London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202109081)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109081

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

27 July 2022

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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:

1. Handling of the resident’s reports of a repair to the boiler following a leak in February 2021.
2. Handling of the resident’s reports of a repair to the boiler in October 2020.
3. Handling of the resident’s reports of condensation issues in the loft.
4. Complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

2. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
3. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39 (o) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction – the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a repair to the boiler in October 2020.
4. The Scheme says that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

39 (o) Seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon.

5. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a repair to the boiler in October 2020 was considered under complaint reference 202014685 and a determination issued on 30 September 2021. Accordingly, this investigation will focus on the other strands of the complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

6. The resident has an assured tenancy agreement with the landlord that started in 1997. The property is a two-bedroom house. The landlord’s records show that it has vulnerabilities noted for the resident’s wife and son.
7. Under the tenancy agreement, the resident must allow the landlord’s employees or contractors access at all reasonable times to inspect the property or carry out repairs. The landlord will normally give 24-hour notice.
8. The landlord’s repair responsibilities policy says that it is responsible, among other things, for maintaining the structure and exterior of the property and all fixtures and fittings including gas, electricity and heating. The policy says that the resident is responsible for minor condensation issues.
9. The policy says that, for emergency works, where there is an immediate danger to the occupant or members of the public, it will attend within 24-hours.
10. The landlord’s electrical repair policy says that it will ensure, among other things, that adequate processes and procedures are in place to manage the risks arising from electrical works and to ensure that residents, members of the public, staff and contractors are not unnecessarily exposed to electrical risk.
11. The policy says that, when diagnosing repairs that are reported by vulnerable residents, the landlord considers whether the defect is putting the resident at risk because of their physical or mental health; it treats repairs with an escalated priority in cases where a delay in completing the repair would cause an increased health and safety risk; and it offers a service adjustment register to residents with a chronic illness, disability or age-related frailty. Following assessment, qualifying residents may be eligible for priority repair appointments and/or minor repairs and replacements to be carried out at no additional cost.
12. The landlord has a vulnerable person’s policy that defines someone as vulnerable who has any condition or circumstance that, among other things, places them (or others) at risk in their home. One of the ways it states the landlord could respond would be by to give priority repairs for health and safety repairs.
13. The landlord has a two-stage complaints procedure. It aims to respond within ten working days at stage one and twenty working days at stage two. At both stages, if the landlord cannot meet that timescale, it will explain why and write again within a further ten working days.

Summary of events

14. The repair log noted on 20 April 2018 that new roof vents should be installed to prevent condensation within the loft extension.
15. On 12 December 2018 the resident reported condensation “dripping through the lights again”.
16. On 3 January and 12 February 2019 an independent building surveyor visited the property to report on condensation issues. They noted the resident had reported that condensation had been forming in the roof voids and affecting the lights and decorations. The surveyor found that the property was clearly being affected by condensation within the roof void due, in part, to the significant temperature difference over the front and rear elevations and affected by a lack of through flow ventilation. They made recommendations to increase the ventilation into the roof void and improve the through flow of ventilation across the roof slopes. This report was sent to the landlord in March 2019.
17. On 12 January 2020 the landlord raised a job following contact from the resident regarding condensation that was causing damp in the loft conversion. On the same day the landlord gave the resident its “Staying Dry” which provides advice for reducing condensation and treating mould.
18. The repair log noted on 1 December 2020 that the resident had reported that the loft conversion had major condensation problems which caused water to drip through the spotlights in the upper room of the property and he could not use the lights for health and safety reasons. It noted that extra venting had been fitted two years ago but had not worked. The landlord noted that this was “critical”. The status of this report was “complete – no action”.
19. On the same day the landlord wrote to the resident saying a contractor would contact him to arrange an inspection.
20. An appointment was made for the electrical contractor to attend on 20 January 2021 by text message. The repairs log notes that the contractor did not gain access to the property.
21. An appointment was made for the electrical contractor to attend on 17 February 2021 by a text message. It is not clear from the evidence provided if the contractor attended.
22. On 18 February 2021 the resident reported that water was “pouring out of the boiler” and the heating was not working. The repair log evidences that this was a priority repair. An appointment was sent to the resident by text message for the gas contractor to attend the same day. The repair log incorrectly evidences that the repair was completed the same day.
23. On 19 February 2021 the resident told the landlord that he was very unhappy that the gas contractor did not attend the 24-hour call out. It noted he had called the gas contractor at 8.05 am and was told an engineer was on his way and would be with him by 11 am; however, he was later told the engineer would be with him in the afternoon. The landlord noted the gas engineer had put the phone down on the resident when he had challenged them. On the same day the resident asked how long it would take for the part to come in.
24. On the same day the resident ordered a part on-line which arrived the next day (the purchase cost was £45).
25. The landlord sent an appointment date by text to the resident for the morning of 20 February 2021 for its maintenance team (not the gas contractor) to attend the property. It is not clear what this appointment was for and there is no reference to it in the repairs log.
26. On 26 February 2021 a company specialising in low carbon and energy efficiency completed a “healthy homes report” for the property. They concluded that the property suffered from visible mould/mildew and that there was no damp but there was seasonal condensation in colder months caused by a possible lack of adequate ventilation in the loft. They noted that the property needed further investigation to repair.
27. The repair log noted on 23 March 2021 that the resident had reported condensation in the loft that was dripping through the spotlights in the top room. It noted that the repair had been “cancelled”.
28. The landlord responded to an enquiry from the resident’s MP (the MP) on 3 June 2021. It said that a report had been commissioned into the ventilation in the loft room in 2019 that outlined a number of potential solutions to the ventilation problem, but explained that, for various reasons, those recommendations were not followed up at the time. It apologised for that failure. The landlord said it had reviewed the report and confirmed it would be undertaking the necessary works to attempt to remedy the ventilation problem.
29. In an internal email dated 8 June 2021 the landlord noted that it would not be erecting scaffolding and removing the roof to carry out repairs as this was impractical and the cost of works would be thousands of pounds more; it needed access to carry out the work internally and asked housing management to liaise with the resident.
30. On the same day the resident told the landlord that when he had the last leak from the boiler, it did not turn up to see what was wrong. He said this meant he had to re-start the boiler daily or twice a day which meant bending over when he was recovering from spinal surgery. He said he had had the boiler fixed by obtaining a part on-line.
31. Following further contact from the MP’s office, the landlord sent a further response on 11 June 2021. It said that, following the resident’s previous complaint it had arranged for one of its surveyors to visit the property to check that the works identified in the previous report were still appropriate and to identify whether anything else was required. The landlord said it had now established exactly what work was needed and had appointed a subcontractor to carry this work out. It added, however, that the resident had refused to grant the contractor access to the property and was insisting that it removed the roof of the loft extension and accessed the property that way. The landlord said that this was not appropriate and would make carrying out the necessary repairs more difficult than if it accessed the loft through the property.
32. The landlord said that it understood that the resident had concerns about the dust and disturbance and it had offered to move him and his family out of the property for the duration of the work, but he had refused for health reasons. It said it was appointing an independent consultant to assess the work required and to make recommendations for the best way for the works to be undertaken. It added that it hoped the resident would agree with whatever they recommended and allowed it access to carry out the works required.
33. On 11 June 2021 the landlord spoke to the resident about gaining access to the property. It noted he said his complaint had to be dealt with before he would allow any contractor in his house. He added he had said that the landlord should not phone him, and all correspondence must be by email.
34. On 14 June 2021 the MP’s office emphasised the urgency of the repairs for the resident. They explained that he suffered from a severe spinal disability and the lighting issues meant he had not been able to see his way in his house, leading to a greater risk of falls. It added that he also had a lifeline system installed in the property in case of emergencies; but the lighting and condensation issues meant that, when the power was cut out, the lifeline system was automatically triggered and the emergency services were called. They added he would like compensation for a repair he had funded to the boiler himself and for distress and inconvenience. They also said that the resident was to have a further operation on his spine which would be done privately and he wanted the landlord to pay for that operation by way of compensation.
35. On 17 June 2021 the resident told the landlord he had evidence that in 2019 it was aware of the condensation in the attic causing the lights to trip. He said he was taking the matter to court. In an email dated 13 August 2021 he explained that, when the lights failed, he had a few falls in the dark hallway and this had caused him so many issues with his spinal cord simulator.
36. The landlord sent a further response to the MP on 15 September 2021 in response to its contact in June 2021. It said that it had made multiple attempts to resolve the issues raised by the resident, but he had refused to allow it access to complete the repairs that were required and had also refused access for its gas contractor to carry out the required annual gas safety check. It confirmed it had identified the repairs that were required to his home and had a contractor on standby to carry them out.
37. The landlord added that the resident had said he would not allow the works to be completed until the matter relating to his claims for personal injury had been resolved. It also said that, if he continued to refuse access to the property, it would have to take action to enforce his obligations in line with his tenancy agreement.
38. On 11 June 2021 the landlord noted that the resident would not allow access to the property until his complaint was dealt with.
39. When this Service approached the landlord on behalf of the resident, it responded in July 2021 saying that the issues he had raised were being investigated.
40. On 12 August 2021 the resident told the landlord that he would not let any contractor enter the property until he had in writing that it would cover the costs of a removal company and the hall carpet being removed and re-fitted. He said he could not be decanted far because of his koi pond and any temporary accommodation had to meet his and his family’s needs completely. The resident said he also wanted compensation for neglect and putting him and his family in danger.
41. On 13 September 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident about the outstanding repair works to the property, specifically the issues with ventilation in the loft. It said the need for these works had been highlighted by him and two independent contractors. It said that one of its contractors had been appointed to carry out these works. The landlord explained that failure to allow access to carry out essential repair works is a breach of the resident’s tenancy terms and conditions. It added that it also prevented it from carrying out its obligations to him as a landlord. It quoted from the tenancy agreement which said that, in certain circumstances, it could force access. It asked the resident to contact it to arrange the works within 14 days and added that, if he did not do so, it would have no alternative but to begin tenancy enforcement action.
42. On 21 September 2021 this Service wrote to the landlord asking it to respond to the resident about the following complaints he had relating to, among other things the boiler and the condensation.
43. On 13 October 2021 the gas contractor checked the boiler and noted it was working satisfactorily. They raised a job for as there were no flue screws in the brackets.
44. Following further contact from this Service about the resident’s complaints, on 19 October 2021 it issued a final response to the resident under its formal complaint procedures. The main points were:

1. The landlord apologised for the delay in his complaint being allocated for review. It explained that was due to an increased volume of work.

2. It apologised that its gas contractor failed to respond within the 24-hour timeframe for an emergency call out. It acknowledged that an uncontainable leak from the boiler should have been attended urgently.
3. It apologised that the resident’s calls to the gas contractor went unanswered or not returned.
4. It noted that the resident had ordered the part and a neighbour had carried out the repair and reminded the resident that, under no circumstances should residents attempt to tamper with their boilers or instruct a third party to do so whether they are competent or not.
5. A gas safety check was carried out on 13 October 2020. The report showed that the boiler was working safely, but that the flue clamps required screws. The landlord said this work would be carried out by the gas contractor and asked the resident to contact it to arrange this.
6. It had arranged scaffolding to be erected for the required works to the loft conversion to commence, but access was refused as the resident wanted the works carried out with the roof taken off. It had offered a decant on two occasions but due to his concerns with having to move out of the property, both were refused.
7. It offered £50 for the delay in responding to the complaint at stage two.

45. The repair log noted on 1 December 2021 that the missing insulation in the loft should be renewed; the electrics checked and the downlighters should be removed and replaced with LED strip lights. It noted that no access was given by the resident to complete these works.
46. When the resident approached the Ombudsman, he said that he was without spotlights in the top room and a smoke alarm for six months as the fuse board tripped and “electricity and water do not mix”. He said that he kept reporting it, but no-one came out to look at it and repair. The resident said that he wanted to have the condensation issue sorted out properly. He added that moisture reports were ongoing since the survey in February 2021 and he was unsure if the landlord had seen them or had considered acting on them. The resident also said that the landlord kept looking at his complaints at stage one and not progressing them which was frustrating and meant issues were not resolved satisfactorily.

Assessment and findings

Handling of the resident’s reports of a repair to the boiler following a leak in February 2021

47. The landlord’s handling of the leak was not appropriate. The repair log says that the repair was completed the same day and there is no evidence of further action in relation to this leak by the landlord or the gas contractor. However, the resident disputed that and, in its complaint handling, the landlord acknowledged that this was an emergency repair and it did not complete it within the timescale contained in its repair policy. That was a service failure.
48. There was also a failing in the landlord’s record-keeping as the repair log entry stating that the repair had been completed the same day was incorrect. An order has been made, below, for the landlord to take action to try to prevent this re‑occurring.
49. The landlord has apologised that it did not meet its timescales and that the resident’s calls to the contractor went unanswered or not returned.
50.  In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s 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.
51. Financial compensation of £150 is appropriate here because the apology did not reflect the full impact on the resident and his family whereby they did not have heating for four days in winter and had to resort to taking potentially dangerous action by completing the repairs themselves. This meant an apology alone was not a proportionate way to put the failures right.

Handling of the resident’s reports of condensation issues in the loft

52. The issue of condensation in the attic is long-standing and the evidence shows that the landlord took action to resolve it in 2018. This report has focussed on events from December 2018 after a report to the landlord by the resident of damage to the electrics in the property caused by condensation.
53. The evidence shows that the landlord initially acted appropriately, following this report by arranging an inspection of the property which took place early in 2019. However, in a response to a query from the MP, the landlord acknowledged that the suggested solutions set out in this inspection report were not followed up. That was a service failure.
54. When the resident reported the same problem caused by the condensation in December 2020, the landlord acted appropriately by arranging a further inspection of the property. That inspection report suggested there might be inadequate ventilation in the attic and noted that further investigation was required.
55. In its responses to the MP in 2021, the landlord suggested its surveyor had visited the property and had confirmed that the recommended action in the earlier report was still appropriate; it also said that it was appointing an independent consultant to assess the work required and to make recommendations about the best way for the work to be undertaken. This was a reasonable approach given the resident’s views about how the work should be carried out.
56. While the MP emphasised the urgency of the repairs, the evidence suggests the resident would not give the landlord access until his complaint had been dealt with. At that point there appeared to be a stalemate between the landlord and the resident; despite warning it would take tenancy action against the resident, there is no evidence that any further action was taken to try to progress matters.
57. As well as dealing with the cause of the condensation, the landlord also had a responsibility to deal with the consequences of the leaks – that is the water damage to the electrics (namely the spotlights and smoke alarms in the top of the property). The evidence suggests that, after the report of the leak in December 2020, appointments were made for an electrical contractor to attend. There is no evidence that the property was attended at this time and action taken to resolve matters; the evidence log notes a repair relating to a further report of this issue was cancelled in March 2021. The failure to take action in line despite its repairing responsibility here is a further failing.
58. The landlord apologised for its failure to take follow up action following the report of early 2019. In its response to the MP in 2021 it said the resident had refused it access to carry out repairs; however, the evidence suggests that this relates to the condensation issue, rather than the electrical repairs.
59. Again, an apology is not proportionate redress for failing to identify that it had not followed up on the inspection report from early 2019 for over two years until the MP intervened. Had action been taken in a timely way, it is likely that action could have been taken before the winter of 2019-20 and before the pandemic that occurred soon after. As it was, the resident and his family had to live in a property which suffered leaks from the attic in colder months due to the build-up of condensation and which left them with no lighting in the top of the property and unable to reset the fuse board themselves due to the water element. Financial compensation is appropriate here of £400 for the impact on the family for the winters of 2019-20 and from 2020-2021. This sum reflects the health and safety risk to the family, the additional impact on the resident due to his mobility issues and the worry and distress this matter caused.
60. The evidence suggests due to this lack of action in dealing with both the leak and the condensation, the relationship between the landlord and resident has broken down. An order has been made for the landlord to take action to try to resolve the condensation; this is in line with both the landlord’s proposal set out to the MP in June 2021 and the resident’s preferred outcome to this aspect of the complaint.

Complaint handling

61. The landlord’s handling of the complaint was not appropriate because it did not follow its complaint procedures. While the stage two response made reference to a stage one response, this Service did not identify this from the evidence provided. There was also delay in issuing the final response.
62. It is evident from the information provided by the landlord and resident that there was long-standing dissatisfaction about the issue of condensation in the attic. Despite that, it took the intervention of the Ombudsman for a final complaint response to be issued by the landlord.
63. The landlord offered £50 for the delay in issuing the stage two response. This is not proportionate to the time and trouble taken by the resident to progress the complaint. The sum of £150 better reflects the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
64. The landlord provided a list of complaints that the resident had raised (this Service counted at least eleven); only two of these complaints had progressed to a final response. It is not reasonable or appropriate for the landlord to delay or fail to progress matters through its formal complaints procedure. This also means that complaints become more messy and complex as different issues are added. An order has been made, below, for the landlord to take steps to progress the resident’s current complaints in line with its complaint procedure.

Determination (decision)

65. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its:

1. Handling of the resident’s reports of a repair to the boiler following a leak in February 2021.

2. Handling of the resident’s reports of condensation issues in the loft.

66. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

67. The landlord did not complete the emergency boiler repair within the timescale contained in its repair policy. There was also a record-keeping failure as the repair log incorrectly stated the repair had been completed the same day.
68. The landlord failed to follow up the recommendations from the 2019 inspection report to remedy the condensation issues. It also failed to carry out electrical repairs resulting from the leaks.
69. While the landlord acknowledged a delay in issuing the final complaint response, it did not recognise the time and trouble experienced by the resident in trying to progress the complaint.

Orders

70. The landlord should take the following action within four weeks of the date of this report and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders:

1. Pay the resident the sum of £670 made up of:
   1. £120 for the impact caused by the failings relating to the leak of February 2021.
   2. £400 for the impact caused by the failings caused by the condensation in the attic.
   3. £150 for the impact caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failures (less any sum already paid).

2. To identify what went wrong with the repair log entry on 18 February 2021 and write to the Ombudsman and the resident with an explanation and what steps it will take to ensure the information entered into the repair log in future is always accurate.
3. To speak to its contractor to identify why they did not attend following the boiler leak and write to the Ombudsman and the resident with an explanation and what steps it will take to prevent this type of incident re-occurring.
4. To undertake an exercise to identify all of the resident’s existing open complaints and progress them appropriately in line with its complaints procedures. With a view to ensuring that a final response is issued within one month of the date of this report on all open complaints where a stage one has been issued and the resident wishes to escalate this to review.
5. Take action to try to resolve the condensation.