London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202217925)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217925

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

26 October 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

1. The complaint is regarding the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of the resident’s reports of a water leak and subsequent repairs.
   2. Complaints handling.

Background

2. It is noted that this complaint has been brought by three residents who are all named on one tenancy agreement. For the purposes of this report, we will refer to the communication from all three tenants as being from “the resident” singularly. The resident had occupied the property since March 2004 under an assured tenancy.
3. The resident contacted the landlord on 28 February 2022 to advise of a leak within the main bathroom which had flooded a number of nearby rooms. The resident advised they had turned the mains water off to stop the leak. The landlord sent an operative round the following day who removed the toilet flush which allowed the mains water to be turned back on.
4. The resident repeatedly contacted the landlord requesting an update and was advised that it would be chased. An appointment was made for 27 June 2022 but, as the resident was not advised of this appointment the landlord was unable to gain access. The landlord returned in the first half of July 2022, but the wrong part had been taken so a new part had to be reordered. The repair was completed on 20 July 2022.
5. The resident made a formal complaint on 17 August 2022, requesting compensation of five months half-rent for the amount of time, stress and alleged “negligence” that had occurred while dealing with the matter.
6. The landlord provided its stage one response on 18 August 2022. It apologised for multiple delays and offered £425 compensation. It stated the compensation was a goodwill gesture to reflect the length of time it took to resolve the issue and the distress, inconvenience, time and effort experienced by the resident.
7. The resident requested the complaint be escalated to stage two on 19 August 2022 as they were unhappy with the compensation offered. They advised that it did not reflect the stress, unhygienic conditions, privacy encroachment and negligent strain they had been put under, as well as the landlord’s lack of responsiveness.
8. The resident chased the landlord numerous times for a response to their stage two complaint. The landlord provided its stage two response on 9 December 2022, following intervention from this service. It apologised for the delay at stage two and offered £40 compensation. It stated that it had experienced very high demand for repairs and national shortages in materials and labour. It went on to state that the repair was not classed as an emergency as the resident could access another toilet however it acknowledged that this was part of an ensuite, so access was limited. It acknowledged that the situation was distressing and unpleasant and apologised for the impact it had. It offered £286 for the loss of amenity (£10 for the first day and £2 for each subsequent day), £225 (£45 a month) for inconvenience and distress, and £50 for time and trouble.
9. The resident remains dissatisfied and by way of resolution would like compensation of five and a half months, half-rent, totalling £5,312.50.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a water leak and subsequent repairs

10. The landlord’s repairs policy states emergency works that occur out of hours will be attended within four hours, make safe works will be completed and follow-up works will take place “at the earliest mutually convenient appointment”. It does not provide specific detail on the timescales it usually works to. However, the Ombudsman is aware that the industry standard for non-emergency/non-urgent repairs is a timeframe of 28 calendar days, where no specialist parts are required.
11. The resident contacted the landlord on 28 February 2022 to advise of the leak. The landlord attended the following day and removed the toilet flush, which was causing the leak, this allowed for the mains water to be turned back on. This was appropriate action and in line with the landlord’s repairs policy.
12. The resident also advised that the flooring had been flooded. The landlord wet vacuumed the carpet and provided a dehumidifier to assist in the drying of the carpets. This was appropriate action.
13. The resident then contacted the landlord repeatedly to advise the follow-up works had not been completed and to request and updated timeframe. The landlord first attended the resident’s property to complete follow-up works on 27 June 2022, 119 calendar days following the make safe works.
14. The works did not go ahead on 27 June 2022 as the resident had not been forewarned of the appointment and as such was not home to provide access. This service expects landlords to make residents aware of prearranged appointments so they can arrange for access to be given. By not doing this the landlord extended the already long delay in the repair works.
15. The landlord returned during the first half of July 2022 (exact date unknown) but was unable to complete the works as the part taken was incorrect and had to be reordered. This service expects landlords to properly assess repair works to ensure the parts ordered are correct. As this did not happen, again the delay was extended.
16. The works were completed on 20 July 2022, 142 calendar days following the make safe works. This is not in line with industry standards and is a considerable service failure.
17. The landlord’s compensation policy states, under the right to repair, a toilet not flushing, where the resident had no access to another toilet, should be fixed within one day. Where it is not fixed statutory compensation must be paid. This compensation consists of £10 plus an additional £2 per household per day for every subsequent day it remains unfixed.
18. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had access to another toilet but as this was an ensuite the access was very limited. As such it decided to apply the right to repair compensation as if the property only had one toilet. This was appropriate action and accurately reflected the personal circumstances of the case.
19. The landlord offered £286 for the loss of amenity. This is in line with the right to repair compensation policy.
20. The resident requested a rent rebate of five months half-rent as this was the amount of time they spent without the working toilet. The landlord explained in its stage two response that a reduction in rent would only be considered where the total loss of a room had occurred and as it was only the toilet that was out of use, this did not apply. This was a reasonable approach. This Service cannot see that it would have been proportionate for the landlord to have offered a full rebate, given that the resident was still able to occupy the property during this time.
21. The resident explained that they were having to flush the toilet with buckets of water and that this was a distressing and unhygienic experience which additionally caused their water bills to rise. At stage two the landlord offered £225 (£45 a month) in recognition of the inconvenience and distress caused. Considering the level of maladministration shown by the landlord this is not proportionate redress for the significant inconvenience caused to the resident. Based on the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, this Service would expect a compensation offer of between £100 and £600 depending on the level of inconvenience. As the resident was being inconvenienced multiple times a day for a significant period of time, this Service would expect a compensation offer closer to the higher end of that bracket.
22. At stage two the landlord offered £50 in recognition of the time and effort the resident took to resolve the matter. When taking into consideration the number of times the resident made contact with the landlord and was provided with no meaningful response, this is not proportionate redress.
23. Considering the multiple failures made by the landlord and the significant, time, trouble, distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident a finding of maladministration will be made and further compensation ordered in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

The landlord’s complaints handling

24. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code is a guidance document that sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. It explains that an effective complaints process enables the landlord to learn from the issues that arise. It further states “Complaints allow an issue to be resolved before it becomes worse. Those issues not resolved quickly can take significant resource and time to remedy”.
25. The resident initially expressed dissatisfaction on 26 April 2022. The landlord responded apologising for the delay and suggested the resident raise a compensation request once the works had been completed. This is not appropriate or in line with the Complaints Handling Code. Its response suggests that the landlord accepted this expression as a complaint. As such the service would expect the landlord to begin its formal complaints procedure.
26. The resident went on to contact the landlord a further nine times, each time expressing dissatisfaction with their service request. Again, none of these expressions were raised as a formal complaint. This is not in line with the Complaints Handling Code. By failing to acknowledge and raise the complaint at either the first expression of dissatisfaction or the subsequent nine expressions, the landlord added unnecessary delays to the complaints process and left the resident having to further explain their complaint at a later date, causing them further time and trouble.
27. The landlord’s complaints policy states a stage two complaint will be responded to within 20 working days. It further states “If we need longer, we’ll explain why and write again within a further 10 working days. In exceptional circumstances we may need even longer. We will try to agree this with our customer but if they aren’t happy with an extension, they can contact the Housing Ombudsman Service”.
28. The resident requested escalation to stage two on 19 August 2022. The landlord provided its stage two response on 5 December 2022, 79 working days after the escalation request. The landlord’s stage two response was also provided only after this service intervened and threatened to issue a Complaints Handling Failure Order.
29. The Complaint Handling Code states that landlords must respond to a stage two complaint within 20 working days, with any delays communicated and not exceeding an additional ten working days without good reason.
30. The resident chased the landlord numerous times for a stage two response, and many of these communications went unanswered. While the landlord provided an update on 3 October 2022, it stated that “due to an increase in Stage 2 complaints and the investigations that the housing ombudsman requires, we do therefore have a delay in our timescales. Something that the Housing Ombudsman are aware of”. This was inappropriate. This Service has not encouraged the landlord to delay its complaint handling and has considered it unacceptable that the landlord sought to rest its failure on this. There is also no good reason for the landlord’s failure to communicate with the resident prior to the initial deadline elapsing. Had it done so, it would have been able to manage the resident’s expectations and agree a more practical deadline.
31. The resident contacted the landlord numerous times requesting an update on the stage two complaint. Had the landlord explained the delay and provided the resident with a timeframe for response, this would have saved the resident a lot of time and trouble chasing a response, as well as showing the resident that the complaint was being taken seriously and their concerns were being treated fairly.
32. The landlord offered £40 compensation at stage two for the delay in the stage two response. Taking into consideration the level of maladministration shown by the landlord this is not proportionate redress nor does it address the full failings of the landlord. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests a payment of over £100 is appropriate. As such a finding of maladministration will be made and further compensation offered.

Determination

33. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a water leak and subsequent repairs.
34. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

35. Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is;
    1. To pay the resident £1,286, comprised of;
       1. £286, as previously offered at stage two, in recognition of the loss of amenity.
       2. £500, inclusive of the £225 previously offered at stage two, in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in repair works.
       3. £150, inclusive of the £50 previously offered at stage two, in recognition of the time and trouble taken by the resident to have the repair works resolved.
       4. £350, inclusive of the £40 offered at stage two, in recognition of the landlord’s complaints handling delays at stage two.
    2. To provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders.

Recommendations

36. The landlord should ensure all customer-facing staff are appropriately trained so they have a clear understanding of the difference between a complaint and a service request and are therefore able to raise a formal complaint when it is made.