London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202203488)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203488

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

29 March 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 handling of a job to replace the resident’s blind.
2. This Service has also made a separate finding regarding the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. She has resided in the property, a three-bedroom flat, since 1998.
4. On 3 May 2022, the resident raised a complaint relating to a repair undertaken to her home to repair her bedroom window. The resident advised that, in carrying out the repair, one of the landlord’s operatives damaged a blind (records indicate the repair was carried out on 20 April 2022) and she was dissatisfied with the appointment date she was given for the blind to be replaced. The landlord noted the resident advised she had received notification the blind would be replaced that day, but no operative had attended. It noted she was frustrated because she had taken the day off work, and that being without a blind impacted her privacy.
5. The landlord issued a final complaint response on 19 August 2022. It stated that on 21 April 2022, an operative attended the resident’s home and took measurements for a replacement blind. It scheduled the replacement to take place on 27 May 2022, but then cancelled this appointment due to the lack of availability of parts. It rescheduled the job for 11 July 2022. The landlord awarded the resident £25 compensation for the inconvenience caused by her blind being broken and for failing to keep the appointment on 27 May. The landlord stated it had subsequently been unable to replace the blind in July 2022 because its operative was unable to gain access to the resident’s home. It noted it had therefore rescheduled the appointment for 16 September 2022. It stated it appreciated the further inconvenience this caused the resident but advised this was the nearest appointment available.
6. The landlord also apologised for failing to escalate the resident’s complaint in May 2022 and awarded £10 compensation for this as well as an additional £15 compensation for poor complaint handling. It advised it would provide feedback to its senior management to ensure similar complaint handling issues did not occur again in the future. In total, the landlord offered the resident compensation of £50.
7. The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She stated she had suffered stress and was inconvenienced by the unresolved situation. She also believed the compensation offered was insufficient for the distress caused. She further stated she had contacted the landlord on 16 September 2022 to confirm it was attending to replace the blind that day, but was advised that the appointment had been rescheduled, without prior notice, for 15 November 2022. The resident advised this was subsequently rescheduled again, without explanation, to 25 November 2022. In further correspondence with this Service in March 2023, the resident has advised the landlord has replaced the blind.
8. Following the completion of its complaints process, the landlord offered the resident an additional £20 for not keeping the September 2022 appointment.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of a job to replace the resident’s blind

9. The landlord’s repairs policy does not set out a specific timeframe for routine repairs, but states it aims to complete non-emergency repairs at the earliest mutually convenient appointment. The Ombudsman would consider a period of four weeks, or 28 days, to be the general standard timeframe amongst social landlords for routine repairs, so that is taken as a baseline against which to consider the landlord’s actions in this case.
10. The landlord’s compensation policy states it will make a payment of £10 for failure to respond to a query within ten working days, and failure to respond to a formal complaint within the timescales published in its complaints policy. It also states it will make a payment of £20 for failure to keep an appointment without at least twenty-four hours’ notice.
11. There is no dispute that the landlord’s operative damaged the resident’s blind in the process of undertaking a repair to her bedroom window. Accordingly, the landlord acted reasonably and appropriately agreed to replace the blind, as it would be expected to make good any damage caused as a result of its repair activities. While records do not make clear exactly how the landlord categorised the job to replace the blind, given its relatively uncomplex nature, it would be reasonable to assess it was a routine repair. Given that the blind was damaged in April 2022, it is not reasonable that the landlord took 10 months to replace the blind, particularly as the work was not of a complex nature.
12. In its stage one response, the landlord apologised for its initial delay to replace the resident’s blind. It provided a reasonable explanation as to why it could not undertake the works sooner, citing staff shortages and its subsequent decision to prioritise urgent repairs and vulnerable residents at that time. However, the landlord has not provided a reasonable explanation for the significant delay that has followed.
13. There are concerns over the consistency and accuracy of the information the landlord provided to the resident. It advised her it had been unable to complete the replacement in July 2022 due to not being provided access but later, in September 2022, it noted the blind had yet to be made so it needed to attend her property to take measurements. The landlord did not advise how it would have completed the replacement in July 2022 if the blind still needed to be made. This was not appropriate, and this lack of clarity would have caused the resident confusion and additional distress. It also calls into question the landlord’s record keeping, since its responses clearly noted measurements had already been taken in April 2022. It is unclear why the blind had not yet been made by September 2022 when the landlord had, by that time, already had the required information for five months. This is evidence of an unreasonable and avoidable delay and was a further service failure.
14. In correspondence with the resident in July 2022, the landlord acknowledged she had experienced three missed appointments, but its complaint response only addressed two missed appointments. Although it offered £25 compensation for the distress and inconvenience of this “missed appointment and (for the) broken blind”, its interchangeable use of the word ‘missed’, with ‘cancelled’, implied that it had not given the resident sufficient notice of the cancellation. As such, in accordance with its compensation policy, it is reasonable to assess that £20 of the £25 awarded would be solely attributed to the missed appointment. Therefore, an additional £5 for the inconvenience caused by the broken blind was disproportionately low given the considerable delay to put matters right. From the evidence available, the landlord should have offered more both for additional missed appointments, and for the inconvenience caused by the delay in replacing the blind. However, since the landlord’s final complaint response, it is noted that further appointments appear to have been missed and there has been a further significant delay in completing the replacement.
15. The resident has made references to 6 missed appointments from April 2022 to January 2023. The resident explained they have not been compensated for any of the missed appointments thus far.  Having reviewed the evidence, it is not clearly outlined which dates have been missed and which appointments the landlord is responsible for paying as a result of missing them, particularly as a number of appointments were rescheduled. As such, a recommendation is listed below for the landlord to review any payments due for the missed appointments.
16. Given the repeated delays the landlord experienced, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered offering to compensate the resident the cost of replacing the blind herself. That it did not do so meant it missed an opportunity to further engage with the resident and to resolve the issue at an earlier date.
17. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the job to replace the blind, which had been damaged by one of its operatives, amounts to maladministration. Its responses did not fully acknowledge all the missed appointments, it had not provided an explanation for why the delay is so significant. An order has therefore been made for the landlord to pay an increased level of compensation that more appropriately reflects the repair failings in this case and the inconvenience caused to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

18. After the landlord provided its stage one response, the resident requested that her complaint escalated in May 2022. However, the landlord did not take appropriate steps to action this until July 2022, two months later. This was unreasonable and resulted in an avoidable delay in providing a response.
19. It was appropriate the landlord acknowledged this in its final complaint response, offered an apology and awarded the resident £10, in line with its compensation policy. It also awarded the resident a further £15 for poor complaint handling. While the landlord did not make clear precisely what aspect of poor complaint handling this referred to, it is assumed to relate to a further delay in providing its stage two response, which was issued two months after the complaint had been escalated. The landlord also advised it would provide feedback to its senior management, to ensure that it did not repeat these mistakes going forward.
20. The landlord’s apology, offer of compensation, and commitment to learn from its mistakes were appropriate steps which sought to try and “put things right” for the resident, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, considering there was a four-month gap between the resident asking for her complaint to escalated and the landlord issuing its final response, its offer of compensation could have been higher to better reflect the inconvenience this delay would have caused.
21. There were also apparent failings in the landlord’s investigation of the complaint, whereby it did not seem to acknowledge all the appointments that had been missed up until September 2022 and its lack of clarity over whether some appointments had been missed or cancelled was unhelpful. As noted above, it also lacked clarity when its responses reiterated that it had been unable to complaint the replacement in July 2022 due to not gaining access, while later acknowledging in September 2022 that the blind still needed to be made. This was not appropriate and meant the landlord’s response put an unfair onus on the resident for some of the delays. Overall, its explanation of the delays regarding the blind replacement was insufficient.
22. Overall, the delays in progressing the complaint and the lack of clarity in the landlord’s responses amounted to service failure. While it is noted the landlord did take some steps to try and remedy the situation, by offering an apology and a small amount of compensation, the amount offered did not adequately reflect the failings in its complaint handling. An order has therefore been made for the landlord to pay the resident an increased level of compensation to better reflect the inconvenience the resident has been caused.

Determination

23. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:

1. 1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of a job to replace the resident’s blind.
   2. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

24. The landlord is ordered to, within four weeks of the date of this report:
    1. Write to the resident (providing a copy of the letter to this Service) to apologise for the ongoing delays with replacing her blind.
    2. Pay the resident compensation totalling £325, consisting of:
       1. £250 for the delays in replacing the resident’s blind.
       2. £75 for the failings in its complaint handling.
    3. For clarity, this is in addition to, and not in place of, the compensation already offered by the landlord during its complaints procedure.

Recommendations

25. The landlord should, if it has not done so already, pay the resident the £70 it offered in total during, and following the conclusion of, its complaint procedure.
26. The landlord should calculate if any amount is owed to the resident as a result of the further missed appointments in April 2022 and January 2023, and pay the remaining amount to the resident.