London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202115995)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202115995

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

8 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 dissatisfaction with the major works (external paintwork).
2. Decision to offset the credit on the resident’s service charge account against outstanding major works charges without informing the resident.
3. Handling of the roof replacement.
4. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the property which is a first floor flat. She lives at the property with her child.
The resident has multiple sclerosis (MS) and she made the landlord aware of this.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s repairs policy states as follows:
1. It will undertake repairs to a good standard, in a reasonable timeframe.
2. Where a communal repair or necessary improvement work is expected to cost more than £250 per home it will ensure that consultation is carried out in line with section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and set out in its statutory consultation (section 20) policy.
3. Routine repairs (non-emergency) will be completed at the earliest mutually convenient time.
The landlord’s planned maintenance works document states as follows:
1. External redecoration is usually undertaken every six years.
2. If the resident wishes, they can decorate the outside of the property themselves after informing the landlord.
The landlord’s compensation policy states as follows:
1. For a routine defect it will pay £2 compensation per day, with a maximum of £100 per defect if not completed within 20 days.
2. It will pay £10 compensation for failing to respond to a formal complaint within the timescales published in the complaints policy.
The landlord’s complaints policy states as follows:
1. A complaint is classed as an expression of dissatisfaction about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord or those acting on its behalf.
2. At stage one the landlord will respond to complaints within 10 working days. At stage two the landlord will respond within 20 working days. If it cannot respond within 20 working days it will explain why and write again within a further 10 working days.
3. It does not cover issues which are over six months old unless there are exceptional circumstances.

Summary of events

In 2014 the landlord completed major works (external paintwork) at the property.
In January 2016 the resident complained to the landlord and stated as follows:
1. She was unhappy with the workmanship of the exterior paintwork.
2. The window frames looked as if they had not been painted as rainwater had lodged in the seals, causing cracks and mildew.
3. The scaffolding for the major works had blocked the fire exit and had been in place for “months”.
4. The scaffolding had caused damage to the external staircase, causing a part to become loose and unsafe.
5. Contractors did not attend for weeks at a time.
6. The issues had caused her a lot of stress.
7. She objected to paying her leasehold charges until the landlord resolved the issues.
8. The landlord had not responded to her concerns.
The landlord told the resident in March 2016 that her complaint would be considered. Following this a contractor attended to inspect the paintwork.
In June 2016 the resident told the landlord that the contractor had told her that the paintwork would be corrected. She said she had not heard anything further from the landlord.
The landlord told the resident in November 2016 that the contractor had returned twice to undertake the agreed snagging. It said that as it had been over two years since the paintwork was completed and a year past the end of the defects period, it could not help any further.
On 18 March 2019 the resident told the landlord that there were cracks on the roof tiles causing leaks into the property.
On 21 March 2019 the landlord told the resident that her application for a refund of excess credit on her account (£199.30) would not be approved as she had £2763.54 debt outstanding for the major works. It said that the credit would be transferred to this debt.
In May 2019 the landlord spoke to the resident and reminded her of the amount she owed for the major works. The landlord noted that the resident declined to pay this and stated that she was taking legal action.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 8 January 2021 and said that the roof tiles were coming away causing a draft and that one had fallen and hit her on the head.
On 11 January 2021 a contractor attended and re-fixed the roof tiles. The contractor noted that the roof would need to be renewed and that there was no roof felt.
Another contractor attended on 19 January 2021 to inspect the roof. The contractor noted that the broken and missing tiles needed to be replaced and new lead flashing to the walls was needed. It said that although the roof was old it was in very good condition for its age.
On 25 May 2021 the resident contacted the landlord. She said that after it had told her in 2016 that it could not do anything about the paintwork, she had assumed that the cost of the work (£2763.54) had been written off. She said it was only when she had looked into purchasing the loft space that the landlord 4 had reminded her of the outstanding debt. She said that the landlord was in breach of its obligation under the lease to maintain and repair the property.
On 24 June 2021 the resident contacted the landlord and stated as follows:
1. The debt of £2763.54 should be written off.
2. The landlord should refund £199.30 to her. She said this amount had been illegally taken from her account without her permission to offset the major works paintwork debt. She said she had disputed the workmanship and this had never been resolved.
3. Contractors had attended to correct the paintwork but had made it worse.
4. She was getting quotes for having the paintwork redone and she expected the landlord to pay 50% of the cost of this.
5. The roof damage she reported in January 2021 had not been fixed. She said this was causing leaks, damage to masonry in the loft and heat loss.
6. The roofing company had said that the neighbouring flat had denied them access with the scaffolding which was not accurate.
7. The stress caused by the landlord over the last seven years had made her MS symptoms worse.
The resident continued to report water leaking into the property from the roof in July and October 2021.
The resident contacted this Service on 13 October 2021 and outlined her dissatisfaction with the major works and roof repairs. She also stated that the poor workmanship of the major works had caused damp and mould.
This Service contacted the landlord that same day and asked it to respond to the resident’s complaint by 28 October 2021.
The landlord did not respond and so this Service contacted it again on 29 October 2021. The landlord was given until 5 November 2021 to respond to the resident’s complaint.
On 2 November 2021 the landlord provided a response to the resident’s complaint and stated as follows:
1. The landlord apologised for not investigating the resident’s complaint about the major works. It said that as per its complaints process it would not normally consider a complaint where the matter was over six months old. The landlord acknowledged that the resident was unhappy with the major works and offered to refund her 50% of the cost.
2. It acknowledged that a new roof was required. It said that due to the cost, a s.20 consultation was needed.
3. It could not consider a personal injury claim within its complaints process. It advised the resident how she could pursue a claim.
4. It offered £50 compensation for the delayed complaint response.
The resident responded on 2 November 2021 and said that she was dissatisfied with the offer of a 50% refund for the cost of the major works. She said that the standard of the work had devalued the property and requested the full cost be written off. She provided quotes that she had obtained for decorating and asked the landlord to contribute towards these costs. She requested a refund of £199.30. She accepted the offer of £50 compensation.
On 16 November 2021 the landlord told the resident that it could not offer her more than a 50% refund towards the cost of the major works. It escalated her complaint to stage two of its complaints procedure. It later told the resident that it could not give her a timescale for the complaint response due to the volume of complaints it was dealing with.
The landlord started the s.20 consultation process for the new roof in December 2021.
On 20 January 2022 this Service chased up the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint and asked it to respond by 4 February 2022.
On 24 January 2022 the landlord responded to the resident’s stage two complaint and stated as follows:
1. It apologised for the delays in responding. It said that changes made by the Housing Ombudsman in 2020 had led to a high number of complaint escalations, which had led to delays.
2. It had refunded her the £199.30 as requested.
3. A 50% refund towards the cost of the major works was the maximum it would offer. It said this was fair and reasonable as the matter dated back to 2015/16 which made investigation difficult.
4. It would not contribute financially if the resident wanted to redecorate.
5. It apologised for the “unacceptable delay” in the s.20 consultation process for the new roof.
6. The landlord offered £420 compensation. This was made up as follows:
  1. £120.00 for distress and inconvenience.
  2. £200.00 for the time and effort the resident spent contacting the landlord.
  3. £100.00 for delays in responding at stage two.
The resident referred her case to this Service in March 2022.

Correspondence following the involvement of the Housing Ombudsman

In March 2022 the resident told the landlord that she had still not seen a quote for the new roof and had no indication of when it would be replaced. She said that there was mould in every room of the house.
On 21 March 2022 the resident told this Service that it was not clear if the cost to her for the new roof was £10,000 or if this was shared with her neighbour. She said she was worried the roof would cave in.
On 19 April 2022 the resident told this Service that she had pursued an insurance claim for the mould damage and was waiting for the outcome.
The resident’s roof was replaced on 20 May 2022.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s dissatisfaction with the major works (external paintwork)

The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’. As an issue become historical, it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
The landlord’s complaint’s policy states that complaints about issues which are over six months old will not be considered unless there are exceptional circumstances. The resident did not submit a complaint to the landlord about the major works until two years after the work was completed. The resident did not provide any exceptional circumstances as to why she did not complain at the time. It was appropriate for the landlord to instruct contractors to do snagging work as agreed with the resident. The landlord then acted reasonably in advising the resident that it could not assist her further due to the length of time that had passed.
As the resident had not complained to the landlord within the given timeframe and provided no reason for the delay, the landlord was not obligated to consider this aspect of her complaint. It did however, and acknowledged that she was not happy with the standard of work done. It offered to refund 50% of the cost of the major works, which was reasonable in the circumstances.
Exterior paintwork is done on a six year cycle. It was appropriate for the landlord not to pay for the resident to instruct her own decorator for this to be done earlier.

The landlord’s decision to offset the credit on the resident’s service charge account against outstanding major works charges without informing the resident

The resident “assumed” that the landlord had written off the cost of the major works (£2763.54) but there is no evidence to show that the landlord had led the resident to believe this.
The landlord acted appropriately in transferring £199.30 credit from the resident’s service charge account towards the outstanding debt. It was clear in its communication why it was doing so.
Within its stage two complaint response the landlord told the resident that it had refunded the £199.30 to her, as she requested. This appears to have been as a gesture of goodwill in response to the resident’s complaint. Although there is no evidence that it was obliged to reimburse this sum, doing so demonstrated the landlord’s willingness to achieve a resolution in this instance.
There is no evidence of maladministration in the way the landlord handled the credit on the resident’s account.

The landlord’s handling of the roof replacement

The landlord was made aware in March 2019 that there was water leaking into the property from the roof. There is no evidence to show that the landlord took any action on this until January 2021, when the resident reported that a tile had hit her on the head. The landlord did not provide an explanation or apology to the resident for the delay of around 22 months in responding to the issue. This was not appropriate.
The landlord was aware that injury had been caused to the resident and that there was a child at the address. Given the conflicting advice from the two contractors about whether a new roof was needed, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to ask a third, independent contractor to assess the condition of the roof. This was not done and the landlord took no further action on the roof once the tiles had been re-fixed. There is no evidence that the landlord undertook any kind of risk assessment of the condition of the roof.
There is no evidence that the landlord took any action following the resident’s continued reports of water leaking into the property from June to October 2021. It was not until the involvement of the Housing Ombudsman that the landlord acknowledged the ongoing leak and that the roof needed to be replaced. This delay was not appropriate.
Although the roof replacement appears key in preventing any further mould, there is no evidence that the landlord took any steps to help the resident manage the mould in the property, such as providing a dehumidifier or arranging mould washes. The landlord advised her to make a claim for the damage via her insurers, which she did. There is no evidence however that the landlord took any responsibility for the condition of the property or the impact on the resident. There is also no evidence that the landlord considered the resident’s vulnerability or the presence of a child in handling the roof replacement.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to provide fair and proportionate remedies where maladministration or service failure has been identified. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for the “unacceptable delay” in the s.20 consultation process to replace the roof and to offer compensation. The landlord’s offer of £120.00 for distress and inconvenience and £200.00 for the time and effort the resident spent contacting the landlord was not commensurate with the impact on the resident and the distress and inconvenience caused by this delay.
This Service has ordered £2200 compensation for the significant distress caused to the resident due to having water leaking into the property for over 22 months (assessed at £100 per month). This takes into account the resident’s vulnerability and the presence of a young child in the property. This amount also accounts for the time and inconvenience experienced by the resident in pursuing this issue with the landlord. This figure has been determined using the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance for maladministration as there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord did not treat the resident’s email outlining her dissatisfaction with a number of issues (24 June 2021) as a complaint. This was not in line with its complaints policy which says that a complaint is classed as an expression of dissatisfaction about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord or those acting on its behalf.
Even after the involvement of the Housing Ombudsman, the landlord did not respond by the initial deadline given by this Service. When it did respond at stage one (2 November 2021), this was over four months after the resident had made her complaint. This was not appropriate.
The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint at stage two within the stated timeframe and this Service again had to ask the landlord to respond. The delay from the landlord meant the resident had to wait almost three months for the stage two response. It was not appropriate for the landlord to tell the resident that the reason for its delayed stage two response was because of “changes the Ombudsman required landlords to introduce, which commenced from November 2020”.
The landlord acted appropriately in offering compensation for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint, however the offer of £100 did not sufficiently acknowledge the time and inconvenience caused to the resident. An increased offer of £250 compensation has been ordered to acknowledge this.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the roof replacement.
2. Complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s dissatisfaction with the major works (external paintwork).
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s decision to offset the credit on the resident’s service charge account against outstanding major works charges without informing the resident.

Reasons

Despite the landlord not being obliged to consider this aspect of the resident’s complaint due to the time that had passed, it did so. The landlord acknowledged that the resident was not happy with the exterior works done in 2014 and offered to refund 50% of the cost of these works. This was reasonable in the circumstances and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this offer resolves this aspect of complaint satisfactorily.
The landlord acted appropriately in transferring credit from the resident’s service charge account to the outstanding debt. It told her it was doing so and why. While under no obligation to do so, the landlord subsequently agreed to refund this money as a goodwill gesture at the resident’s request.
The landlord did not act appropriately in responding to the resident’s reports of the leaking roof. It delayed starting the s.20 consultation process which led to 10 mould in every room and significant distress was caused to the resident. There is no evidence that the landlord considered the resident’s vulnerability or presence of a child in the property in assessing and handling the roof replacement.
The landlord did not follow its complaints procedure when responding to the resident’s complaint. This Service had to become involved at both stages of the complaints procedure before the landlord responded to the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord shall 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. In order to acknowledge the impact of the failures in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of the roof leak and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, the landlord is ordered to pay direct to the resident the sum of £2450 compensation. This is made up of:
  1. £2200 to acknowledge the significant impact and distress caused to the resident by the landlord not acting appropriately to fix the roof leak.
  2. £250 to acknowledge the impact on the resident of the landlord’s failings when dealing with the resident’s complaint.
2. The landlord is ordered to provide further training to staff who deal with complaints on responding to complaints in line with the timeframes stated in its policy.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord confirm to the resident her outstanding debt for the major works and ensure she knows how this will be collected.