London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202119970)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119970

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

27 June 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. Handling of reports that the resident had been injured due to the condition of the kitchen worktop;
2. Handling of the resident’s request to have his carpet cleaned or replaced after paint or sealant was spilt on it;
3. Handling of the replacement of the kitchen worktop and flooring threshold bar;
4. Complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a house.
The landlord has recorded that the resident has physical and mental health needs. The resident says that he has mental health needs and is disabled.
The tenancy agreement and the landlord’s repairs policy sets out its responsibility for maintaining the structure and exterior of the property, fixtures and fittings for water, gas, electricity, heating, and sanitation. This is in line with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The policy also says that the landlord is responsible for the repair of, amongst other things, the kitchen worktops, grouting and silicone sealant for tiling, and non-slip floor coverings. The policy says that routine day to day repairs will be completed at the earliest mutually convenient appointment within a reasonable timeframe.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints process. Under its complaints policy it defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by” the landlord. The landlord will try to resolve complaints “there and then” but, if it cannot, it will acknowledge the complaint within one working day. It will then respond within ten working days to explain the outcome, how it will resolve the complaint and the timescale for this. If the resident is dissatisfied, they can ask for the complaint to be escalated to stage two. An independent member of the landlord’s staff will review the complaint and provide a response within 20 working days.
The complaints policy also sets out complaints which are excluded from the complaints process, which include:
1. Where a legal claim is made, including insurance claims.
2. Where a resident is taking a matter to court, or it is being dealt with by another statutory agency with the power to resolve the complaint.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out when it will pay compensation to a resident. The landlord also has a compensation guidance document, which sets out when compensation will or might be paid, and values. Payments can be made as consolatory or goodwill gestures for inconvenience, distress and the time and effort in making a complaint. It includes a table for single discretionary payments for service failure with banded values based on impact on the resident.
The landlord has an insurance claims procedure. This sets out what the landlord will do when a resident wants to make an insurance claim against it. When a resident wants to make a claim for personal injury and or damage to property, the landlord will tell the resident to put the claim in writing addressed to its insurance team. The insurance team will then handle the claim in line with legal rules and protocols. The procedure says that the insurance team has “40 days in which to investigate and provide a decision on liability”.

Summary of events

The landlord installed a new kitchen at the property in February 2021. This was in response to a previous complaint which was determined by this Service.
On 16 March 2021 the landlord inspected the works and said that it had not been completed well and that new units were needed.
The resident called the landlord on 17 March 2021 to make a complaint about the standard of works to the kitchen and not having a functioning kitchen. The landlord inspected the works on 19 March 2021 and agreed to change the worktop and tiles. The resident also requested compensation for the time he was unable to use the kitchen.
On 24 March 2021 the landlord discussed the complaint with its contractor. The contractor said that it should not have to pay compensation as it would rectify the poor work, and that the delay in works was due to Covid-19 self-isolation, however it would offer £50. The landlord phoned the resident to offer £50 compensation, which the resident declined and said was insulting.
The landlord’s records show that it was arranging an inspection on or about 10 April 2021, however there is no evidence that this took place.
The resident informed the landlord about issues with his new flooring and the landlord inspected on 29 April 2021. There were gaps around the edges of the lino which needed to be sealed; the landlord accepted that these should have been sealed. The resident asked if he could have trim fitted and the landlord agreed to fit this and reimburse him the cost of purchasing this. The landlord’s record says that the works should have been completed by 7 May 2021.
On 14 May 2021, the landlord’s records say that the resident was happy with the completed works to the kitchen and accepted £300 in compensation for loss of use of the kitchen and inconvenience. The landlord closed the complaint as resolved.
The resident emailed the landlord on 22 August 2021 to say that he had made a complaint three weeks previously to the landlord’s contractors. He said that he had not received a response. His complaint was about:
1. The work being incomplete, and a worktop still needed to be installed.
2. Grouting was falling out from between tiles.
3. Paint had been spilt on his carpet.
4. The lino kitchen flooring had been cut too short to the door threshold.
On 25 August 2021 the resident called the landlord to make a stage one complaint. The complaint was about the same issues raised. The landlord acknowledged the complaint by email the following day. In its email it asked the resident to send photographs of the issues.
The landlord replied to the resident’s email of 22 August 2021 on 31 August 2021 to say that the member of staff emailed was no longer working on the relevant contract.
On 1 September 2021 the landlord’s contractor emailed the landlord. The contractor said that it was being denied access to the property by the resident and asked for the landlord’s help.
The landlord emailed the resident on 2 September 2021 with a plan to fix the issues the resident had raised. In its email it said:
1. Its contractor had the worktop and could install it.
2. The grouting can be repaired.
3. The contractor can clean the carpet.
4. The contractor has a wider door threshold bar which can be fitted.
5. It was waiting for a date for the works from the contractor.
On 6 September 2021 the landlord emailed the contractor to chase a date for the works. The landlord also emailed the resident to say that it was still waiting for a date.
The resident emailed the landlord on 10 September 2021 and said that the landlord had seven days to resolve the issues, or he would escalate his complaint. The landlord’s records say that it tried to call the resident however did not reach him, but then sent an email.
On 22 September 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to say that he had cut his hand due to the condition of the kitchen and was in hospital to have stitches. He said that he caught his hand on a screw protruding from underneath the worktop. The landlord added this as a fifth issue under his complaint.
On 11 October 2021 the resident completed the landlord’s online complaints form. His complaint was about the paint, or sealant, spilt on the carpet that he had previously complained about. He asked the landlord to send a company to clean it. There is a note on the landlord’s records dated 17 November 2021 that says that the contractor had considered the complaint about the resident’s carpet and the injury to his hand. In its response the contractor said:
1. It had offered to clean the carpet, but this was refused by the resident.
2. That works in the kitchen had been inspected. It believed that if a screw had been protruding it would have been spotted, and so it did not accept responsibility for the resident’s injury.
On 29 November 2021 the landlord emailed the resident and followed this with a call. It offered an appointment date of 6 December 2021 to fit the worktop, repair the grouting and fit the threshold bar. The resident accepted this appointment. However, later that day the resident called the landlord to say that he could no longer accept the appointment as he had a medical appointment that day which he could not cancel. The landlord confirmed this by email and said that the next appointment would not be until mid-January 2022.
Later that day, the landlord and contractor exchanged emails following this. The contractor told the landlord that it had a wide threshold bar it could fit, but that it was a screw down type; it suggested that the resident may have wished to find an alternative if he did not want one with visible screws. The landlord emailed the resident to offer this solution and confirm that it would pay for, and fit, a different threshold bar if the resident wanted to buy one himself.
The resident contacted this Service on the same day, and we wrote to the landlord.
On 30 November 2021 the resident completed the landlord’s online complaints form again. He said that he was still waiting for the kitchen works to be completed and that he had been asked to source a door threshold bar which would fit as the lino had been cut too short. He also said that the contractor had damaged his carpet.
On 2 December 2021 the resident completed the landlord’s online complaints form a third time. He raised the same issues previously raised. He also said that the contractor had offered him £200 so that he could hire a cleaning company, which he had not accepted. He said that he did not accept this offer as it was for the contractor to arrange the carpet cleaning, or claim through its liability insurer, as he did not believe that it could be cleaned. He also said that he was not happy with the idea of fitting a threshold bar with screws, or of having to find an alternative himself which he did not believe was possible.
On 10 December 2021, in response to contact from this Service, the landlord provided a written stage one complaint response. It said:
1. It had provided a verbal complaint response on 24 September 2021 after it received the complaint and that it had said what it would do to resolve the issues raised. This Service has not seen any record of this verbal response.
2. That it had not complied with its complaints policy and apologised for this. Specifically, that it had not said how the complaint could be escalated or how to contact this Service.
3. It offered £50 in compensation for this failure.
In internal emails between 13 December 2021 and 14 December 2021, the landlord discussed the resident’s complaints and decided to escalate the complaint to stage two. It recognised that the resident had remade his complaint and was requesting the stage two response. The resident also called the landlord on 14 December 2021 asking for the landlord’s stage two response.
The landlord provided its stage two response on 14 December 2021. In its response it said:
1. It had registered and responded to the stage one complaint on 24 September 2021.
2. On the issue of delays to the works, it had offered an appointment to finish the works, but this was not suitable for the resident. That it was waiting for a new appointment to offer in January 2022. That it had previously paid for delays in the work, and that any further delays were the result of the resident not allowing access. That the previous compensation was reasonable.
3. Regarding the carpet, that it had asked its contractor to review the complaint. It said that the contractor had offered to clean the carpet or pay compensation to the resident so that he could clean it, or get it cleaned, himself but the resident had rejected these offers.
4. That it had referred the complaint about the resident’s injury to its contractor, which had investigated but rejected the complaint due to lack of evidence. It said that this was the correct process to follow.
5. That it had not escalated the resident’s complaint when it should have and offered £50 in compensation for the service failure.
6. Provided information on how to contact this Service.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

On 4 January 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to request a date for the works. He also said that he had not received the two cheques he had expected for the compensation offered by the landlord.
The Ombudsman understands that at the date of this report the repairs remain outstanding, except that the resident has completed the grouting repair himself. The resident has also received the £100 compensation payment from the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. This Service will apply these principles when considering its decisions. However, some matters fall outside of what the Ombudsman can make a determination on.
The resident has raised through his complaint that he was injured due to the condition of the kitchen worktop. While this Service can and has investigated how the landlord handled the resident’s report of suffering an injury, it is beyond the scope of this investigation to consider how or why this injury was caused. This is because under Paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints where it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.

The landlord’s handling of reports that the resident had been injured due to the condition of the kitchen worktop

The resident emailed the landlord on 22 September 2021 to say that he had injured his hand on a screw protruding from underneath the kitchen worktop. The landlord noted on its records that the resident wanted to add a fifth issue to his complaint.
The landlord’s complaints policy says that insurance or legal claims are excluded from its complaints process. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord not to investigate personal injury under its complaints process. Under its insurance claims procedure, all claims for personal injury should be passed immediately to its insurance team.
At a date not known to this Service, the landlord referred the resident’s complaint about his injury to its insurance team. The landlord’s records say that the insurance team advised the resident to make a claim against the contractor. The resident did this, and the contractor provided its response on 17 November 2021. The contractor did not pass the claim to its insurers. Instead, it decided not to entertain the claim. In its response it said “all the works that were carried out… were subject to multiple inspections from both [it and the landlord] so we believe that had there been a screw protruding it would have been picked up sooner and not nearly four months later…[and so] do not accept your claim and therefore will not be offering compensation”. It would have been helpful, following the resident’s complaint, if the contractor or the landlord had reinspected to see whether there was a screw protruding or not.
The landlord’s insurance team did not investigate the claim or provide a response on liability. It failed to follow its procedure but simply referred the resident on to its contractor. The contractor in not referring this to its insurers also meant that the resident was left without redress. This was maladministration, as the landlord was responsible for the work carried out by its contractor and so should have investigated the claim. An order has been made that the landlord pay compensation of £100 to reflect the added inconvenience, time and effort caused to the resident.
The Ombudsman understands that the resident remains unhappy with the outcome received from the contractor and advises that he remains able to seek independent legal advice.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to have his carpet cleaned or replaced after paint or sealant was spilt on it

The resident told the landlord that paint, or sealant, had been spilt on his carpet in an email on 22 August 2021, and when he made his complaint on 25 August 2021. Although this could have been considered an insurance claim for damage to personal property, the landlord decided initially to let its contractor try to resolve the issue. However, it then included it within its complaints process. In its email to the resident on 2 September 2021 the landlord accepted that paint or sealant had been spilt, and that it needed to resolve this; it instructed its contractor to clean the carpet when it could next attend.
The resident told the landlord on 11 November 2021 that he wanted a professional cleaning company to clean the carpet, and that he did not trust the contractor to do this; this was a reasonable request. He also said on 25 August 2021 that the contractor could have done this sooner and that he felt his concerns were ignored.
As part of its response on 17 November 2021, the contractor said that it had offered to arrange for the whole carpet to be cleaned but that the resident refused this. In the landlord’s stage two complaint response, it said that the contractor had offered in the alternative compensation so that the resident could pay to have the carpet cleaned himself, which the resident had also rejected. The resident said that £200 was offered, but that he did not think it should be up to him to arrange the cleaning. He was also concerned that if he accepted this compensation, and the carpet could not be cleaned, then he would not be able to complain further. The resident has told this Service that the sealant is embedded into the carpet and cannot be cleaned.
The landlord via its contractor had offered to resolve the issue, and had offered different options to the resident, which he decided to reject. However, the resident’s rejection was reasonable, as no reassurance was given by the landlord that had the cleaning not worked, the resident would still have been able to make an insurance claim against the landlord. The landlord could also have obtained a quote and advice from a cleaning company on whether the carpet could have been cleaned or not. After considering all of the evidence and considering what is fair in all of the circumstances, there was a service failure, and an order has been made that the landlord pay compensation of £75 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused.

The landlord’s handling of the replacement of the kitchen worktop and flooring threshold bar

The resident first raised issues with his kitchen on 17th March 2021 and the landlord inspected two days later. He raised the issue with his flooring on 29 April 2021 and the landlord inspected again. The landlord’s note says that works were to be completed by 7 May 2021.
However, the landlord did not address the issue with the lino having been cut too short to the door threshold, and a new worktop still needed to be fitted, when the resident raised this again with the landlord’s contractors. He also emailed the landlord about this three weeks later on 22 August 2021. He also raised this in his complaint on 25 August 2021.
In its email to the resident on 2 September 2021 the landlord said that it would fit a new worktop and a new wider threshold bar to solve this issue. It is common practice to fit a threshold bar where two different flooring surfaces meet at a doorway. As the resident had raised these issues in March 2021, this was an unreasonable delay in offering to put things right.
On 29 November 2021 the contractor explained to the landlord that a standard threshold bar would not be wide enough, but that it had a wider 60mm bar which would need to be screwed down through the resident’s carpet. Alternatively, it said it could fit a different type without screws if the resident could find one. The landlord then explained this to the resident. The resident said the following day that he did not want the threshold bar screwed down through his carpet, and that he should not have to source a threshold bar because the contractor cut the lino too short.
The landlord had accepted that there was an issue with the lino meeting the threshold in its email on 2 September 2021. It had suggested how this issue could be resolved. In the circumstances it would be disproportionate to replace the kitchen lino flooring to resolve this issue. Considering what is fair in all the circumstances, and the dispute resolution principles, the landlord’s suggested remedy of fitting the wider threshold bar, which it offered to do on 2 September 2021, would put things right. However, the landlord could have alternatively sourced an appropriate threshold bar without screws, or had one manufactured, if it had wanted to fully resolve the complaint to the resident’s satisfaction.
The landlord had been put on notice of poor workmanship in March 2021 and had inspected the property; it had or should have had knowledge of the issue with the flooring and missing worktop and was made explicitly aware of the issue with the lino in April 2021. However, the landlord delayed in offering solutions until September 2021, and then failed to offer an appointment to put things right until 29 November 2021; this was maladministration. An order has been made that the landlord pay compensation of £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused.

The landlord’s complaints handling

The resident made a complaint to the landlord’s contractor, a complaint via email to the landlord on 22 August 2021 and a complaint by calling the landlord on 25 August 2021 which the landlord recorded as a stage one complaint. The landlord acknowledged the stage one complaint by email the following day within the timeframe set out in its complaints policy.
It is not clear from the evidence why the resident made a complaint to the contractor, and there is no evidence that the contractor passed this complaint onto the landlord.
The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s email of 22 August 2021 as a complaint, even though it clearly contained an expression of dissatisfaction, which it should have done so under its complaints policy.
While the landlord did respond to the resident on 2 September 2021,this was not a complaint response but a plan for works to address the repairs issues.
After intervention by this Service, the landlord provided a written stage one complaint response on 10 December 2021. The landlord said that it had responded to the complaint verbally on 24 September 2021. However, this Service has not seen evidence of this verbal response. The landlord also did not set out what had been said in its verbal response as part of its written response.
The landlord accepted that it had not followed its complaints policy when providing its response. It said that it had failed to include details on how to escalate the complaint or how to contact this Service. It apologised and offered £50 compensation for the failing, which is in line with its compensation guidance document. The landlord did not address its failure to provide a written response within the timeframe set out in its policy, explain why this happened or what it had done to put this right. There was maladministration.
Having considered the landlord’s guidance, and this Service’s remedies guidance, the amount of compensation offered did not reflect the impact this failure had on the resident and was not reasonable redress. The resident was not made aware how to escalate his complaint, which is shown in him making three additional complaints rather than requesting an escalation. This may have caused delay in having his complaint resolved and further time and trouble.
The resident made three further complaints using the landlord’s online complaints form, on 11 October 2021, 30 November 2021 and 2 December 2021 relating to the same issues. The landlord accepted that the resident remained dissatisfied and that it would escalate the complaint to stage two of its process. The landlord’s records say that the resident said that he escalated his complaint on 30 November 2021.
In an internal email sent on 13 December 2021 the landlord said that it should escalate the complaint, and that the member of staff who replied to the first complaint should complete the stage two response but send it out in a manager’s name. From the evidence the Ombudsman has considered the landlord appears to have done this. This is maladministration as it is in breach of the landlord’s policy, which says that an independent member of the landlord’s staff will review the complaint and provide a response. This is also a breach of Paragraph 5.11 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code, which says that “the person considering the complaint at stage two, must not be the same person that considered the complaint at stage one.” An order has been made that the landlord pay compensation of £200 to reflect the impact of this failing on the resident. The resident, after being informed of this failing, will likely be frustrated by how his complaint was handled, and may have a lack of trust in the landlord going forwards.
The landlord provided its stage two complaint response on 14 December 2021. It accepted that it had delayed in escalating the complaint, apologised for this, and offered £50 in compensation for this failure. The landlord however failed to address the delay in its stage one response, and that its first response was verbal rather than written. The landlord had failed to comply with its policy and with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling and reasonable redress was not provided. An order has been made for the landlord to pay an additional £200, to reflect the full effect the failures had on the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s:
1. Handling of reports that the resident had been injured due to the condition of the kitchen worktop.
2. Handling of the replacement of the kitchen worktop and flooring threshold bar.
3. Complaints handling.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to have his carpet cleaned or replaced after paint or sealant was spilt on it.

Reasons

There was maladministration in the handling of reports that the resident had been injured as the landlord did not follow its insurance procedure. While it did refer the issue to its insurance team, it did not investigate the claim and just advised the resident to claim against the contractor.
There was maladministration in the handling of the replacement of the kitchen worktop and flooring threshold bar, as the landlord had notice of these issues and there was an unreasonable delay in putting things right.
There was maladministration as the landlord failed to follow its complaints policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code, by not providing a written stage one response within time, and by not including information on escalation or this Service within its response to the stage one complaint. It also failed to follow its policy, and Paragraph 5.11 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code, as the stage two response was not provided by an independent member of staff who was not involved in the stage one response. The stage two response also did not address the failings in the stage one response.
There was service failure in the handling of the resident’s request to have his carpet cleaned or replaced, as the landlord did not take the resident’s concerns into account. No reassurance was given by the landlord that had the cleaning not worked, the resident would still have been able to make an insurance claim against the landlord. The landlord could also have obtained a quote and advice from a cleaning company on whether the carpet could have been cleaned or not.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report;
2. Pay direct to the resident additional compensation of £750 made up of:
  1. £100 for distress and inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its failure in handling the resident’s complaint about his injury;
  2. £75 for distress and inconvenience caused by its service failure in its handling of damage to the carpet;
  3. £200 for distress and inconvenience caused by its failure in handling the outstanding works to the threshold bar and worktop;
  4. £400 for distress and inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failings.
3. Refer the resident’s claim for personal injury to its insurers for investigation.
4. Reinspect the resident’s kitchen worktops and remove or replace any screws protruding if any are found.
5. Re-offer to fit the new worktop.
6. Source or have manufactured a wide enough threshold bar, which does not require screws, and arrange to fit this.
7. Offer to have a cleaning company clean the carpet and reassure the resident that if cleaning is not possible, he will then be able to make a claim through the landlord’s liability insurers.
8. Conduct a review of how it handles insurance claims where a contractor is involved and amend its procedure to include that these claims are to be investigated by the landlord rather than directing a resident to the contractor. The landlord is to provide evidence of this review to this Service.
9. Confirm compliance with the above orders to this Service.