London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202200878)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200878

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

23 August 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 report of a fire safety incident;
2. handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Background

At the time of his complaint, the resident held an assured tenancy that began on 22 May 2001. The resident’s property was a two bedroom flat, on the top floor of a converted terrace house. The house has three floors, with a flat on each. The landlord is a housing association.
The residents of all three flats were tenants of the landlord. For the purposes of this report, the tenant of the first floor flat is referred to as the ‘resident’s neighbour’. The tenant of the ground floor (GF) flat is referred to as the ‘GF tenant’.
The resident had made a previous related complaint to the landlord, that concluded the landlord’s process in March 2020.
The resident’s previous complaint concerned the landlord’s response to the findings of the fire risk assessment (FRA) of the property completed in November 2018, and its handling of his concerns following a serious fire at the property in December 2019.
The November 2018 FRA had noted that the resident and his neighbour had shown concern about the level of storage in the ground floor flat. The resident had described the GF tenant as elderly and vulnerable. The fire in December 2019 originated in the ground floor flat.
The resident’s previous complaint was referred to the Ombudsman, and was determined in April 2021 (case 201914859). The Ombudsman found maladministration with the landlord’s response to the findings of the 2018 FRA, and with its handling of the resident’s concerns following the fire.
The Ombudsman made orders to the landlord that included the creation of an action plan to address the procedural flaws that had led to it not following its FRA process. The landlord evidenced its compliance with this order in June 2021. Its evidence included a revised FRA action process. It also included an updated FRA of the property containing the resident’s flat, that was completed on 17 May 2021.

Scope of investigation

In early March 2022, the resident reported a further fire safety incident to the landlord, that is the focus of this report. Any references to the 2019 fire, or to the resident’s associated 2020 complaint, determined by the Ombudsman in 2021, are for the purpose of context only.

Complaints policy

The landlord’s complaints policy that was in effect at the time of the resident’s complaint explained the various methods by which a complaint could be made. This included using the dedicated complaints form on the landlord’s website.
The policy stated that the landlord operated a two stage complaint process. It said that stage one complaints would receive a written response detailing the outcome of its investigation, and its resolution, within 10 working days. It said that where it was unable to meet this timeframe, it would provide a written explanation to the resident, and write again within a further 10 working days.
The policy said that if the resident was dissatisfied with the stage one response, it would escalate the complaint to stage two, and contact the resident within two working days to give them an opportunity to explain their side of things. It said that stage two complaints would then receive a written response, detailing the outcome and next steps, within 20 working days. It said that where it was unable to meet this timeframe, it would provide a written explanation to the resident, and write again within a further 10 working days.

Vulnerable residents policy

The landlord’s policy described the main ways a vulnerable resident may be identified. This included a potential vulnerability being noted by one of its officers, or being reported by a third party.
The policy stated that where the report came from a third party, the landlord would work with support workers, advocates, family members, or other professionals with disclosure authority, to determine the resident’s needs.
The policy stated that where a potential vulnerability had been noted by one of its officers, it should seek to identify whether there is support already in place and/or refer and signpost as needed.

Fire safety policy

The landlord’s policy explained that where fire safety concerns had been raised, its housing management team would be notified and a ‘person centred risk assessment’ requested.
It stated that the purpose of the person centred risk assessment was to establish that a resident’s smoke alarm was working, and that the resident would be able to hear and react appropriately to it. It further stated that the assessment would identify those residents at greater risk from fire, which would then determine the landlord’s approach, such as referral to Social Services and other actions.

Summary of events

On 2 March 2022, the resident called the landlord to raise his welfare and fire safety concerns, following an incident that had occurred at the property the previous day. The key points from the landlord’s call record were as follows:
1. The resident had said that he and his neighbour had heard a communal smoke alarm and had knocked on the door of the GF tenant, but did not get an answer.
2. The resident had stated that he and his neighbour had noted a smell coming from the GF tenant’s property, but that no smoke was visible and the alarm had stopped.
3. The resident had said that he had returned to his flat and noticed that the smell was now present in there. He had explained that he went back to the ground floor to investigate, and this time smelt smoke coming from the GF tenant’s flat.
4. The resident stated that he had knocked on the GF tenant’s door again, and eventually got an answer. He said that he had pointed out to the GF tenant that she had smoke in her flat, which he stated that she had initially denied. He said he had queried with the GF tenant if she had fallen asleep, and pointed out the danger of the situation.
5. The resident had said that with the previous fire at the property he now felt very vulnerable living there.
6. The landlord’s record noted the age and vulnerability of the GF tenant. It stated that the resident had said that he had tried talking to the GF tenant, but that she did not seem to register the danger. The record said an urgent welfare visit was needed, and the potential involvement of appropriate services.
On 2 March 2022, the landlord emailed the resident further to his earlier call. The landlord expressed its appreciation for the resident raising his fire risk concerns. It advised that it had raised cases for its property management and fire safety teams. It said that its tenancy management officer (TMO) would be in touch with the next steps for helping the GF tenant. It asked that the resident call 999 if he was ever in any doubt.
On 2 March 2022, the landlord completed an incident form for its health and safety team based on the resident’s report. The accompanying internal email highlighted the resident’s deep concern and anxiety about the matter. It noted that he was grieving the loss of his mother, and that his employment meant that he was very aware of fire safety issues.
On 2 March 2022, the landlord’s TMO sent an internal email, and relayed his contact with the resident. The TMO further advised that he had been unable to contact the GF tenant, but had gotten hold of her son. The TMO stated that the son had said that the GF tenant had left the stove on when she had gone to check on a nearby friend. The TMO said that he had checked with another colleague who was familiar with the GF tenant, and been advised that welfare referrals had been made in the past, but that he would check their current status.
On 3 March 2022, the landlord’s manager emailed the TMO, ahead of a call she was due to make to the resident. The manager asked the TMO to confirm the date he would be visiting the resident, and whether he had managed to find out more about the GF tenant’s referral.
On 4 March 2022, the landlord’s TMO replied to the manager. The TMO confirmed that he had spoken with the resident earlier and had agreed a visit for the next working day. The TMO said that the resident had asked that he also meet his neighbour to hear his concerns. The TMO stated that he had advised the resident that he would also visit the GF tenant, and that he had advised her son of this. The TMO confirmed that an additional welfare referral had been made for the GF tenant. The manager replied and instructed various actions that needed to be taken regarding the GF tenant, including the completion of a ‘person centred risk assessment’.
On 8 March 2022, the landlord’s TMO emailed the manager following his visit to the property the previous day. The key points of the TMO’s email were as follows:
1. He had discussed the resident’s concerns with him, and had also pointed out that the resident’s bicycle was blocking the main entrance to the property.
2. He said that the resident had stated that since the fire and the recent “near miss”, he did not feel safe living at the property, and that he felt that the landlord had lied to him.
3. He stated that he had also visited the GF tenant, confirmed that she had working smoke alarms, and said that there was nothing about the condition of her flat that raised any concerns.
4. He said that the GF tenant had stated that with regard to the reported incident, she had left milk on the stove that had boiled over but that she had not left the property. He stated that he had reiterated to the GF tenant that she must be more mindful.
On 22 March 2022, the landlord’s manager emailed the TMO and said that they had received a voicemail from the resident asking for an update. The manager asked that the TMO follow up on the referral that was made for the GF tenant, and contact the resident with an update before the end of the week.
On 23 March 2022, the landlord’s call records stated that the resident had called, and was very unhappy that no one was returning his calls.
On 27 March 2022, the resident made a complaint via the landlord’s website. The resident’s complaint said that a very serious incident had occurred at the start of the month, and that the TMO had visited him about it on 7 March 2022. He said that he had been told he would get an update, but had heard nothing since and that his chasing calls had been unreturned. He expressed his disappointment that the landlord did not care about its tenants, and asked that it take the matter seriously.
On 28 March 2022, the landlord’s customer team forwarded the resident’s complaint to the TMO, and later emailed the TMO and asked that he urgently call the resident before 2pm the following day. The email further asked that if the resident was working and unable to take the TMO call, the TMO should leave a voicemail.
On 29 March 2022, the landlord’s TMO called the resident, and followed it up with an email to him. The email said that the TMO had made two attempts to call the resident. The resident called the landlord later the same day and the landlord’s customer team sent a task to the TMO that stated that the resident was becoming very frustrated, and had asked that the TMO call him after 4pm. The customer team’s call record stated that the resident had said he had called the TMO several times the previous day and seven times that day, including immediately returning the call he had missed. It stated that the resident had said he found this behaviour extremely unprofessional, and that he was very worried by the safety situation.
On 29 March 2022, the landlord’s manager emailed the TMO, and asked that he call the resident by the end of the day, and provide confirmation that he had done so.
On 30 March 2022, the landlord’s TMO replied to the manager’s email and stated that he had left the resident a voicemail that day. The TMO email to the manager said that the resident had tried to call him during his lunchbreak. The TMO said that he had advised the resident to avoid calling him during his lunchbreak, and that he was in meetings that day, but that the resident could email him instead if he wished to.
On 5 April 2022, the landlord’s TMO called and spoke with the resident. The landlord’s call record stated that the resident had said that the GF tenant was vulnerable, and was not being truthful that it had just been milk boiling over on the stove that had caused the incident.
On 13 April 2022, the resident called this Service and expressed his worry about the GF tenant, the risk of a further fire, and the lack of follow up or contact from the landlord. This Service advised the resident with regards to progressing his complaint to the landlord.
On 25 April 2022, the landlord’s customer team emailed the TMO a new complaint submitted by the resident via its website. The complaint referred to the resident’s previous complaint and stated “please take this seriously”.
On 11 May 2022, this Service emailed the landlord with regards to the resident’s complaint, that he had said he had received no response to from the landlord. This Service advised the landlord of the steps it should take to progress the resident’s complaint.
On 18 May 2022, the landlord called the resident to acknowledge his stage one complaint. The landlord’s call record stated that it had apologised that the resident had needed to complain. It said that the resident was very upset that the TMO had been dishonest about contact and the management of his case. It stated that it had advised the resident it would investigate the matter thoroughly.
On 24 May 2022, the landlord called the resident to discuss his complaint. The landlord’s call record said that it had spoken at length with the resident about his concerns regarding the ground floor tenant, the recent burning of a saucepan, and the lack of contact from the landlord’s TMO.
On 24 May 2022, the landlord’s area housing manager (AHM) emailed the resident its stage one complaint response. It said that it was sorry that the resident had felt the need to raise his concerns with the Ombudsman, and apologised that its handling of his complaint had fallen short of its standards. It confirmed it had completed a FRA of the block in November (it did not state the year), which had met with all fire safety requirements, but that it still intended to install additional alarms. It offered the resident a total of £50 compensation that was broken down between ‘time and effort’, ‘inconvenience’, and ‘complaint handling’. It advised the resident of his right to request a review.
On 28 May 2022, the resident sent two emails to this Service. The resident’s emails expressed his severe disappointment with the landlord’s stage one complaint response. The key points of the resident’s emails were as follows:
1. He stressed the seriousness of his complaint, and his disappointment that the landlord had offered the same ‘£50 and a fire alarm’ solution that it had offered for his 2020 complaint.
2. He emphasised that his complaint was not about the fire alarm system, and said that it was clear that the landlord had not investigated it.
3. He said that he did not believe that the landlord’s AHM had spoken to the landlord’s officer who he had discussed his concerns with, and that if they had, they would realise that installing an extra alarm system was not a solution.
4. He stated that the landlord had already installed an alarm system, but that the problem was the vulnerable GF tenant.
5. He made the analogy that if you were trying to help a person who had a history of writing off cars, the solution would not be to keep replacing their car.
6. He stressed that he had told the TMO he was not comfortable living in that situation and that he wanted to move, but that he did not believe the landlord cared about its residents.
On 31 May 2022, this Service wrote to the resident and advised him that he should contact the landlord directly to request that it escalate his complaint to stage two of its process. This was further explained in a call from this Service to the resident.
On 2 June 2022, the resident emailed the landlord and asked that his complaint be escalated to stage two, as he did not believe it had been properly investigated at stage one. The resident repeated many of the points from the emails sent to this Service on 28 May 2022. He further added that he had been terrified living in the property since the first fire in December 2019. He said that on that occasion, his neighbour had saved his life by alerting him to the fire, and that he had been 15 minutes away from having to jump from his window.
On 20 July 2022, this Service wrote to the landlord with regards to the resident’s concern that he had escalated his complaint, but had not received a response. The letter asked that the landlord provide the resident with a response within 10 working days.
On 20 July 2022, the landlord replied to this Service and stated that the resident had not asked to escalate his complaint. It said that, following the Ombudsman’s email, it would now escalate the resident’s complaint, but that it had 20 working days, not 10, to provide a stage two response.
On 11 August 2022, the landlord sent its stage two complaint response to the resident. It said that its understanding had been informed by its communications with the resident on 27 July 2022, and that the basis of his dissatisfaction regarded his wish to be appropriately compensated, and his concern for his neighbour’s welfare. The key points of the landlord’s stage two response were as follows:
1. It acknowledged that the resident felt that it had been very difficult to get the landlord to act with regard to his fire safety concerns, or with regard to his concern for the ground floor tenant’s welfare.
2. It further acknowledged that the resident had advised that following the previous fire, he had no confidence that the landlord had done anything to prevent it happening again and, as such, had decided to end his tenancy.
3. It said that the resident’s fire safety concerns were addressed in its stage one response, by the information provided regarding the completion of all actions from its FRA, and its intentions concerning further alarms.
4. It thanked the resident for raising his concerns about his neighbour, and assured him that it had a duty of care to vulnerable residents and would act accordingly.
5. It apologised that the resident felt that his concerns had not been taken seriously, and for his time and frustration with chasing its replies. It advised of the learning and staff training that it had taken from this.
6. It offered the resident £200 compensation broken down as follows:
  1. £120 – distress and inconvenience;
  2. £50 – time and effort;
  3. £30 – complaint handling.
7. It advised the resident of his right to refer the matter to this Service.
On 22 August 2022, the resident completed a mutual exchange to another property, and his tenancy with the landlord was ended.

Assessment and findings

Response to the reported fire risk incident

Data protection legislation would have limited how much the landlord could advise the resident about its actions taken with regard to the GF tenant. Nevertheless, the landlord was fully aware of the resident’s acute fears and understandable concerns following the 2019 fire at the property. The landlord could have demonstrated that it took the resident concerns seriously, and offered appropriate assurances, far more effectively than it did.
The landlord’s subsequent communication failings are considered in detail in the ‘complaint handling’ assessment below. However, prior to its subsequent communication failings, the landlord’s initial response to the resident’s report made on 2 March 2022 was in the main appropriate and in line with its relevant policies. As such, the Ombudsman has made a finding of no maladministration.
The resident called the landlord on 2 March 2022 to report a fire safety incident, involving the GF tenant, that had occurred the previous day. It was appropriate for the landlord to make a detailed record of the call, and to note how fearful the resident had said that he felt living in his flat since the December 2019 fire.
The landlord followed up on the resident’s call with an email to him, and offered assurance that its TMO would follow up with the GF tenant, and keep in touch with the resident. The TMO attempted to contact the GF tenant, did contact her son, and checked on the status of the GF tenant’s previous welfare referrals. The landlord raised cases for its appropriate technical teams, and completed an incident form for its health and safety team that specifically noted the resident’s recent bereavement and deep anxieties about fire safety. It was reasonable that the landlord completed all of these actions the same day it had received the resident’s report.
Over the following two days, the landlord spoke with the resident, appropriately arranged to visit him, and advised of its intention to also visit the GF tenant. The landlord liaised with the GF tenant’s son, and made further referrals in line with its vulnerable resident policy. The landlord also requested that its housing management team complete a ‘person centred risk assessment’, in line with its fire safety policy.
It was appropriate for the landlord to complete all of these actions at its visits to the resident and the GF tenant the next working day, and to provide an internal update and record of the outcomes the following day, on 8 March 2022. The landlord’s initial response to the resident’s report of a fire safety incident was therefore reasonable.

Complaint handling

Whilst the landlord’s initial response to the resident’s report of a fire safety incident at the property was reasonable, there were significant failings in its subsequent communication immediately prior to, and during, the resident’s complaint.
The landlord had firmly established the resident’s very real fear and concern for his own, and the other tenants’ safety. Following the TMO visit on 7 March 2022, the resident was clearly expecting to receive updates and assurances. The three week gap in communications, in which the resident had expected an update, left him feeling that the landlord was not taking the matter seriously and did not care about the safety of its tenants. This was then further compounded by a series of complaint handling failures. The Ombudsman has therefore made a finding of maladministration.
The resident expressed his frustration at the lack of contact from the landlord in his calls to it on 22 and 23 March 2022, which culminated in him making his complaint to the landlord on 27 March 2022 via its webform. Whilst it may have been appropriate for the landlord’s customer team to respond by asking its TMO to urgently call the resident, it was not reasonable that the landlord failed to handle the matter as the formal complaint it clearly was.
The resident’s contact difficulties with the landlord continued through April 2022, and would have further increased his feeling that the landlord was not taking his complaint and concerns seriously, and did not care. The resident said as much when he tried again to make his complaint to the landlord on 25 April 2022, again using the landlord’s dedicated website method.
It was wholly unreasonable that the landlord again failed to follow its own policy and handle the matter as a complaint until after it was contacted by this Service on 11 May 2022. It was only following that contact that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 18 May 2022, some 53 days after he had first made it.
It was appropriate for the landlord to call the resident on 18 and 24 May 2022 to discuss his concerns, and for it to offer its assurance that it would thoroughly investigate the points he had raised, including those concerning his contact difficulties. It was also appropriate for the landlord’s stage one response to recognise and apologise for the failures in its complaint handling. However, there appeared to be a disconnect between the landlord’s telephone discussions with the resident and its complaint process, as its stage one response, also sent on 24 May 2022, gave no indication that an investigation had been undertaken, and seemed to miss the actual point of the resident’s complaint.
Again, the resident said as much in his emails to this Service on 28 May 2022. It was understandable that the resident questioned whether the author of the landlord’s stage one response had even spoken to the landlord’s officer with whom he had discussed his concerns, as they were almost entirely unaddressed in the landlord’s response.
This Service advised the resident of how he should escalate his complaint, which he did in his email to the landlord on 2 June 2022. His email to the landlord raised many of the same concerns again, and expressed his dismay that the landlord had not addressed them. Again, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not act in line with its own policy, and failed to escalate the resident’s complaint, despite his clear request that it do so.
Having been again prompted by this Service, it was further unreasonable for the landlord to incorrectly claim that the resident had not asked it to escalate his complaint, and to give itself an additional 10 working days to respond to him.
This meant that the landlord’s stage two response to the resident was not sent until 11 August 2022, 49 working days after he had made his escalation request, and 29 working days later than its policy allowed for. The landlord’s actions were therefore again unreasonable.
In assessing the landlord’s complaint handling, the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord acted in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles to Be fair; Put things right; and Learn from outcomes. The landlord had wholly failed to act in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles up to the point of sending its stage two response to the resident.
The landlord’s stage two response did appropriately apologise, offer redress by way of compensation, and provide some details of its learning and related actions. However, whilst the landlord’s response did apologise for its communication and complaint handling failures, it failed to offer any explanation as to why they had occurred. This would have left the resident still feeling that the landlord had not taken his complaint or fire safety concerns seriously.
It is the view of the Ombudsman that the landlord’s £200 compensation offer to the resident was not proportionate to its failings. In line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, the landlord’s offer would be at the lower end of what would be appropriate for complaint handling failures over a similar time period but where the detriment to the resident is less significant.
The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance also considers ‘aggravating factors’. This acknowledges that not all residents will be affected to the same extent by instances of maladministration, and that some residents may suffer a more significant impact due to circumstances or other factors. The Remedies Guidance further states that ‘aggravating factors’ may include “any previous history of mishandling by the landlord of the resident’s tenancy”.
In this instance, the landlord was fully aware of the resident’s concerns regarding the GF tenant, along with the serious anxiety he had described himself as suffering since the 2019 fire, and the outcome of his previous complaint brought to this Service.
Following the landlord’s initial reasonable response to the resident’s report of a fire safety incident, the landlord’s subsequent communications and complaint handling provided an opportunity to demonstrate that it took the resident’s concerns seriously, and to provide appropriately empathetic assurances. The landlord’s failure to do this would have caused serious undue worry and distress to the resident, and is reflected in the Ombudsman’s order of compensation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a fire safety incident.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord’s initial response to the resident’s report of a fire safety incident at the property was prompt, effective, and in line with its policies.
This was in contrast to the landlord’s complaint handling, which appeared disconnected from any investigation, failed to address the resident’s concerns, and was not in line with either its own policy, nor the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
The landlord was fully aware of the resident’s considerable fire safety concerns, and the fact he was additionally dealing with a bereavement. The landlord’s failings would have therefore significantly worsened what was already a very challenging period and situation for the resident.
The Ombudsman published a report on 27 July 2023 detailing the findings of its special investigation of the landlord’s services. The report is available on our website, and makes recommendations further to the landlord’s existing action plan. The Ombudsman’s report and recommendations include reference to the type of issues detailed above with regards to the landlord’s complaint handling. It is acknowledged that the landlord has updated its complaint process since the time of the resident’s complaint.
The Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide an update of its progress against the recommendations and its updated action plan within three months of the report being published. The Ombudsman has also since made relevant orders to the landlord that reflect this, and that are based on the same timeframe. These orders are still in effect, and as such have not been repeated below.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that within four weeks of the date of this report:
1. A senior manager of the landlord writes to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pays the resident a total of £650 for the time, trouble and distress caused by the failures identified in its complaint handling.
3. The amount includes the landlord’s own compensation award of £200 (if that award was paid to the resident, the total amount now payable will be £450).
The landlord should evidence compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.