile. He says this showed that whilst appointments were scheduled in January 2022, the landlord’s contractor had missed three of them on 19, 25 and 31 January, when he had taken time off work. In the case of the appointment which the resident referred to in his correspondence as being on 19 January 2022, this was actually on 20 January 2022. For that appointment the contractor had not attended at the agreed time of between 11am and 2pm. This had meant the matter was delayed as that appointment needed rescheduling.
The landlord has informed this Service that a plumbing contractor attended on 24 January 2022 however an electrician was also needed as the contractor needed to check the pump and there was no electrical supply to the pump.
The resident contacted this Service on 24 January 2022 to raise a complaint. He stated he had made a formal complaint about the broken shower to the landlord on 6 January 2022 but he had not received a response. This Service contacted the landlord on 24 January 2022 to ask it to respond to the resident’s complaint.
The landlord contacted the resident on 29 January 2022 to enquire as to whether the job had been completed. As it had not been the landlord asked the resident when he would be available for its contractor to attend.
The landlord emailed the resident on 8 February 2022 in response to the complaint it had received via this Service on 24 January 2022. It explained it was chasing the contractor and it would update the resident once this was done. It explained that this should be before 22 February 2022.
The resident emailed the landlord on 9 February 2022. He explained that it had missed appointments on 19, 25 and 31 January. On all of those occasions he had had to take time off work. The resident also made the landlord aware of other complaints that he wished to make. These related to the black mould in the shower and that water was leaking from the shower to a room. The email did not specify which room the water was leaking to.
The landlord issued its stage one response on 5 March 2022. It explained:
1. Having spoken to the contractor that they had recommended that an electrician was required to resolve the matter. The landlord added it had contacted its schedulers to see if this had been arranged and it asked the resident to “confirm if you have heard from anyone with regards to this”.
2. It would be looking at making a payment of compensation to the resident “in recognition of the failings here”.
The resident responded to the landlord the following day. He explained that there had been no contact from an electrician as yet. He enquired about the financial compensation stating “I think it’s important to understand that this is not about money but the distress me and my disabled mum have suffered, as a result of not having access to the most basic of rights, the ability to clean ourselves”. He also asked in terms of not having access to clean themselves “what assurances can you give me that should there be a repeat, the turnaround time won’t be so prolonged and delayed”. The resident informed the landlord that a previous compensation payment of £1,700 had been made by it in terms of when there had been a build-up of mould and the shower had not been working. He considered a similar amount should be payable on this occasion”.
The landlord treated the resident’s email of 6 March 2022 as an escalation to stage two of its complaints process. It issued the stage two response on 23 March 2022. This was the day after it had received an email sent on behalf of the resident by a local councillor. That email had provided a summary of the delays encountered by the resident and his elderly mother and that the landlord’s contractors were seemingly laying blame on each other for the delay. The councillor had explained that the lack of bathing facilities should not have taken so long to still remain resolved, and he enquired about next steps and timescales. The landlord’s stage two response made an offer of £400 which comprised £100 for delay, £100 for inconvenience, £100 distress and £100 for failure of service. It explained an appointment for an electrician had been made for 19 May 2022 to complete the work.
The resident contacted this Service on 26 March 2022. He said the offer proposed by the landlord was “derisory” and had not taken into account historical precedent and the time taken. He also expressed concern that the electrician appointment was not for another two months which was unacceptable. He considered the offer was rushed and that the landlord had closed the case prematurely.
The resident confirmed to this Service that the job was completed between 19 and 20 May 2022. However, whilst the shower was now working the issue had not been 100% resolved. This was as when the shower was in use, water was leaking into the bedroom.
The landlord’s repair notes show that a job was opened for the issue of the leak on 22 June 2022. However, this job had not been completed at the time the landlord provided information for this investigation to this Service.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the shower

Under the terms of the tenancy agreement and the landlord’s repairs policy the landlord is responsible for repairing the shower that it had installed at the property. The target timescale for remedy of such a repair is not specified set out in the landlord’s repair policy. However, as the shower was the only practical means for the resident and his mother to fully bathe the landlord should have prioritised and completed the repair at the earliest opportunity.
The repair was initially reported by the resident on 10 December 2021, and it was not completed until 20 May 2022, over five months later. This was an unreasonable amount of time for the resident and his mother to be without a bathing facility at the property. Although there was a hand basin in the bathroom, this would not be practical in the long term as a bathing facility. Although there were no particular vulnerabilities recorded by the landlord it had noted that the resident’s mother, who was a joint tenant was elderly. The resident has explained that the landlord had adapted the shower room at the property at the outset. This included providing a seat for his mother to use when she used the shower, so it was aware of her disability, which he has confirmed is bone disease. He had also referred to his mother’s disability in his communication to the landlord on 6 March 2022.
The resident had reported in the initial service request that when they tried to use the shower the power fuse had tripped. Given this it was reasonable for the landlord to send an electrician to the property. The electrician had noted upon attending that the shower needed replacing and that it would report this back to the landlord.
Although the shower unit was replaced by the landlord on 23 December 2021, it did not work. This was as there remained an issue with the water pump which needed further action. Despite this, the landlord’s repair notes noted the repair to the shower as being completed. It was only when the resident subsequently contacted the landlord on 27 December 2021 that the landlord re-opened the job and instructed its plumbing contractor to attend the property and restore the shower to a functional state.
It is not disputed that the landlord’s plumbing and electrical contractors missed several appointments in January 2022. The landlord’s work order for the water pump was not raised until 10 January 2022, which was five days after the landlord had contacted the resident to say a contractor would update him. In addition, there was a target of two months for the remedial works set in the landlord’s stage two response. Opportunities to provide an earlier remedy to the shower were missed as a result of these failures. Given the nature of the repair and the loss of the only bathing facility at the property the landlord failed to manage its repair obligations effectively with due regard to the impact on the household. This caused an extended period of detriment to the household and was unacceptable.

The landlord’s complaints handling

The resident says he made a complaint to the landlord on 6 January 2022 which it failed to respond to. Neither party has been able to provide a copy of the resident’s email of 6 January 2022. This communication was sent in response to an email from the landlord received the previous day in which it had informed the resident that the contractor would update him. The resident did refer to this email of 6 January 2022 in a later communication to the landlord. This had followed the plumbing contractor having attended the property and not fixed the shower. In this later communication, which whilst undated, took place after 22 January 2022 the resident stated, “I await this response before I lodge an investigation with the Housing Ombudsman”.
The wording of this later communication echoed the resident’s earlier communication of 27 December 2021 in which he provided a deadline for the landlord to respond before contacting this Service. As the resident was expressing his dissatisfaction with the landlord it would satisfy the landlord’s definition of a complaint. However, the landlord only treated the resident as having made a formal complaint once it was contacted by this Service on 24 January 2022. Even after factoring in bank holidays this was still more than three weeks after the resident had initially expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 8 February 2022 at which point it explained it would aim to respond to the resident by 22 February 2022. The date of the landlord’s acknowledgment email was not in line with the complaints policy which set out that first contact with the resident would be by the next working day. The landlord also failed to respond to the resident, with either the stage one response or an update by 22 February 2022, which was ten working days from the initial contact by it. This was not in keeping with its complaints policy. Instead, it took until 5 March 2022, a further nine working days to issue the stage one response.
The resident responded to the landlord following the stage one response questioning the level of compensation offered. Whilst the landlord did not respond to the communication from the resident it did treat it as dissatisfaction, and it escalated the complaint.
The stage two response was issued in line with the timescales of the landlord’s complaints policy, however the degree of detail within it was inadequate. The broken shower which formed the resident’s complaint had still not been resolved and there was no apology or acknowledgment for the further eight-week delay before the electrician could attend. Neither was there any indication that the landlord might consider a revised award of compensation for this further delay which eventually took a total of 23 weeks to be completed. This was both inappropriate and unreasonable. In line with our dispute resolution principles this Service expects landlords to “put things right”. This means maintaining oversight and contact with the resident until the substantive issues have been resolved. The landlord failed to do this in this case.

The landlord’s record keeping

During its communication with the resident the landlord has on a number of occasions asked him to confirm whether its contractor had been in touch, or whether the work had been completed. As the contractors were acting on behalf of the landlord, it should have been aware of what was happening with regards to the repair to the shower. Instead, there was a lack of adequate oversight by the landlord. There also appears to be a discrepancy as to when the plumber had attended the property in January 2022 to say an electrician would be needed. The landlord has confirmed that this occurred on 24 January 2022 and the resident’s recollection was that it happened on 21 January 2022.
Clear record keeping and usage of held records is essential to the effective operation and delivery of landlord services. This has not been the case in its management of the resident’s repair request. Neither was there any record of the vulnerability for the resident’s mother. This was despite the landlord having adapted the shower when the resident had moved into the property. These recording failures all amounts to a serious failing on the part of the landlord.

The landlord’s offer of compensation

The landlord issued the stage two response on 23 March 2022. It apologised for the overall service the resident had received and for how long the matter had taken to get resolved. It made an offer of £400 which was broken down as being £100 each for delay to repair, inconvenience, distress as well as failure of service. Although the landlord did acknowledge the time taken to resolve the matter, at the time of the stage two response the matter was still outstanding. Therefore, it had yet to undertake the necessary action to resolve the complaint. And its compensation offer did not reflect the full extent of the delay, distress and inconvenience which had been experienced by the resident.
Neither did the landlord’s offer appear to take into account the fixed awards it made in relation to service failures such as missed appointments.
The landlord has not provided this Service or the resident with any explanation for the delays between the time the shower was initially reported as not working up to the point it was eventually resolved. This included the two month wait after it had issued the stage two response, for the electrician appointment to be booked to complete the work. Whilst at the time of the initial fault in December 2021 there had been some restrictions in place due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the landlord has not referred to this as a specific reason for any delay. The lack of any explanation by the landlord to account for the delays was not acceptable. By not providing any rationale to explain the delays the landlord appeared not to be treating the matter and the resident’s concerns appropriately.
The landlord’s actions in making a compensation award at the time of the final response was not in keeping with its compensation policy. The policy set out “compensation should not be offered until all work/issues have been resolved”. The landlord explained that it had spoken to its schedulers “who have confirmed that an appointment has been arranged for the electrician for the 19th May”. This was some eight weeks later. There was no explanation offered as to why the electrician appointment could not have been any sooner and there was no allowance within the compensation offered by the landlord for this further delay. The resident has explained that he had to drive to his sisters at a pre-arranged time, based on her availability to take showers during the period the shower was inoperable.
The resident has explained he considers the previous offer of £1,700 made in 2018 was a comparable figure on which this compensation should have been based. The landlord was not under any obligation to use that amount as any form of precedent in setting out the appropriate compensation which was due here; compensation awards should be proportionate to the circumstances of the case. However, it did need to act in accordance both with its compensation policy as well as considering the degree of distress and inconvenience the broken shower had caused to the resident.
In terms of the award offered by the landlord there was no indication of it containing any payment in respect for the loss of an amenity or room. Whilst the bathroom also contained a toilet which the resident was able to use, the bathing facilities were not working for a prolonged period. Therefore, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not consider this to be a loss of an amenity and make a payment in line with its compensation policy. Whilst the policy sets out that an example of a calculation on this basis can be found in the compensation guidance this has not been provided to this Service nor is it generally available on the landlord’s website.
Therefore, it is the view of this service that the landlord’s offer of compensation does not provide proportionate redress for the significant detriment suffered by the resident for a prolonged period of time. The Ombudsman has therefore made an award of compensation taking into account the circumstances of the resident’s complaint, the resident’s rental liability, and this Service’s Remedies Guidance.
The resident’s rent for the period 5 April 2021 to 3 April 2022 was £123.28 per week. In addition, there was a weekly service charge of £10.29 to make a total payment payable of £133.67 per week. This rent increased to £142.14 per week from 4 April 2022.
The property comprised two bedrooms and whilst the exact layout and number of other rooms of the property is unknown it would have contained a kitchen and lounge room in addition to the bathroom. So, there were five rooms in total which included the two bedrooms. The landlord should pay the resident 25% of the rental amount for the period that the repair remained outstanding following the replacement of the shower on 23 December 2021. This is in terms of the loss of facilities and amenities (the bathroom). The time taken up to the repair being complete was a period of 21 weeks; 14 weeks and 3 days before the rent increase and 6 weeks and 4 days after the rent increase in 2022. Therefore, the compensation for the loss of the bathing facility stands at £715.69.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reporting of repairs to the shower.
In accordance with paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handing of the resident’s report of a leak from the shower to the bedroom is outside jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s offer of compensation.

Reasons

There were significant delays in completing the work caused by the failure of the landlord to coordinate its contractors. This prolonged the time that the resident was unable to use the shower which was the resident’s and his elderly mother’s only bathing facility, and as such understandably caused a significant degree of distress to them.
Some of the delays were due to the need to have appointments rescheduled as either the contractor missed the appointment or the time it could attend was one at which the resident was unavailable due to work commitments. Whilst there was a responsibility on the resident making themselves available for appointments, if the contractor had a set time to visit it should have ensured wherever possible that it adhered to those times. Where a contractor was arriving late or was delayed it should have informed the resident of this as soon as was reasonably possible.
The landlord failed to treat the resident’s dissatisfaction in his communications to it of 27 December 2021 and 6 January 2022 as a complaint. It also failed to meet the timescales in the complaints policy at stage one both for acknowledgment and providing the response.
The landlord failed to take adequate oversight for its contractors in terms of understanding the current situation concerning the repair. In addition, the landlord also had no record of the vulnerability for the resident’s mother despite having made adaptations to the property when they had first moved in.
Although the landlord has attempted to make an offer of compensation in line with its compensation policy, the policy itself did not extend sufficiently far enough to cover the circumstances that the resident found himself in. In this case the timescales for repair greatly exceeded the cap under the policy for the maximum delay. No allowance was made by the landlord for any discretionary based payment or for the loss of a room or amenity. Neither was there any allowance made by the landlord for the further two-month delay following the issuing of the stage two response.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified by this Service.
2. Pay the resident a total of £1,315.69 comprising:
  1. £715.69 for the loss of the sole bathing facility for a period of 21 weeks from the time that the shower had been replaced on 23 December 2021 up to the time the repairs on the shower were completed on 20 May 2022.
  2. £100 under the compensation policy for the category of an emergency defect in respect to the non-working shower.
  3. £200 in terms of a discretionary award for the distress and time and trouble caused by the delays to complete the repairs to the shower.
  4. £150 for the failure to respond to the resident’s formal complaint as well as for the delays in the landlord’s complaints handling at stage one.
  5. £150 for the failure in its record keeping.

Recommendations

That the landlord should review this case and develop an implementation plan to learn from the failures.
Review its record keeping processes to ensure appropriate recording of handling of and responses to complaints and delivery of operational services.