London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202122675)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122675

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

13 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of repairs required to the front door at the property.
2. Response to the resident’s reports of repairs required to the boiler.
3. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident lived in a one bedroom first floor flat. The assured tenancy began with the landlord on 17 April 2006. The weekly rent was £122.20 per week.
The landlord recorded that the resident was experiencing difficulties managing his own affairs. The resident authorised his daughter to act on his behalf and is referred to as ‘the representative’ in this report.

Policies, procedures, and legal obligations

The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy. It aims to resolve a complaint there and then. If this is not possible, it will respond to complaints within ten working days at stage one. At stage two, it aims to respond within 20 workings days. If extra investigation time is needed, a further ten working days is available at both stages providing the resident is kept informed.
The tenancy agreement and the repairs policy state the landlord’s repair obligations. This includes keeping in good repair, maintenance and ensuring the proper working order of any installations for the supply of water, gas, and electricity.
The landlord’s repair policy says that it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours and routine repairs at the earliest mutually convenient appointment.
The landlord’s vulnerable residents policy states, customer facing colleagues must:
1. Think – is this customer potentially vulnerable?
2. Respond – ask how their condition effects them, what support needs they have and consider how we should respond.
3. Record – ensure their needs are recorded on the system so other colleagues know how to respond in the future.
The landlord’s compensation policy states when things go wrong, it will put things right as quickly as possible. It will consider an offer of compensation when an apology alone is not sufficient. The policy approach includes:
1. Failure to follow its policies, procedures, or guidelines.
2. Loss of facilities/amenities in the home eg heating or hot water.
3. Failure to complete repairs to agreed timescales.
4. Failure to respond to or process a complaint within target times.

Summary of events

On 14 January 2021 the resident’s niece informed the landlord by telephone the emergency services had forced entry into the resident’s property. The resident was in a diabetic coma and taken to hospital. The landlord attended to make safe the door but noted both the door and frame were beyond repair. The representative informed the Ombudsman that the centre of the door was weak, and the landlord had not reinforced it with battens or board.
The representative advised the landlord that the police and fire brigade said the resident should not remain at the property until the door was replaced. The representative informed the landlord by telephone that the doorframe was extensively damaged, and the door had been split in two. It needed a new security door fitted. The representative informed the landlord that the temporary fix was weak and insecure. The representative informed the landlord that the resident would not be safe to return until the door was secured.
The representative continued to contact the landlord over the following few days. The landlord had not arranged any appointments to address the security concerns, nor had it been forthcoming with updates about a replacement door. The representative informed the landlord the resident felt fearful, and it was affecting his mental health. To minimise the risk of burglary, the family attended the property daily on their father’s behalf.
On 18 January 2021, the resident’s son telephoned the landlord and asked for an update regarding the door. The landlord’s records show that it requested an update, and an email was sent internally.
On 21 January 2021, the representative telephoned the landlord as the family had still not received an update about the door. She advised that the resident could not move back due to the door repair and security concerns. She advised the resident’s mental health was affected by not being able to return home. The landlord’s records show that its previous update request by email failed to send. It sent another marked urgent. The representative expressed dissatisfaction within this call. Landlord records on 21 January 2021 supports this. At this stage, the landlord did not record a complaint.
On 21 January 2021, internal records state the attending carpenter advised on 14 January 2021 that the door was beyond repair. A special door required. It also records the carpenter’s comments that the door had a hole in it “where people can look in to the property and see that it was vacant. This was causing distress…”
On 29 January 2021, the representative called the landlord again having not had any updates to her reported repair concerns. She advised that the property could be broken into, and the resident’s mental health was affected. The landlord advised that a replacement door would be installed on 24 February 2021. The representative expressed dissatisfaction that “nobody had contacted her”.
The resident remained with family for almost six weeks. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the family’s concerns about the security of the damaged door. Nor did it conduct any further repair works to reinforce the door.
On 24 February 2021, the landlord installed the new door, and the resident returned the same day.
On returning home on 24 February 2021, the representative informed the landlord of a loss of heating and hot water. The landlord arranged a repair for the next day.
On 25 February 2021, the representative called the landlord as the gas engineer had failed to attend. The landlord gave her the gas contractors telephone number who she called. It advised her that landlord had not requested a job. The representative called the landlord again and a new job arranged. The representative provided the resident with plug in heaters to ensure he had heating.
On 3 March 2021, the gas contractor attended. The representative informed the Ombudsman that it identified the boiler required parts. These were out of stock.
On 31 March 2021, the representative called the landlord to discuss the resident’s rent account and discussed the door repair. The resident considered it unreasonable to have paid rent while unable to live securely at the property between 15 January 2021 to 24 February 2021.
On 6 April 2021, internal communication records contact from the representative. She requested a pause of rent communications to the resident. She explained communication was having an impact on the resident’s mental health. The landlord’s records show it recorded “all calls and communication are to go through her [the representative] …” and the appropriate authority recorded.
On 6 May 2021, the representative made a formal complaint about the door repair, boiler and rent communication.
On 10 May 2021, the representative contacted the landlord for an update about the heating loss. The landlord arranged an appointment for 12 May 2021.
On 12 May 2021, the representative telephoned the landlord to inform it that the gas engineer “did not arrive as arranged” again. The landlord acknowledged this in its stage one response but not its stage two response.
On 17 May 2021, the landlord provided a stage one response. It detailed the points it had considered. It explained:
1. Rent
  1. It was unable to uphold the resident’s request for a rent refund “because it was clear the property was safe and secure; therefore you [the resident] could have lived there had you chosen to.”
2. Replacement of front door.
  1. It was satisfied that it had not failed in its provision of service and adhered to its obligations.
  2. It considered the advice given by the emergency service that the door was not secure was given prior to the door being made safe.
3. Boiler breakdowns.
  1. It stated that it had emailed the representative to inform them that the boiler replacement was delayed.
  2. It acknowledged that its contractor had failed to arrive on 12 May 2021 as arranged.
  3. It acknowledged the time and effort the resident and family had taken when contacting the landlord for updates.
  4. It asked the representative to provide receipts for the heaters purchased so it could refund the cost.
In its stage one response the landlord made a compensation offer of £150. This was calculated as:
1. Inconvenience – £40 x two months = £80
2. Distress – £25 x two months = £50
3. Delay of works and attendance = £20
  1. The landlord’s offer was specific only to the loss of heating.
On 21 May 2021, the representative informed the landlord that they did not accept the stage one response. The representative received no further response from the landlord.
On the 8 August 2021, the landlord’s records show it recorded the complaint escalation request. It recognised that the complaint had not been escalated and no stage two response provided.
On the 23 August 2021, the landlord provided an acknowledgement to the representative’s complaint escalation request. It informed the representative that “one of our officers will be in touch…”.
On 9 February 2022, following the Ombudsman’s intervention the landlord sent the resident a stage two escalation acknowledgement.
On 22 February 2022, the landlord provided a stage two response. It detailed the points regarding ‘heating and front door,’ and ‘re-imbursement of rent.’ The response included:
1. It sincerely apologised for the delay in providing a stage two response. It explained that it was experiencing a high demand for complaint escalation following changes that the Ombudsman required landlords to introduce.
2. It advised that a colleague had provided a stage one response on 14 April 2021. It was sorry the resident remained dissatisfied.
3. It stated that it had “tried contacting you [the resident] on numerous occasions and was unable to speak to you…”
4. It detailed events surrounding the door on 14 January 2021. It stated that its records showed the door was made safe, “whereby the operative fitted a 5 lever locks”.
5. It detailed events surrounding the first report of no heating in February 2021. It said that an operative attended on 12 May 2021 and a replacement boiler installed on 27 May 2021.
6. In response to the resident’s request for one and a half months rent refund, it stated that its records showed that works were completed on time. It considered the door was made safe and that the replacement door was completed in a timely manner. It considered the property secure.
7. It concluded that both door and boiler repairs were completed in a timely manner and resolved within its repair guidelines.
8. It stated, as per the tenancy agreement, that the resident was obliged to continue paying his rent while he decided not to stay at the property. Therefore, his request for re-imbursement could not be considered.
9. Due to “the significant delay with your [the resident] complaint being allocated at stage two…” the landlord offered compensation of £225. This was calculated as £100 for the complaint delay and £125 for time, effort and inconvenience caused. No reference was made to the £150 previously offered in the stage one response of 17 May 2021.
The representative has informed the Ombudsman that the resident passed away on 26 June 2022.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord followed proper procedure and good practice and acted in a reasonable way. The Ombudsman’s duty is to determine complaints by what is, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fair in all circumstances of the case.

Response to the resident’s reports of repairs required to the front door at the property.

It is not disputed that the landlord responded within its timescales to attend and make safe the damaged front door. This was the appropriate action for the landlord to have taken and in keeping with its repair policy. However, the evidence seen raised questions about the effectiveness of the initial repair. The multiple calls from the resident’s son and representative, who were concerned by the security of the door, were service requests. Therefore, the landlord should have treated them as such, and a further repair arranged.
Furthermore, the landlord was aware of the resident’s recent medical emergency. It was therefore reasonable to have considered the resident vulnerable and the landlord should have responded accordingly. The landlord recorded the representative’s concerns but failed to ‘Think’ and ‘Respond’ in a manner befitting its vulnerable resident policy.
Within the evidence there was a clear difference of opinion and detail of how the door was made safe. In each of the landlord’s complaint responses, it considered the door secure. It details “whereby the operative fitted a 5 lever locks”. This was a direct contradiction to the opinion of the representative and the resident’s son. It does not say how its investigations satisfied itself that the representative’s concerns were unfounded. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have responded to the subsequent service requests. This would have reassured the resident beyond doubt that the repaired door was secure.
During the Ombudsman’s investigation, the representative described the door as broken in two and the doorframe severely damaged. The representative further explained the repair simply pushed the original door back together. She advised the centre of the door as splintered wood and the original, damaged lock, reinstalled. No additional boarding or battens were added to reinforce the door. The representative advised the Ombudsman that minimal force would have easily breached the door.
Further evidence recorded by the landlord confirms that the door was damaged beyond repair. There was no evidence that suggests that the landlord acted on the reported concerns. This was not an appropriate response. The representative remained concerned by the door’s security and it was not reinspected until it was replaced six weeks later.
Following the initial make safe visit, the landlord informed the representative that it would be in touch “in the next few days” to arrange a full repair. The evidence shows that this did not happen. It was unreasonable that the representative had to chase the landlord for information and her action identified that the replacement door had not been ordered. This was not appropriate and is further evidenced in the landlord’s records that show it had to send another (urgent) update request seven days after the initial request.
Given the landlord’s knowledge of the resident’s recent health emergency and the representative’s comments about the door’s security, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have investigated the concerns further. Furthermore, the carpenter’s comments that distress was being caused should have prompted a response.
The representative advised the Ombudsman that the decision for the resident to remain with a family member was not simply a choice not to return, it was a necessary step to ensure the resident was secure and to remove fear. The representative considered it unreasonable the resident paid rent while living away from the property between 15 January 2021 to 24 February 2021 and sought reimbursement.
There is no automatic right to stop paying rent due to repair problems and a landlord can take steps to start legal action where rent is not paid in accordance with the tenancy agreement. It was reasonable that the landlord stated this in its stage two response, and it was appropriate that the resident continued to pay and meet the conditions of his tenancy.
Although the landlord met its initial repair obligations by responding within 24 hours, there was no evidence to suggest that it investigated the representative’s repair concerns. This was in breach of the landlord’s repair policy service standards. The landlord should have taken these concerns as a service request and revisited to secure the home of an elderly, vulnerable resident. Upon replacing the door, the fear of being insecure was removed and the resident returned the same day. The landlord could have provided this level of reassurance if it had acted on the initial repair concerns sooner.
The landlord was informed the condition of the door was causing distress and impacting the resident’s mental health. The evidence shows that the landlord failed to respond to the requests for a repair and left the resident without an appropriately secured door. The landlord did not acknowledge any failures and did not offer any redress. The landlord’s lack of action resulted in the resident losing the enjoyment of his home for almost six weeks. This was inappropriate and amounts to maladministration.
In deciding an appropriate level of redress for this complaint, the Ombudsman considered the resident’s rent while living away from his property. The landlord did not act on the representative’s security concerns, did not conduct the repair considered necessary by the representative, and did not acknowledge any failure. The resident felt unable to remain at the property until a repair or replacement was completed and therefore lost the quiet enjoyment of his property for six weeks. Accordingly, it is reasonable to reimburse the resident 25% of his rent for the period 15 January 2021 to 24 February 2021.
This amounts to £183.30 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the delays of six weeks in handling the representative’s service requests associated to the damaged front door.

Response to the resident’s reports of repairs required to the boiler

During the Ombudsman’s investigation, the representative described the events surrounding the loss of heating and hot water. She advised that the landlord was first informed on 24 February 2021 and the resident continued to experience loss of heating until the boiler replacement on 27 May 2021. She advised of missed appointments and that the initial delay was due to parts being out of stock. She also purchased plug-in heaters to keep the resident warm.
It was not appropriate that the elderly resident reported the loss of heating and hot water on 24 February 2021 but the landlord’s failure to correctly raise the emergency repair meant an engineer did not attend until 1 March 2021. Therefore, the resident waited five days without any heating or hot water in the winter months. The loss of facilities/amenities in the home eg heating in winter are emergencies. The landlord’s repair policy states that it will attend within 24 hours. The landlord’s failure to correctly raise the emergency repair on 24 February 2021 compounded the delay.
It was also not appropriate that the representative described that the repair was unsuccessful, and the resident was reliant on heaters until the boiler replacement on 27 May 2021. This was a total of 92 days and in breach of the landlord’s repair policy.
The landlord was aware the resident had been in hospital and could reasonably be considered vulnerable. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have ensured that he had another heating source while it continued to resolve the repair. Although its stage one response acknowledged two months of delays and inconvenience, and requested receipts to refund the purchased radiators, the landlord should have done more when the heating loss was first reported.
The landlord’s stage two response failed to recognise that its stage one response on 17 May 2021 had offered £150 compensation for the loss of heating. It was calculated based on two months of inconvenience, distress, delays of works and attendance. Therefore, its stage two summary of events explaining the boiler repair had been “completed on time” was inaccurate. Its response offered £225 compensation in recognition only of the delay and inconvenience of the resident’s complaint being allocated. This response was inappropriate, and the landlord’s investigation failed to address the representative’s complaints.
When there are failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (an apology, compensation and details of lessons learned) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
Overall that the compensation offered by the landlord was not proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the elderly resident. The resident was vulnerable and increasingly reliant on his representative following a medical emergency. The landlord failed to put things right within a reasonable time and outside of its repair policy. The evidence showed that the resident experienced loss of heating and hot water for 92 days and relied on heating provided by his representative. Therefore, there was severe maladministration in its response to the resident’s reports of repairs required to the boiler.
To remedy any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused, it is reasonable that a further compensation amount has been calculated based on 25% of the resident’s weekly rent over the 92 days that resident experienced issues with his heating.

Complaint handling

The representative described expressing dissatisfaction as early as 14 January 2021, concerned initially by the temporary door repair. Although this did not need to be taken as a complaint immediately, it was clear that a service request was being made. The landlord had an opportunity to address the concerns put to it and could have “resolved the complaint there and then” as per its policy. The representative continued to express the same concern. It would therefore have been appropriate for the landlord to have recorded a complaint much earlier than May 2021.
The representative told the Ombudsman that she had found it difficult to make progress with the landlord throughout the complaint. It was not appropriate that she had to make multiple calls to the landlord to request updates as these were not forthcoming. The evidence supported this. The representative contacted the Ombudsman in August 2021 as the landlord continued to not respond to her complaint escalation request.
When prompted by the Ombudsman, the landlord provided a stage two response on 22 February 2022. It was inappropriate that this response contained contradictory information from its stage one response. It explained that a stage one response had been provided on 14 April 2021. Although the representative expressed dissatisfaction in January 2021, there was no evidence that it was treated as a complaint nor responded to in April. The stage one response was sent on 17 May 2021. Therefore, this was inaccurate.
The response continued by incorrectly stating that an operative had attended on 12 May 2021, and it was satisfied that it had completed the heating repair “on time.” However, it had already accepted failure and acknowledged this in its stage one response. Considering the evidence the landlord had at its disposal, it was unreasonable that its stage two response contained inaccurate information. This caused further distress that further delayed the resolution of the complaint.
The landlord continued to attempt communication with the resident. The stage two response particularly referenced multiple attempts to contact the resident. Whilst this would be the normal approach, the landlord was aware that it had authority to speak to a representative. It’s records state that “all calls and communication” was to go through the representative and the landlord’s failure to do this added further distress, delay, and dissatisfaction to the resident.
Evidence showed the landlord knew of the representative’s desire to escalate the complaint as early as 17 May 2021. Records also show further requests to escalate in August 2021. It was therefore inappropriate that it was not until the Ombudsman became involved that a stage two response was finally provided on 22 February 2022.
The landlord’s stage two response offered £225 compensation for the complaint handling delay. Although the landlord explained its calculations, no reference was made to the stage one offer of £150 for two months of inconvenience and delay due to the heating repair. There was also no evidence that the investigation had identified that that this had not been accepted nor paid. It is therefore fair to presume that the investigation missed details that were important to accurately assess the impact on the resident and whether the compensation offered was proportionate.
The landlord’s failure to address the resident’s complaint would have adversely affected him and caused avoidable distress and inconvenience. The landlord’s stage two complaint response was 204 working days after the complaint and 184 working days outside the 20 working day response timescale set out in the landlords complaints policy. Accordingly, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
The omission to monitor those initial reports of dissatisfaction has caused additional delays and inconvenience to the resident. If the landlord had raised those concerns through its formal complaints procedure, the resident may have got an earlier opportunity for resolution by progressing the issues to senior staff or eventually to the Ombudsman. Hence, additional compensation has been ordered in respect of the earlier complaint handling failures and the landlord’s failure to address these in its final response.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs required to the front door at the property.
2. Severe Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of repairs to the boiler.
3. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord failed to adopt a proactive approach in responding to the reported concerns about the security of the front door made by the resident’s representative, resident’s son or comments recorded by its carpenter.
The landlord’s operative failed to attend as advised and there were heating issues for a total of 92 days before the boiler replacement.
There were complaint handling delays of 204 working days. There were also opportunities to have addressed concerns at an earlier stage. The landlord’s complaint handling was contrary to its complaints policy. The landlord’s compensation award failed to reflect the full extent of its failures or the impact on the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

As the resident has passed away, the landlord to arrange for a senior member of its staff to apologise to the executors of the resident’s estate for the failings identified in this report.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the executors of the resident’s estate a total of £1,059.81 in compensation within four weeks. The compensation comprises:
1. £375 compensation already offered, if not already paid.
2. £183.30 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs required to the front door at the property.
3. £401.51 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s boiler.
1. A further £100 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
The landlord must update this Service once payment has been made.
Provide training to staff to ensure the correct use of resident vulnerability markers and remove where practicably possible, instances of contacting resident’s when an authorised representative has been identified.
The landlord is to carry out a ‘lessons learned’ exercise using this case. It should identify how it identifies vulnerable residents and how it monitors their repairs. These steps should help prevent delays that could have serious health and safety implications. The landlord is to provide evidence to this Service in four weeks as to its findings and any associated changes or improvements to its procedures, and any training provided.