London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202219957)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219957

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

6 February 2024

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. Handling of repairs to the property’s heating and hot water.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. He has lived with his partner and young child in the 2 bedroom 2nd floor flat since June 2021.
On 6 September 2022 the resident reported a loss of heating and hot water following an annual gas service. The landlord’s heating contractor completed the service.
The resident complained to the landlord on 8 September 2022. He felt that the fault was caused by the landlord’s contractor during the service on 6 September 2022. He reported the property was still without heating and hot water. The landlord attended the same day and found that the boiler needed parts. The resident was unhappy that the family would be without heating/hot water. He highlighted their child was only young. He wanted the landlord to resolve the heating urgently.The landlord provided temporary heaters.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint the following day. It said it would respond by 21 September 2022. The landlord’s internal correspondence shows it attempted to bring the repair forwards. There were issues with the availability of parts and the earliest appointment was 14 September 2022.
The boiler was ultimately repaired on 14 September 2022. However, the repair was delayed because the landlord initially attended with the wrong part.
On 15 September 2022 the landlord issues its stage 1 response. The landlord’s records show it discussed the complaint with the resident beforehand. The landlord acknowledged the distress the repairs had caused. It apologised and awarded £68 in compensation. This comprised:
1. £40 for inconvenience
2. £28 for having no heating or hot water for 7 days (£3 per day)
Following the repair, the resident made a further report of no heating and hot water on 17 November 2022. The landlord attended on 21 November 2022 and found that a crack in the front cover meant the boiler was unsafe. The boiler was shut down until a repair could be made.
The resident called the landlord on 22 November 2022 regarding the repairs with the heating/hot water. He said that faults had been recurring since September 2022. In addition, error messages had been showing on the boiler. He was told that the boiler would remain capped until a new cover could be installed. This would not be until 25 November 2022. In response, the resident said he would withhold his rent until the repairs were resolved.
The resident escalated his complaint on 29 November 2022. He said:
1. Boiler repairs were outstanding after 3-4 months.
2. He continued to have a malfunctioning boiler.
3. Up to that point, the boiler had only been usable for 2-3 days.
4. He reiterated his child was vulnerable due to their age. He said they had been unwell because the property was cold.
5. He was unhappy with the landlord’s customer service. He said there were multiple failed appointments.
6. There had been a lack of communication from the landlord. He was considering legal action.
The resident chased the landlord on 5, 6 and 7 December 2022. He reported the heating was still not working and there had been no response from the landlord. The landlord said it would provide a stage 2 response by 4 January 2023.
The landlord called the resident on 12 December 2022. Call notes show the resident was unhappy with the landlord and ended the call. Subsequently, the landlord updated the resident by text message. It said it was planning to install a new boiler “by the end of the week” and needed to do an asbestos survey.
Repair records show the landlord replaced the boiler on 19 December 2022. They also show there were several unsuccessful visits beforehand because of incorrect parts or failed attempts to repair the boiler. From the information seen, the property lacked heating and hot water between 17 November 2022 and 19 December 2022.
On 26 January 2023 the landlord issued a stage 2 acknowledgement. It subsequently emailed the resident on 2 February 2023. The information seen suggests the parties spoke during the interim period. Its emailed detailed the following complaint points/issues:
1. the lack of heating/hot water;
2. conduct of the landlord’s contractor;
3. time taken to complete the repair; and,
4. additional costs incurred by the resident for use of temporary heaters.
The landlord said it would issue its stage 2 response by 22 February 2023. It wanted to give the resident an opportunity to discuss the complaint before the response was sent.
The resident replied to the landlord the following day and reiterated many of the concerns raised above. He also said:
1. He was only able get any results by asking people he knew who worked for the landlord to raise the issue internally.
2. On 9 December 2022, the boiler “exploded” in the kitchen. He described parts flying across the room, narrowly missing his family.
3. The service he received from the landlord was “appalling”. He received no apology or compensation for the distress. He and his family had been impacted mentally, financially, and physically.
4. He had been withholding his rent and intended to do so until the end of the month.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 17 February 2022. This was around 55 working days after the request was made to escalate the complaint. It said that it had shared its findings with its senior leadership. It separated the response into separate headings:
1. Regarding customer service/complaint handling it said:
  1. The complaint was acknowledged on 9 September 2022; however, the resident had been raising concerns since August 2022.
  2. It had offered compensation at stage 1 and tried to resolve the issues with repairs.
  3. The issues reoccurred in November 2022 and the resident asked for his complaint to be escalated on 29 November 2022.
  4. The resident had to chase both complaints.
  5. The landlord apologised for difficulties and delays in its complaint handling.
2. Regarding repairs it set out a timeline of events. It then said:
  1. The resident had issues with the boiler before a complaint was raised. It repaired various leaks in August and September 2022.
  2. It agreed that it would have been more convenient to approve a new boiler installation earlier than December 2022.
  3. The resident had to wait for repairs as parts were not in stock. The landlord arranged appointments where incorrect boiler parts had been ordered. The resident said he did not get paid for work when he took unexpected leave.
  4. It acknowledged that the resident had a frightening incident when the boiler “exploded”. The resident had reported there had also been a gas leak. The landlord had no record of a gas leak.
  5. It apologised that this happened and directed the resident to complete an accident and incident form.
  6. It found no evidence that suggested the contractor broke the boiler on purpose. It noted that the contractor had tried to get parts as quickly as possible. However, the boiler kept failing and it became necessary to install a replacement.
3. In relation to its liability for damages it directed the resident to its insurance team.
4. In regard to temporary heaters, it said that it supplied the resident with temporary heaters. The resident was unhappy that he had not received any reimbursement for the running costs. It considered this in its compensation payment.
5. The landlord recognised that the resident had taken time off work for access to be gained. It referred to its compensation policy. It said it did not make payments for loss of earnings due to service failure. It considered a goodwill payment in recognition of the time and effort this matter caused.
6. The landlord found that it had not offered additional compensation at earlier stages. It said that it should have considered giving redress for the circumstances the resident found himself in. It apologised for the lapse in administration and the customer service.
7. Its process was designed to set things right and restore the complainant to the place they were in prior to issues occurring. Any review of compensation considered whether the resident experienced adversity because of the issues mentioned in the complaint. For the above reasons and in line its compensation guidelines, the landlord offered £2,310 in compensation. This comprised:
  1. £1,980 for the time, effort, distress, and inconvenience.
  2. £250 as a gesture of goodwill for the running cost of temporary heaters.
  3. £80 for the complaint handling at stage 1 and the late stage 2 review.
8. The landlord arranged for a part payment of £1483.59 to be credited to the resident’s rent account to offset some of the arrears. The remaining £826.41 would be sent to the resident separately.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. As a result, the Ombudsman cannot determine whether the delays to complete repairs impacted the family’s health. However, we can consider the overall distress and inconvenience that the issues in this case have caused. A determination relating to damages caused to the resident’s health or loss of earnings is more appropriate for the courts and the resident may wish to pursue this in a legal setting

Handling of repairs to heating and hot water.

In its stage 2 response, the landlord accepted responsibility for various failures. 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.
The records show the resident went without adequate heating/hot water for around 4 months. He was reliant on temporary heaters for most of that period. The resident had a young family and he described the cold causing his child to become unwell. He took additional time off work to stay in for appointments, many of which were unsuccessful because the parts were incorrect or additional ones were required. It is reasonable for landlords to seek to repair faulty equipment, rather than to replace it immediately. The landlord made reasonable efforts to repair the boiler before making the decision that it was no longer viable. It reflected on the impact the delays had on the resident in its stage 2 response and direct him to make a separate claim for damages.
The timeline shows that the landlord responded to repairs and arranged contractors to visit within a reasonable time. However, there were instances when it attended appointments with the wrong parts or made multiple failed attempts to repair the boiler. The landlord did not respond to all enquiries made by the resident. Between 29 November and 9 December 2022, the resident called the landlord 7 times chasing updates. There was an increased frustration from the resident as a result. The landlord should have managed his expectations with clear, timely communication. Ensuring regular and consistent communication with the resident is key to maintaining a positive landlord/tenant relationship.
The resident had to spend time away from work to wait for the landlord to visit his home. Many of these visits amounted to a continuation of the issues he was experiencing. The landlord was unable to resolve the issues with the boiler by replacing parts, despite many efforts to do so. The landlord’s decision to replace the boiler in December 2023 demonstrated that it understood the boiler was beyond repair and it completed the work within a reasonable amount of time. It is difficult to identify where the landlord may have missed opportunities to replace the boiler sooner. However, the landlord recognised in its stage 2 response that it did not act as swiftly as it could and the delayed decision to replace the boiler impacted the resident and his family.
Having carefully considered the evidence, the Ombudsman agreed with the landlord’s findings in this case. While the time taken to repair the heating and hot water was distressing to the resident, the landlord’s decision to replace the boiler was fair. There was no evidence it overlooked any issues or impacts in its final response. It sought to put things right for the resident and there was no reason to undermine the landlord’s approach.
The Ombudsman finds that there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of repairs to heating and hot water. The landlord acknowledged its failings to repair the heating and hot water in its stage 2 response. It followed good dispute resolution principles. It was fair, put things right and learnt from outcomes. Its offer of compensation of £1,980 for the time, trouble and distress was reasonable in the circumstances. Its offer of £250 to cover the use of temporary heaters was reflective of its compensation policy.

Complaint handling

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord followed proper procedure, good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all circumstances of the case.
There was a delay to acknowledge the request to escalate the complaint. The landlord’s stage 2 response was issued around 35 working days above its target of 20 working days. The time taken to respond to the resident was impacted by its attempts to discuss the complaint with the resident. Although the landlord did not record a request for an extension in line with its policy, it did note discussions with the resident taking place before it issued its response. The landlord demonstrated attempts to fully understand the complaint and provide a detailed response. The landlord did not fully acknowledge these delays in its complaint handling. This was a failure by the landlord to comply with its policies.
However, the stage 2 response was detailed. The landlord reflected on the impact the delays had on the resident. It highlighted the case to its senior leadership to learn from outcomes. It demonstrated consideration of the resident’s circumstances. It recognised where it had failed and looked to put things right for the resident.
The Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord acknowledged its failures in its complaint handling. It apologised to the resident and its offer of £80 compensation was reflective of the time and trouble caused to the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Reasonable address by the landlord in its handling of repairs to heating and hot water.
2. Reasonable redress by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Recommendations

The landlord should offer to pay compensation of £2,310 if it had not already done so.