London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202126529)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126529

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

31 May 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 recommendations from an occupational therapist for adaptations at the property;
2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant and the tenancy began in September 2009. The property is a three-bedroom house. She occupies the property with her three children. One of the children has a number of disabilities including Down Syndrome.
The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy says:
1. ‘Aids and adaptations are alterations carried out to the home of tenants with disabilities, to enable them to continue to carry out their usual day to day activities’.
2. Major adaptations are more complex and should be based on the assessment and recommendation of a qualified occupational therapist.
3. Minor adaptations should be carried out without delay to maintain or retain a resident’s ability to live in their home.
The landlord’s repairs policy identifies a vulnerable resident as someone at risk in their home or at risk of being unable to comply with their tenancy requirements. It says that it will ‘consider whether the defect is putting the resident at risk because of their physical or mental health’ and that it will ‘treat repairs with an escalated priority in cases where a delay in completing the repair would cause an increased health and safety risk’.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy. It aims to respond to complaints within ten working days at stage one. At stage two, it aims to respond within 20 workings days. If additional investigation time is needed, a further ten working days is available at both stages providing the resident is kept informed. After the landlord has agreed a resolution in writing it will monitor progress until all actions are complete.

Summary of events

The resident sought adaptations to the property in early 2021, to reduce the health and safety risks to her daughter, and so that her daughter could have improved quality of life. A senior paediatric community occupational therapist (OT) from the local authority sent the landlord a number of letters with recommendations for adaptations, following a series of inspections between 9 April 2021 and 4 July 2022. This was in relation to the resident’s daughter whose disability was recorded as ‘long term physical and mental impairment’ by the OT.
On 9 April 2021 the following adaptations were recommended by the OT:

i. Bathroom works; comprising: a mould inspection, replacement sink and toilet as both were cracked, ensure safe fitting of the shower screen, remove loose grab rail, replace an unsafe bath panel, repair leak and kitchen ceiling.

ii. Relocate dryer and mini freezer from the hallway to the kitchen as soon as possible.

iii. Reduce the height of ‘mopstick’ stair rail to 500mm and replace boarded area with spindles.

The landlord’s tenancy notes and repair records note a number of entries in relation to the recommended works. The repair records show an entry marked as completed on 1 June 2021 to relocate the dryer and freezer to the kitchen.
On 14 and 16 June 2021 the adaptations recommended by the OT were:

i. To replace the existing fencing in the front and rear gardens with 6ft fencing to secure the garden area for child safety.

ii. To replace the wrought iron gate with a solid wooden gate for extra security. The aim of the adaptation was “To improve safety and accessibility of home environment” to enable the resident’s daughter to participate in activities of daily living.

The repair records show that the garden gate was replaced on 17 June 2021, in accordance with the OT recommendation.
On 1 July 2021 the job to reduce the height of the mopstick handrail, replace boarded areas of the staircase with spindles was cancelled by the landlord. The reason recorded was that it was decorative work. The landlord acknowledged the error and reraised the job for 30 July 2021.
The repair records show the shower screen and bath were secured and the leak resolved on 7 July 2021, in accordance with the OT recommendation.
The repair records show a mould inspection to the bathroom by a contractor on 12 July 2021. This was recorded as a response to the OT recommendation.
On 28 July 2021, the full list of recommended adaptations was passed to the landlord’s surveyor.
The repair records show the height of the existing mopstick handrail as being reduced to 500mm and the boarding area of the staircase being replaced with spindles on 30 July 2021. This was in accordance with the OT report.
The repair records show work completed on 5 August 2021 to repair sections of the brick wall. The reason for which was noted as the resident’s daughter’s vulnerabilities and her use of the wall to support herself.
On 24 August 2021 the resident chased the landlord for follow on works. The surveyor said they were “dealing with the OT works”. At this point, the following works had been undertaken: the garden gate had been replaced, works to the bathroom, a mould inspection, works to the stairs and repairs to the brick wall. While these works were completed, there was a significant proportion of the works recommended which were outstanding at this time.
On 21 September 2021 the resident contacted the landlord. She said she was still waiting for the adaptations which were raised in March 2021 and that she “cannot argue with the surveyor anymore about [the landlord’s] budget”. She also requested the landlord contact the OT to discuss.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 26 September 2021. She said:
1. Nothing had happened in response to the OT’s report and that the landlord was not available to help.
2. While it appointed a surveyor, the works were “constantly being changed by him with no clear information”.
3. The surveyor was disrespectful towards her and her daughter’s disability.
4. The Landlord should complete the works as soon as possible before a serious accident occurred.
On 6 October 2021 the OT told the landlord the resident was “becoming increasingly disheartened” by the lack of work. The OT said the surveyor was requesting her full report, which was not necessary.
The OT contacted the landlord on 12 October 2021. She said:

i. There “seems to be have been endless problems” and work had not yet started.

ii. The surveyor said they would only install a 3ft fence instead of the 6ft fence required; the stairway wall would be painted over instead of being replaced with spindles as recommended; there was no budget for bathroom works “to name a few” issues.

The resident called the landlord on 18 October 2021 to say the fence had been completed but there were many outstanding items. She said her daughter had fallen outside where the rails were due to be fitted. An internal email the same day from the resident’s caseworker to the surveyor asked for confirmation of when a list of works would be completed. The surveyor said he had now received a quote from its contactor which would contact the resident for a start date.
On 12 October 2021 the fence to the front garden was recorded as renewed, as per the OT recommendations.
The resident contacted the landlord on 10 November 2021 and said that all the work to the bathroom had been completed.

On 17 November 2021 the adaptations recommended by the OT were to:
1. Install a safety gate at the top of the stairs.
2. Provide a grab rail at the front door onto the pebble dashed wall.
3. Level or tarmac the front pathway.
4. Raise or double the height of the brick wall which runs the length of the garden pathway.
5. Create a level concrete area in the rear garden for the resident’s daughter to use her walking frame.
6. Install double socket in the hallway behind washing machine and dryer, and ‘box in’ appliances.

The resident contacted the OT on 6 December 2021 to say she had not received any contact from the landlord for five weeks and that the old bathroom was outside the property waiting for collection. She added that she was uneasy with the contractors contacting her directly.
The repair records show an entry for undertaking adaptations to the staircase and renewal of the bathroom floor. These works were recorded as complete on 22 December 2021
The resident emailed the landlord on 4 January 2022. She said the work to the stairs did start but was incomplete and the handrail fitted was too big for her daughter’s hands. She also said, in an email to the OT, the child safety gate had been fitted.
The resident emailed the OT and landlord on 9 January 2022. She said the MDF bath panel fitted was already becoming water damaged and that this should have been PVC as recommended by the OT. The landlord’s surveyor said it would not be replaced.
The resident raised an additional formal complaint by phone on 18 January 2022. The landlord’s call notes recorded the resident saying:
1. The landlord’s contractor attended on 24 December 2021 to complete adaptations. She assumed new spindles would be fitted.
2. The contractor just removed the panels from the staircase and left the existing spindles which had nails sticking out of them.
3. She was not happy with the work.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 19 January 2022.
1. The resident called the landlord on 1 February 2022 following a visit from the surveyor. She said:
2. The surveyor and contractor attended a day earlier than planned.
3. The surveyor was arguing with her about what needed to be completed. Both voices were raised.
4. She told the surveyor the situation was causing unnecessary distress and she just wanted the OT recommendations completed.
5. The landlord required assistance in sourcing a child sized handrail.
6. The repair records show works undertaken on 18 January 2022 which included the installation of a ‘grab rail’ to the front door to ‘improve the safety and independence of child’ in relation to the OT recommendations.
On 3 March 2022 the OT contacted the landlord. They provided a list of incomplete works. This was in response to the landlord asking for this list. These included:
1. Grabrail to the front.
2. Back and front garden ground works, brickwork to the front.
3. Boards to stairs removed but spindles not replaced.
4. Loose bath panel not replaced.
5. Shower not fitted properly.
6. Socket in the hallway not fitted.
7. No housing for dryer.
8. The freezer was still in the hallway.
The OT’s original report was then requested by the landlord and resent on 11 March 2022.
The landlord’s repair records show completed works to fit a new electrical socket to the hallway and to house the dryer on 14 March 2022.
The landlord’s contractor emailed the landlord on 16 March 2022. They said they would attend the following day to install new spindles and handrail. However, the handrail only came in one standard size.
The landlord issued a formal response on 17 March 2022. The landlord said:
1. It had been chasing its contractor who would attended that same day to replace the spindles and grab handrails. They would then return the following week to decorate the staircase.
2. Offered £120 compensation for inconvenience and delay repair.
The landlord’s repair records show a job completed on 5 May 2022 to level the tarmac to the front pathway and to create a level concrete area in the rear garden.
The repair records show the completion of work to paint the hallway and staircase, on 21 September 2022, following adaptation works.
A second formal response at stage one was issued by the landlord five days later on 22 March 2022, entitled stage one complaint decision. It said:
1. The delay in responding was due to the complaint not being assigned correctly.
2. It apologised that its contractor had not completed the work to the bathroom or removed rubbish left outside the property.
3. Due to the time since the complaint was made, it trusted “the works have been completed and the rubbish removed”.
The resident escalated the complaint to stage two on 22 March 2022. She said the work still outstanding was to the bathroom, hallway, kitchen, gardening, front and back garden works. The stairs were due to be completed the following day.
On 4 July 2022 the adaptation was to install a key safe so the resident could lock the front door internally and have a safe place for the keys. Alternatively, to provide an additional lock at the front door to prevent the resident’s daughter from absconding.
The landlord issued the stage two response on 15 September 2022. It acknowledged that the resident was “having ongoing issues with having adaptations carried out”. After setting out the chronology of events it said:
1. The stage two complaint was not allocated for review until 22 August 2022. This was due to a backlog of complaints.
2. The only works outstanding, after talking to the resident and surveyor were:

i. The front access.

ii. Decorating the stairs – which would be carried out on 16 November 2022, together with the hallway.

iii. Carpentry adjustments in the kitchen.

The rubbish had been cleared and the bath panel replaced. Compensation would be offered for the delay.
It was agreed, on 14 September 2022, that the front access would be levelled and the side tarmacked. Its contractor would be carrying out the works.
The occupational therapist’s report did not recommend on the removal of the kitchen cupboards or boxing in of the dryer. A direct maintenance carpenter would attend to assess the removal of the kitchen cupboard and “see what can be done about the dryer”. The dryer may not be able to be boxed in due to health and safety reasons.
It would offer compensation of £2100 which would be offset against the rent arrears, comprising:

i. Stage 1 compensation offered £120.

ii. Delay in response £160.

iii. Distress £700.

iv. Inconvenience £560.

v. Delay to repair £420.

vi. Time and effort £140.

It was sorry the resident felt her and her OT were not heard by the surveyor. This would be fed back to him.

The landlord emailed the resident on 28 September 2022. It said:
1. The complaint would not be closed until the works were complete.
2. Compensation of £2520 would be offered and offset against the rent arrears.
3. The works recommended by the OT were now “complete or pending”.
4. It would complete redecoration following works as a gesture of goodwill.
It is not clear from the evidence why there is a discrepancy between the amount referred to the email of 28 September 2022 and the amount in stage two complaint response. However, the amount of £2520 supersedes that offered at stage two and therefore constitutes the final offer of compensation.
Internal email correspondence from the landlord between 10 October and 2 November 2022 said that only the staircase would be painted. Then changed its approach and said the resident would receive £50 decorating vouchers instead.
This Service spoke with the resident on 4 May 2023. The resident confirmed that all works were now complete; however, many aspects were completed to a poor standard. She said she was acutely aware that her daughter’s disability was lifelong and that she would need further adaptations in the future as her daughter grows. In relation to her experience of dealing with the landlord throughout this process, she said:
1. While the adaptations were recommendations from the occupational therapist, the landlord constantly tried to leave works out or do less than that which was recommended.
2. The majority of the confrontation was with the landlord’s contractors and surveyors, who constantly pushed back against the recommendations.
3. When works were carried out, they were sometimes substandard or not completed to a safe standard.
4. The prospect of going through a similar process for future adaptations was extremely distressing. Further, that she had been diagnosed with stress related conditions.
5. The whole process was a battle and the landlord pushed back against every aspect of the occupational therapist’s report, before completing works in the end anyway.
6. The landlord had failed to consider the needs of her disabled daughter, despite being provided with formal recommendations for adaptations.

Assessment and findings

The OT provided a number of recommendations between 9 April and 17 November 2021. These were issued to the landlord over a series of visits to the property on the same dates. The landlord’s responses to the recommendations for adaptations have been assessed using the series of letters it received from the OT.
The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy says it will ‘carry out minor adaptations without delay’. While the recommendations for major adaptations does allow the landlord some flexibility and discretion on the extent of works it undertakes, the policy does not provide for discretion on the minor adaptations recommended by an OT. Further, the timeline shows the landlord was in agreement with carrying out the works. This did not always translate effectively to its surveyor or contractors.

Recommendations in the letter dated 9 April 2021

The OT recommended that the landlord complete a mould inspection to the bathroom; that it replace the sink and toilet; refit the shower screen; remove a loose grab rail, replace the bath panel, and repair leak under the bath. Further, that it was to relocate dryer and mini freezer from the hallway to the kitchen, and to reduce the height of the stair rail.
The repair records and notes to tenancy recorded a mould inspection on 12 July 2021. This was over three months after the recommendation from the OT. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have carried out this inspection at an earlier stage, following the OT report. In consideration of the resident’s daughter’s age and vulnerabilities, the landlord’s delay was in contravention of its adaptations policy.
The OT emailed the landlord on 3 March 2022. They said the bath panel had not been replaced, the shower remained incorrectly fitted, there was no socket installed in the hallway and no housing for the dryer. While this Service cannot assess the risk associated with each recommendation, the OT recommended that the appliances should be moved from the hallway due to safety concerns. This was not done until approximately 11 months on, at the point of this email from the OT.
The freezer was recorded as being moved to the kitchen on 1 June 2021. While this was a reasonable timeframe, there were significant delays for the remaining items listed, with the bathroom repairs acknowledged as complete on 10 November 2021, by the resident. This did not represent an appropriate timeframe from the landlord and was not in accordance with its policy.
Repair records show the mopstickhandrail being lowered on 30 July 2021. This represented a delay of over three months. The resident subsequently reported that the mopstick handrail was too big for her daughter to hold. It is evident the landlord’s contractor used one size of handrail and the need for a smaller one was problematic for it. Therefore while the landlord acted appropriately in following the OT’s recommendation to lower the handrail, this was with a delay. Further, when the resident reported the problem of the size of the handrail, while the landlord did ask the OT for assistance, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to be have been more proactive in sourcing an alternative; thereby facilitating the resident’s daughter’s mobility sooner.

Recommendations in the letters dated 14 and 16 June 2021

The OT recommended that the garden fencing be replaced with a 6ft fence and gate be replaced with a solid wooden gate for safety and security. The repair records show the gate was replaced on 17 June 2021. This was an appropriate response to the OT recommendation and was carried out without delay.
The OT emailed the landlord on 12 October 2021. This was following a report from the resident that the landlord’s surveyor wanted to install a 3ft fence, instead of the 6ft fence. The work had not been carried out nearly four months after the recommendation and which was not an appropriate delay. Further, the landlord was required to follow the recommendations by the OT, who was best placed to assess the risk to the resident’s daughter. The actions of the landlord and its surveyor caused delays to the process, and distress and inconvenience to the resident who was forced to correspond with the OT and landlord in attempts to resolve this issue. This should not have been necessary as the OT recommendation was clear.

Recommendations in the letter dated 17 November 2021

The OT recommended the installation of a safety gate to the stairs; a grab rail to the pebble dashed wall; to level off the tarmac to the front pathway; to double the height of the brick wall; to create a concreted section to the rear garden; and to install a double socket in the hallway and to box in the appliances.
The responses to these recommendations were staggered. The landlord did act appropriately in completing work to install a grab rail to the wall within a reasonable time. Many other aspects of the landlord’s response was outside of a reasonable timeframe. The work involving tarmacking and levelling were entered as completed twice on the repair records. Initially in January 2022 then again in May 2022. The letter from the OT to the landlord indicated that this work was outstanding as of March 2022. Tarmacking and levelling are not considered quick, day-to-day repairs and do require preparation and planning. However, the delay of around ten months was not appropriate in this regard.
In the stage two response the landlord said this work was scheduled for September 2022. This constituted an unreasonable delay, in consideration of the risk posed to the resident’s daughter as a result of her vulnerabilities. This delay was also distressing and time consuming for the resident who had to chase the landlord for the work.

Recommendation in the letter dated 4 July 2022

The OT recommended the landlord fit a key safe to the front door. It is unclear from the repair records and correspondence provided, when this was carried out by the landlord; however, the resident has since said all works have been completed. An entry on the notes to tenancy show the resident asked for another lock to the front door to prevent her daughter opening the lower lock. The landlord’s comments were that she would need an OT recommendation otherwise it would not install an additional lock, which was obtained the same day. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have retained accurate records to show when this work was carried out; however, there was no evident detriment to the resident under this section.

The landlord’s overall response

While the OT’s recommendations were staggered and while it is not disputed that the landlord has complied with its policy and eventually completed the works recommended, it did not complete the significant majority of the works within an appropriate time, or ‘without delay’ as required by its policy.
Further, the timeline indicates that the LL was reluctant to follow some of the recommendations and the specific requirements set out by the OT. A key purpose of completing an OT assessment is so that specific needs of vulnerable residents may be assessed and met. These should not be pushed back to the resident. This evidently led to confrontation and distress to the resident.
The timeline indicates that the landlord’s surveyor was reluctant to follow the recommendations on multiple occasions and pushed back on the scope of the work. This was mostly while conversing face to face with the resident. When an OT report is completed, the resident should not have to be involved in negotiations or relaying messages to the OT from the landlord, as was the case. This was time consuming for the resident and distressing in the knowledge that works were incomplete. She was also “fearful” that the works might not be carried out and risk posed to her daughter.
The timeline shows the resident and the OT were forced to chase the landlord for progress on multiple occasions. Some attempts to contact the landlord went unanswered, or lacked a substantive response, for unreasonable periods of time. While both remained courteous throughout, this was clearly frustrating and time consuming for both the resident and OT.
The delays in completing many of the works recommended by the OT demonstrated a lack of consideration of the resident’s daughter’s vulnerabilities. The reports are clear that these adaptations were required to assist mobility, but critically, in some cases for safety. Therefore the landlord did not act appropriately in considering the resident’s daughter’s vulnerabilities and by not completing the majority of adaptations within a reasonable timeframe.
The landlord offered compensation of £2240 in relation to its handling of the recommendations made by the OT. It is not disputed that this amount was offset against the resident’s rent arrears. In paying this amount of compensation the landlord has considered the impact to the resident caused by having to try to persuade it to carry out the recommended works. Further, it considered the impact caused to the resident through the uncertainty of not knowing when the work would be completed to assist her daughter’s quality of life.
The breakdown of compensation shows the landlord acknowledged that its failure in not carrying out OT recommended adaptations within an appropriate time caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. It also shows that it recognised the time and trouble spent in chasing the landlord for progress. Paying compensation to the resident in the amount that it did and ultimately completing the works was appropriate in the circumstances.
The stage two response also acknowledged the resident’s feelings towards the surveyor and it apologised that she did not feel heard by them. This was a reasonable step taken by the landlord. However, it did not extend the apology to cover the other failings it identified. It would have been appropriate to have done so.
While the landlord said it would feedback to the surveyor it did not recognise whether its procedures were clear or suitably followed, particularly in the context of attempts to exercise discretion over the scope of the works recommended by the OT. The landlord also could have taken further steps by sharing the feedback with all its surveyors to reduce the probability of similar issues arising in the future. This did constitute service failure, for which reasonable redress was not provided.

Complaint handling

The timeline confirms the resident raised two formal complaints, the first on 26 September 2021 and the second on 18 January 2022. The landlord issued the formal response on 17 March 2022. While the landlord did correspond with the resident during this period, the landlord’s complaints policy obliges it to provide a formal response within ten working days. This response was over five months (158 days) outside of its prescribed timeframe. The landlord acknowledged the delay and offered the resident compensation of £120 in its stage one response. This was a reasonable amount in consideration of the delay in responding.
The landlord then issued a further formal response on 22 March 2022. The formal responses should comprehensively deal with the complaint at the relevant stages and should not require formal responses outside of this process. Doing so was not in accordance with the landlord’s policy or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
While the landlord apologised for the delays at stage one, following the resident’s escalation of the complaint on 22 March 2022, the landlord did not provide a formal response to the stage two complaint until 15 September 2022. This response was over five months outside of the landlord’s prescribed timescales. The landlord offered compensation of £160 for this delay
The amounts awarded were reasonable in reflecting the delays in responding to the complaint stages and constitute reasonable redress in the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to recommendations from an occupational therapist for adaptations at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord recognised that its response to the recommendations made by the OT, in relation to the resident’s daughter’s disabilities, did not show that it fully considered the vulnerabilities of an occupant by allowing unreasonable delays to complete the work. It did complete some recommended adaptations within an appropriate time. However, the majority were completed with unreasonable delays. By completing the works, acknowledging its failings, feeding back to the surveyor and compensating the resident, it did act appropriately. However, it did not take the opportunity to learn from its failings by taking any steps to ensure similar situations did not occur again.
The landlord acknowledged its failings in its delays in responding to the resident’s complaints. It offered the resident reasonable compensation in consideration of these delays.

Orders and recommendations

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to apologise to the resident, in writing, for the failures identified in this report.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to pay £250 compensation to the resident for distress and inconvenience as a result of the landlord’s failure to demonstrate learning from the issues identified with its surveyor, as the process progressed. This amount is to be paid direct to the resident and must not be offset against any arrears.
Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord:
1. Is to review the circumstances of this case and its processes around how it deals with reports from occupational therapists in relation to vulnerable occupants.
2. Is to understand why its procedural timescales were not followed when clear recommendations for adaptations were received.
3. Should consider whether its policies and procedures are robust enough to ensure works undertaken by its contractors are appropriately complete.
4. Should also consider whether its policies and procedures are robust enough to capture resident’s vulnerabilities in the context of repairs.
5. Should it find that its policies and procedures lack clarity in the approach expected of its users, these are to be reviewed, in conjunction with staff training within four weeks thereafter.
6. The landlord is then to report on its findings and the actions taken to this Service and the resident when the process is complete.