London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202207961)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207961

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. Response to the resident’s concerns about the delay in providing the resident with a secure parking space.
2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord. The property is a 1 bedroom flat on the second floor of a block. Secure private parking facilities were built in the basement of the block. The lease started on 1 March 2021.
The landlord’s compensation policy says the offer of discretionary compensation is a goodwill gesture and its staff will decide the value and form based on internal guidance. Goodwill gestures include awards from the ‘whatever is necessary’ budget, grocery shopping or decoration vouchers.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints policy. It aims to resolve a complaint there and then. If this is not possible, it will respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1. At stage 2, it aims to respond within 20 workings days. If extra investigation time is needed, a further 10 working days is available at both stages providing the resident is kept informed.

Summary of events

On 28 January 2021 the landlord asked the resident to signa waiver that said the basement parking area would not be handed over to her by the completion date of 1 March 2021.The parking was inaccessible. It explained that based on its current building programme the basement would be completed by June 2021. The resident signed the document to obtain the National House Building Council (NHBC) Buildmark Confirmation of Cover to legally complete the purchase of the property. On completion the resident paid the landlord £20,000 for a designated parking space.
On 1 March 2021 the resident took possession of the property. The completion statement confirmed the purchase price and the additional £20,000 for a parking space.
On 28 May 2021 the resident received an email from the landlord. It advised that parking would not be available from the end of June 2021. It advised that it anticipated the parking to be available from October 2021. The landlord said it would provide regular updates.
On 27 June 2021 the resident chased the landlord for an update. She wrote her letter to an address provided by the landlord. The letter was delivered to the landlord’s development’s sales office. The landlord assured the resident that it would give her letter to the appropriate member of staff. When she did not receive a response, the resident chased the landlord again on 6 July 2021.
Between 8 to 13 August 2021 the resident chased the landlord and requested a response to her parking concerns. The landlord’s communications advised:
1. That her enquiry would be forwarded to the relevant members of staff
2. It expected the completion of the basement car park by the end of October 2021.
3. That it was undertaking a survey of the residents affected by the parking issue. This was to consider a compensation payment.
On 17 August 2021 the landlord sent a letter to update residents about the progress of opening the basement car park at the development. It advised of its communication with the NHBC and the local fire service. It had submitted redesigned ventilation plans for approval. It aimed to complete the works by December 2021 and receive formal approval from the NHBC by January 2022. The resident informed the landlord that she did not receive this letter and requested a copy on 4 October 2021 when she learned of it. The resident advised that this letter was not provided when requested.
On 30 August 2021 the resident made a complaint. She said:
1. The landlord had not provided the parking space that she had paid for.
2. The landlord’s communication was poor.
3. That she had observed non residents accessing the basement parking that remained inaccessible to her.
4. That she wanted the landlord to cover her alternative parking cost of £199.20 per month until her parking space was available.
On 2 September 2021 the landlord acknowledged receipt of the resident’s complaint. Its response was late and outside its response timescales as set out in its complaints policy.
On 20 and 22 September 2021 the resident chased the landlord for a complaint response.
On 22 September 2021 the landlord emailed the resident. Its response said:
1. That it thanked the resident for her patience while it looked into her complaint.
2. That it had believed sign off of the carpark would have been in January/February 2021. Issues with the NHBC had delayed this.
3. It communicated with the residents and their respective solicitors.
4. It advised that the waiver signed in January 2021 specified an “estimated” completion date of June 2021.
5. It sent residents update letters in May 2021 and August 2021 regarding the NHBC requirements. It explained that it had provided a further estimated completion date of January 2022.
6. It advised it was prepared to cover the costs of her alternative parking at £199.20 per month while it worked to secure alternative parking.
7. It advised it was in discussions with other departments regarding compensation for affected residents.
8. It apologised for its late replay and offered £50 compensation for its complaint handling.
9. It confirmed that the resident was the owner of a parking space for which she had paid £20,000.
On 4 October 2021 the resident replied to the landlord’s complaint response. She said:
1. The landlord had failed to meet its own complaint response timescales and continued not to respond to her on the dates it promised.
2. That she had continued to chase the landlord for updates and responses.
3. That she considered the landlord’s offer of £50 derisory considering the stress and inconvenience caused by the lack of communication.
On 18 October 2021 the resident sent an email chasing the landlord for a response. In her email the resident:
1. Said that she considered that her complaint of 30 August 2021 remained unanswered.
2. Attached car parking receipts. The out of pocket expenses were £199.20 per month.
3. Said that the landlord’s customer services team had acknowledged that it had not provided the resident with a stage 1 formal response.
On 29 October 2021 the resident learned of a parking update letter via a neighbour. She informed the landlord that she had once again not received a copy and that for almost six months she had not being kept updated by the landlord about the parking situation.
During October 2021 the resident reported that the landlord had failed on two occasions to return calls when promised. There were further occurrences in November 2021, December 2021 and February 2022 that required the resident to chase the landlord for updates and responses.
On 7 December 2021 the resident confirmed receipt of £1,399.44 from the landlord. This covered approximately six parking payments the period up to 13 February 2022. She advised that she was still waiting for an update on the parking space that she had paid for in the development’s basement.
Between 7 December 2021 to 10 December 2021 internal landlord communication evidenced multiple departments meeting to discuss the resident’s concerns about non residents accessing the basement parking area. The landlord’s records demonstrate that:
1. It had investigated its CCTV and was satisfied that no staff were using the parking area.
2. It acknowledged that the wider community had experienced parking issues on football match days. It considered that this issue had been made worse following a bus damaging the road bollards. This was allowing extra traffic to enter the surround residential areas.
3. The landlord thought that it required “rapid action” from its neighbourhood team to investigate.
4. It discussed the importance of ensuring that residents received another update about the parking progress before the end of December 2021.
On 10 December 2021 the landlord emailed the resident about her complaint.
1. It acknowledged its poor communication about updates.
2. It identified eight instances of service failure with its communication. It offered £80 compensation, £10 for each instance.
3. It offered £750 as a gesture of goodwill for any stress and inconvenience caused.
4. It confirmed that it would continue to pay for the resident’s alternative parking until her car parking space was ready to use.
5. It attached the missing parking update letters from August and October 2021.
6. It said it would ensure she received future update letters.
7. It advised that a further update was due before Christmas 2021.
8. It advised she could contact the Housing Ombudsman Service if she remained dissatisfied with its response.
On 23 December 2021 the landlord discussed its response with the resident. She remained dissatisfied. On 24 December 2021 it emailed her a summary of their conversation and its revised offer. It agreed to:
1. Increase its gesture of goodwill to £1,000.
2. Increase its offer for poor complaint handling to £100.
3. Ensure she received future parking update letters.
4. Contact the resident once the basement parking was completed to offer a further goodwill gesture as compensation for the delay.
5. Close the complaint upon payment of the compensation.
On 31 January 2022 the resident chased the landlord for its promised “mid January update.” She advised that if she did not receive this as promised, she would raise another complaint. The landlord failed to provide the update.
On 1 February 2022 the resident expressed dissatisfaction about the parking issue and the landlord’s ongoing poor communication.She explained that this was not a new complaint buta continuation of the same issueand the landlord had failed to provide her with an update as promised.
On 2 February 2022 the landlord advised that it would provide updates about the parking progress “at the end of each month.” Within the same communication, it offered the resident a temporary alternative parking space. Although she chased the landlord on more than one occasion, she was not provided with the relevant parking permit.
On 28 February 2022 the resident chased the landlord for a parking update. She had not received the promised end of month update.
On 1 March 2022 the resident chased the landlord to pursue her complaint. She advised:
1. That it was now one year since she moved in and paid £20,000 for a parking space that was still not available to her.
2. That the landlord continued not to provide her with updates as promised.
3. That she was experiencing difficulties with temporary parking arranged by the landlord as she was repeatedly asking it for permits.
On 7 March 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord’s CEO. She repeated her complaint as she had received no response and said:
1. It was now over one year since she had paid the landlord £20,000 for a parking space.
2. That the landlord knew that the June 2021 completion date was never feasible.
3. That she continued not to receive communication updates from the landlord.
4. That a temporary parking permit had not arrived as promised.
5. That she had been informed by other residents that a parking update would come that week. The resident explained she had not been informed of this and “this highlights the continuing inconsistency and confusion of communication between the landlord and residents…”
On 17 March 2022 the landlord responded to the resident concerns:
1. It apologised for the length of time the completion of the basement was taking. It advised that this was due to unforeseen circumstances and delays with third parties and procurement.
2. It had offered the resident alternative parking or offered to pay for her parking at a preferred location.
3. It advised that it was issuing residents with update letters. However, due to an internal error the resident’s details had been “missed off.” It explained that it had corrected this twice, but the error remained. It considered that this error would also explain why other residents had heard of an update before she had.
4. Due to service failure the landlord offered the resident £20 compensation., £10 for each of the two failures it considered had taken place.
5. It apologised for the delay in issuing a permit for the alternative parking.
6. It advised on completion of the basement parking it would offer the resident a gesture of goodwill.
On 11 March 2022 the landlord sent an update letter. It still required approval from the NHBC and the local fire service to complete the basement car park.
On 5 April 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord. She requested that it refund her the £20,000 paid for the parking space that she has not yet had use of.
On 6 May 2022 the landlord sent an update letter to all residents. It advised of further delays in obtaining sign off from the NHBC.
On 13 July 2022 the landlord emailed the resident. It advised that it was acknowledging her stage 2 complaint that she made in March 2022.
On 15 July 2022 the landlord held a telephone appointment with the resident. It discussed her complaints. The landlord advised:
1. It would consider the time, effort, inconvenience, and the distress caused to the resident.
2. It would consider any service failure.
3. It would consider its complaint handling.
Following the telephone conversation the landlord sent the resident a letter. It described the resident’s complaint as:
1. The ongoing delays in providing adequate parking.
2. That the resident had purchased the parking space with her tenancy and no parking was available.
3. The landlord had committed a service failure by not providing facilities promised at the time of purchase.
The landlord also suggested that it include the following issues within the resident’s complaint:
1. That its communication was not adequate during the complaint process.
2. That the resident first complained on 31 August 2021 but did not receive a satisfactory response as:
  1. It was not managed under its complaint policy guidelines.
  2. Although compensation was paid the resident complaint remained unresolved.
3. That the resident was assured that the parking area would be completed firstly in June 2021 and then November 2021 and that it continued to remain unavailable.
4. That the landlord gave the resident misinformation for the contractor carrying out works to the parking area.
5. That the resident had to chase her complaint on more than one occasion and was not correctly guided through the landlord’s complaint process.
6. That the landlord had not fulfilled its legal obligations under the resident’s lease.
7. That the landlord’s stage 1 responses were late.
8. That the landlord’s stage 2 acknowledgement was late.
On 19 July 2022 the resident emailed the landlord. She thanked it for the conversation on 15 July 2022. She advised “for the avoidance of doubt” the key issues were:
1. The return of £20,000 paid to the landlord, plus interest, for a parking space which had not been delivered.
2. £5,000 compensation in respect of the disruption and distress which the landlord’s failings had caused her.
3. A full response to her stage 1 complaint that was originally requested on 7 April 2022.
On 2 August 2022 the landlord emailed the resident. It provided a copy of the deed of variation for the purchase of the parking space. It sent this in response to the resident’s request to be refunded the £20,000 she had paid for a parking space. The landlord said that:
1. Schedule 4(8) of the deed of variation set out “The right for the Landlord at any time upon reasonable notice to temporarily suspend or revoke the Parking Space for the purpose of repair to any part of the block or the estate or for any other purpose together with the right to allocate a reasonable alternative parking space…”
2. The landlord suggested that the resident might want to discuss this deed with her solicitor and its implications for her complaint.
On 5 August 2022 the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It addressed both outstanding complaints as one complaint as it considered neither had been responded to or escalated in line with its complaint handling policy. It said:
1. The resident still had no access to parking at the development.
2. That the resident had requested a clear action plan and a completion date for the parking facilities.
3. That if there would be more delays the resident requested compensation for the inconvenience.
4. It apologised that its stage 1 response did not resolve the complaint.
5. It acknowledged that the resident made a complaint on 7 March 2022.
6. It apologised for not sending an acknowledgement of this complaint until 21 March 2022.
7. It recognised that the resident chased her complaint on more than one occasion and that she may have been incorrectly advised to open a new complaint in March 2022.
8. It acknowledged that it should have escalated her original complaint.
9. It apologised for the complaint handling failures and advised it had asked for additional complaints handling training to be provided to its staff.
10. It recognised that it could have managed her complaint “in a more sympathetic way.”
11. It recognised that it had paid £1,100 compensation in January 2022 for its failure to communicate and to meet the terms of its complaint process.
12. It had identified that an offer of a further £50 compensation for failing to contact her as promised in September 2021 had not been paid. It offered to correct this.
13. It had paid £1,399.44 to the resident in December 2021 to cover six months of parking, which took her parking paid to 13 February 2022. The landlord agreed to continue paying her parking until either an alternative parking arrangement was arranged or the development was completed.
14. It explained that the waiver signed in January 2021 did include flexibility on completion of works and it had consulted with solicitors during the process. It said it recognised that she had waited for over a year for a parking space and acknowledged communication could have been better. It apologised and assured that it did want to issue parking spaces as soon as possible. It resupplied the deed of variation regarding the availability of parking and advised the resident that she might want to seek legal representation.
15. It acknowledged that its updates and communication had been inconsistent. It recognised that it had left her off its mailing list. This had since been resolved.
16. It recognised that the resident considered that there had been a lack of care for her having to park away from the property and walk in the dark on her own.
17. It proposed that a relevant team respond to her regarding her concerns that non residents were parking on the development, even though residents were unable to.
18. It proposed a compensation payment for any future service failures. It proposed £10 for each failure, such as no response to her communications within five working days.
19. It advised that it would not refund the £20,000 paid for a parking space. It said it would issue residents a final gesture of goodwill payment when the parking facilities were available.
20. It offered further compensation of £560. This comprised:
  1. £250 for the identified service failure.
  2. £90 for the resident’s time, effort, inconvenience and distress.
  3. £220 for the complaint handling and late stage 1 and 2 reviews.
On 14 August 2022 the resident contacted this Service. She remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 2 response. She explained that her desired outcome was to receive the secure parking space which she had purchased. She explained that the landlord was refusing to repay her £20,000 and was unable to provide firm information about when the parking would be available.
On 21 September 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident and offered £20 compensation in the form of shopping vouchers. This was in recognition that there had been two further service failures due to poor communication.
On 1 November 2022 the landlord handed over the parking space to the resident, 20 months after the start of the lease.
On 19 January 2023 the landlord paid £1,200 to the resident. This was a gesture of goodwill due to the delay in completing the car park.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.

Response to the resident’s concerns about the delay in providing the resident with a secure parking space

The delay in handing over the basement car parking was impacted by the need for its redesign to be approved by the NHBC. Although unfortunate, it is reasonable that such delays with new build developments can happen. However, the landlord’s poor communication and delayed support to provide alternative parking was not reasonable. The resident had invested a significant sum of money to secure a private parking space on her development. When this was not available, it was not reasonable for the landlord not to be forthcoming with this information. Its failure to correct its mailing administration errors lead the resident to incur further time and trouble in having to chase it for updates.
It was reasonable that the landlord agreed to pay the resident for her preferred alternative parking while it sought to secure an alternative parking option. However this did not take place until August 2021. There was therefore approximately five months from the start of the resident’s lease that she was required to arrange alternative transportation and / or parking. No alternative arrangements had been put in place prior to the start of the resident’s lease. This was unreasonable as the landlord was aware in advance of this date that the parking would not be available until at least June 2021.
It was reasonable that the landlord secured alternative temporary parking for the resident in 2022 closer to the property. However, it failed to provide the necessary permits when promised. She was again required to chase the landlord to secure the permits for herself.
When there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account 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 as well as our own guidance on remedies.
It is acknowledged that the landlord offered compensation totalling £1,340 for any distress and inconvenience caused. This was made up of a £1,000 gesture of goodwill payment and a total of £340 as part of its stage 2 response. (The landlord awarded £90 for the resident’s time, effort, distress and inconvenience and a further £250 for its service failure). This was to compensate the resident for any distress and inconvenience caused up to the date of its final response on 5 August 2022. This is within the range of amounts set out in this Service’s guidance on remedies for cases where there was maladministration which resulted in a serious detrimental impact on the resident.
It is noted that in January 2023, five months after the landlord’s final response to the complaint it revisited the question of compensation. It made an additional goodwill gesture of £1,200. This was reasonable and demonstrated a resolution focused approach by the landlord.
It was evident that the resident was without the parking that she had paid £20,000 for a total of 20 months. The landlord reimbursed her £1,399.44 for six months of parking payments up to February 2022. This payment can be considered towards the resident’s out of pocket expenses. However, it is reasonable to consider that she would have incurred out of pocket expenses from 1 March 2021 when her lease started as no alternative parking arrangement was in place. Although it is unlikely that she would be able to provide receipts for the whole period, the landlord has previously acknowledged the genuine monthly expense of £199.20 to reimburse her parking. Therefore, the redress offered was not considered appropriate to put things right and return her to the position she was in if the parking issue had never occurred. An order of an additional £996 compensation has been made below to consider the resident’s out of pocket expenses. This has been calculated as five months of £199.20.
There was therefore maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about the delay in providing the resident with a secure parking space.

Complaint handling

The resident’s complaint was initially managed outside of the landlord’s complaint policy and overseen by its sales department. This was not appropriate as this was not following the landlord’s complaint handling policy. This was acknowledged in its stage 2 response on 5 August 2022.
The resident continued to chase the landlord for a complaint response. Eight instances were acknowledged by the landlord between August and December 2021. The landlord acknowledged further services failures with its communication in March 2022 and September 2022.
On 1 February 2022 the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s communication and resolution of her private parking space. She considered that the landlord continued to fail to provide the promised level of service agreed in its stage 1 response. It was clear that the resident considered this to be a continuation of her complaint and not a new issue. Therefore in line with its complaint policy, the landlord should have escalated her complaint to stage 2. Although the landlord’s stage 2 response on 5 August 2022 acknowledged this failure, it used 7 March 2022 as the complaint escalation date. This was the resident’s second attempt to escalate her complaint having considered it necessary to raise the issue via the landlord’s CEO.
As 1 February 2022 was the date of the resident first escalation request, the landlord’s stage 2 response on 5 August 2022 was 129 working days later and 109 working days outside the 20 working day timescale set out in its complaints policy.
Although the landlord’s stage 2 response provided a chronology of events, it failed to explain what action it would take to monitor and ensure the resident received a response to all of her questions. In particular her questions regarding non residents using the basement car park. There was evidence that the landlord discussed this point and was satisfied that no staff were using the basement inappropriately. There was however no evidence that the resident was given an explanation. Staff that were asked to respond were not chased up and the issue remained unanswered. This was not reasonable and displayed another example of the landlord’s poor communication and its failure to learn from previous outcomes.
The landlord accepted that it did not respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint in a timely manner. It also acknowledged that the response given did not satisfactorily resolve the issues raised. Furthermore, it acknowledged that its complaint procedure had not been followed and chose to correct this by addressing both complaints raised in a single stage 2 response.
As evidenced in this report, there was an accumulation of service failures regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. Its failure to apply its own policies and procedures and the unreasonable delays in dealing with the matter had a detrimental affected on the resident. The resident was required to chase her complaint and felt it necessary to bring it to the attention of this Service. Therefore there was maladministration in the landlords handling of the resident’s complaint.
It is acknowledged that the landlord offered £320 compensation specifically for its complaint handling failures. However this was the combined total for its failures at both stages of its internal complaints procedure and did not go far enough to recognise the time, effort, inconvenience and distress the resident experienced in chasing for a response and resolution to her complaint. Overall there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling and a further order of £80 has been made below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its delay in providing the resident with the secure parking space that she had paid for.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling failures.

Reasons

The landlord’s communication regarding the required sign off approval from the NHBC was consistently poor and the resident did not receive the updates she should have. No alternative parking arrangements were in place for at least five months from the start of her lease. For 20 months she remained without the designated parking space that she paid £20,000 for.
There was a delay to both the stage 1 and stage 2 responses and inadequate use of its complaints policy.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to pay the resident a total of £5,335.44 in compensation. The compensation comprises:
1. £4,259.44 compensation and parking already offered, if not already paid.
2. An additional £996 compensation for the lack of a secure parking space for the first five months of the resident’s lease.
3. An additional £80 compensation for any for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord is ordered within four weeks to carry out a management review of this case to identify learning and to provide this Service with a summary of its findings and recommendations. The review should include:
1. What went wrong with the communication failures.
2. What lessons have been learned to minimise future occurrences.
If it has not already done so, the landlord is ordered within four weeks to ensure the complaint handling training that it recommended for its sales, project management and customer relations teams in its stage 2 letter has been completed. It should update this Service that this has been completed.
The landlord must update this Service when payment has been made.