London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202128131)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202128131

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

28 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to the resident’s request for compensation following his reports of leaks.
   2. Complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident reported faulty extractor fans, and a containable leak from one of them, in December 2019. The landlord’s repair records show the repair work order was cancelled in January 2020. No other information is recorded.
3. The records show the resident reported a minor leak from a kitchen pipe on 3 March 2020. The repair work was completed on 31 March.
4. The resident complained to the landlord on 26 May 2020. He said he had been waiting seven months for repairs, and he wanted a resolution and compensation. The resident was told the dates the landlord had in its records for his repair reports (as above), and said that the visit in March had seen evidence of a past leak, which was no longer occurring. The resident disputed the number of reports he had made, and the landlord asked him to provide evidence so it could investigate further. It does not appear to have received any further information.
5. The landlord’s complaint investigator visited the resident in mid-August 2020. The notes of the visit state there were water marks in areas of the kitchen but “very minimal damage”. The resident explained to the investigator that, due to the smells in the property, he had not been able to cook or stay there. He said he was seeking £5000 compensation in light of the distress and expense he had been caused. The investigator noted that no smells could be detected.
6. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 25 September 2020. It set out the repair reports it had received in December 2019 and March 2020. It explained that the December work order had been cancelledto accommodate the resident’s availability, but mistakenly not rescheduled, and acknowledged that the resident had not been informed. It explained that no follow up to the March visit had been arranged due to the start of covid lockdowns at the same time. It confirmed that attempts had been made to gain access to the neighbouring property, but communication and covid lockdown challenges had caused delays. It apologised for the delays, and offered compensation of for the missed appointment. It explained that it had seen no evidence that the property had been uninhabitable, and could not offer the £5000 the resident sought.
7. The resident asked to escalate his complaint in October 2020, as he was unhappy with the compensation offered. He again asked for £5000 to cover costs such as takeaway food, and inconvenience. Due to miscommunication and confusion between the landlord and the resident, the complaint was not escalated. The resident asked to escalate his complaint again on 14 July 2021.
8. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 3 September 2021. It repeated its explanation for the delays following the initial report in December 2019, but concluded there were no service failure for other repairs. The landlord offered £100 compensation for the initial repair delay, and any inconvenience caused.
9. The resident brought his complaint to this Service. He remained dissatisfied with the compensation offered. He stated that he had to move out of the property from January 2020 until June 2021. He sought £5000 compensation for stress, inconvenience, and expenses.

Assessment and findings

Scope

10. Following the landlord’s final complaint response in September 2021 the resident continued to correspond with it in relation to a range of repair issues. No evidence has been seen showing these further issues being raised as complaints with the landlord. Accordingly, this investigation centres on the resident’s request for compensation, and the landlord’s responses, in the period up to its final complaint response.

Request for compensation

11. The tenancy agreement sets out that the landlord is responsible for repairs to extractor fans and condensation, mould and rising and penetrative damp in walls and ceilings.
12.  The landlord’s repair records show the resident reporting repair issues with extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen on 24 December 2019. They also state the fan in the kitchen was leaking, described as a “constant drip – containable.” The landlord’s records state that the work order was cancelled following the resident’s request for an earlier appointment, and it acknowledged in its complaint responses that it had failed to re-book the appointment. That was clearly a failure. However, nothing indicates the leak was a major one, or that the resident reported he believed his home was unliveable because of it.
13. The landlord’s repair records state that the resident made another leak report on 3 March 2020. Again listed as containable, but with a concern that it could get worse. The resident disputed that that was the only other date he had made reports, but there is no evidence of other reports in either the landlord or resident’s information. The landlord attended on 31 March. That response time frame was within the typical 28 day target landlord’s set for routine repairs (the landlord’s own repair policy does not give a set time frame). In the absence of details suggesting otherwise, that was not an unreasonable response. The landlord told the resident that the attending operatives noted that there had been a leak, which was no longer occurring. Nothing in the leak report or the account of the visit on 31 March indicates the resident reporting that he believed the property uninhabitable, or that the operatives thought there were major issues.
14. The landlord explained in its complaint responses that the March inspection was not followed up because covid lockdowns were implemented very soon afterwards, and only emergency repairs were being done. This follow up work appears to relate to treating the water marks, and tracing the source of the past leaks. That explanation matches the circumstances at that particular time, when many social landlords were forced into a similar position. Basic good customer service would have been for the resident to be updated and his expectations managed, but there is no evidence that was done. Nonetheless, the rapidity of the covid lockdown, and uncertainty it caused, led to a wide range of process breakdowns across the country, especially in the early weeks of the lockdown in March and April 2020. Furthermore, the landlord’s internal records show it was only attending to emergency repair issues at the time, and there is no indication the repair met that criteria. Because of that, the lack of communication and delay was not good service, but was potentially unavoidable, in those circumstances.
15. In its complaint responses the landlord presented a detailed investigation of events, explaining the reason for the delays in resolving the leak. It acknowledged a missed appointment (the cancelled one in January 2020) and a lack of communication with the resident between December 2019 and March 2020. It offered the resident £100 compensation for that period. The landlord explained that, as there was no evidence of the property being uninhabitable, it was unable to compensate the resident for the time he said he had not lived in it, but did compensate him for one missed appointment. These were reasonable explanations and remedies which reflected the evidence seen in this investigation, and the events happening nationally at the time.
16. The resident reported to the landlord in August 2020 that there was a smell in the property which affected his health, and meant he could not cook or live there. The landlord’s notes of its inspection state that, while there were water marks in parts of the kitchen, any damage was minimal, and no smells were detected. In his later complaint the resident explained that the property had been largely unliveable since December 2019, and he sought £5000 compensation. The evidence does not show this concern being raised with the landlord until eight months after the property is said to have become unliveable, and none of the records for the earlier repair visits note any such concerns. The issue of whether a property is unliveable, partly or fully, is one that a tenant can and should raise with their landlord, but the landlord needs to agree that the property is unliveable before it can be expected to decant a tenant, provide compensation, or give a rent discount. The landlord inspected the property following the resident’s report, and found nothing to substantiate his concern. In the circumstances of the delayed report and the lack of supporting evidence, the landlord’s decision not to compensate the resident in the manner he was seeking was reasonable.

Complaint handling

17. The landlord’s complaints policy states that the landlord will write within 10 working days after receiving a complaint to explain the outcome of its investigation.
18. Following the resident’s complaint on 22 May 2020, the landlord provided its stage one response on 25 September. In some circumstances, landlords may need some more time to complete an investigation. However, the landlord failed to explain this significant delay, and there is no evidence of updates to him, or other efforts to manage his expectations. The landlord offered £20 compensation, which was not proportionate to the length of the delay.
19. The landlord did not escalate the complaint in October 2020, when the resident explicitly asked it to. The evidence shows that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request, and that there appears to have been a miscommunication between the landlord and resident. The landlord advised him to escalate his complaint to its customer experience team, which he did not do. Nonetheless, the resident’s dissatisfaction was clear, and basic good practice would have been for the landlord to have accepted the request and ensured it was received by the appropriate team itself. Not doing so was unreasonable.
20. The resident asked to escalate his complaint again on 14 July 2021. The landlord had a 10 working day target to send its response. It sent its complaint response on 3 September. There is no evidence of updates to the resident about the delay, or an agreement to an extended time frame. The landlord did not acknowledge or explain the complaint delay in its response.

Determination

21. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about his request for compensation.
22. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

23. In light of the landlord’s poor handling of the resident’s complaint it is ordered to pay him £175. This is inclusive of the £20 already offered.
24. If it has not done so already, the landlord should also pay the resident the £110 compensation it offered during its complaints process.
25. Payment must be made within four weeks of this report, and evidence provided to this Service.
26. The complaints in this case were made in 2020, and the landlord’s final response was in September 2021. It is possible that the landlord has improved its complaint handling processes in the time since then. To that end, within four weeks, the landlord must confirm to this Service, and to the resident, that its complaint handling now complies with the time frames set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.