London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202229395)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229395

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

18 March 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. A repair to her kitchen tap.
2. An altercation between her and its operative.
3. Her formal complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord under a tenancy agreement which commenced on 4 December 1995. The property is a 1 bedroom second floor flat. The landlord’s records state that the resident’s preference is to be contacted only by email.
On 29 July 2022, the resident submitted an online repair report to the landlord stating that her kitchen tap was leaking. She attached several pictures showing a leak from the base of the tap.
One of the landlord’s repair operatives attended the property on 15 September 2022 in relation to the tap. He took a photograph of the tap and left the property without carrying out any works.
After leaving the property the operative completed an incident report form. An internal landlord email of 15 September 2022 says that the operative alleged that the resident “refused access, got aggressive with operative, shouting and physically pushed operative out of property”.
On the same day, the resident phoned the landlord’s contact centre. She claimed that the operative had been confrontational during the appointment and left her feeling threatened. She asked the landlord to ensure it did not send him back to her property. The landlord said it would put a note on the resident’s account to ensure the operative was not allocated to the follow on repair appointment. It asked if the resident wished to log a complaint about the incident, the resident said she did but would submit this in writing.
The resident submitted her complaint to the landlord later that day. She claimed that as he was leaving the property the operative “suddenly stopped in the doorway, which obstructed me from closing my door”. She said this made her feel “alarmed” and “threatened” and she expressed her opinion that the operative was “a danger to women and should not be making home visits”. She asked the landlord to ensure he was not sent to her home again, and to advise her when the repair to her tap would be completed.
On 16 September 2022, as a result of the incident, the landlord added a ‘caution flag’ to the resident’s account indicating that staff should only attend the property in pairs. Internal landlord emails establish that this was to be “reviewed once the [complaint] investigation is completed and if the evidence shows there is no risk”.
The landlord phoned the resident on 27 September 2022 and booked a second appointment for the tap repair for 14 November 2022. The resident checked that it was aware not to send the previous operative to the property.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 28 September 2022. It advised that “based upon the information provided by you within the complaint regarding your health, safety, and wellbeing as well as the report provided by the operative who attended, it has been agreed that visits will be completed in pairs only at your property in the interim period of the complaint investigation”. It said this would be reviewed once the resident’s complaint had been investigated and responded to.
The resident phoned the landlord’s contact centre on 29 September 2022. She said that it had not contacted her to acknowledge her complaint, despite her sending several chaser emails. The landlord said it would log ‘negative feedback’ regarding this and send a request for the complaint handler to contact the resident urgently.
On 20 October 2022, the landlord supplied its stage 1 complaint response. It said that it had spoken to the operative who attended on 15 September 2022, and that he had said the resident had been “verbally abusive”. It noted that the resident had claimed that the operative had been abusive, causing her to feel threatened. The landlord said that as a result any future works at her property would be attended by 2 operatives to allow her “not to feel threatened”.
The resident responded the same day expressing her dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response and requesting to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She accused the operative of giving a false account of events and claimed she had a recording of the incident which showed this. The resident said the landlord had failed to contact her at any point during its investigation and had not notified her of the allegations against her. She expressed concern that requiring 2 operatives to visit her property would delay her repairs in being attended to.
On 21 October 2022, the resident advised the landlord that she had made a report to the police concerning the incident on 15 September 2022. She advised the landlord that she wished for her complaint to be responded to appropriately and upheld, for the caution flag to be removed from her account and for the operative to “admit culpability and retract his false allegation”.
The landlord advised the resident on 2 November 2022 that its complaints team was dealing with a high volume of cases. It said it had attempted to have her case prioritised but was unable to give an estimated date for a stage 2 response.
On 14 November 2022, the landlord sent 2 operatives to the property who completed the repair to the kitchen tap.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 15 November 2022 acknowledging her stage 2 complaint. It said it would respond by 13 December 2022 and signposted her to Victim Support due to the impact she had reported the incident having upon her. On the same day, the landlord requested a copy of the resident’s recording of the incident of 15 September 2022, but advised it would need to confirm the “legality” of it using this with its data protection officer.
On 16 November 2022, the resident sent the landlord a 48 page document of “additional information” relating to her complaint. She also informed the landlord that she would not be providing it with a copy of the recording as she wished to retain this for use in any potential legal proceedings, or should she decide to refer her case to the Ombudsman. The landlord advised that it had sought guidance from the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) which had indicated that, should the recording be provided, it would need the operative’s permission before it could consider it.
The landlord emailed the resident on 2 December 2022. It informed her that its stage 2 complaint response would “only comment on the original complaint”, however it would respond separately to the information she had provided on 16 November 2022. The landlord explained that it may need to extend the timeframe for its stage 2 response due to the volume of information that it had to examine.
On 3 December 2022, the resident made a second formal complaint relating to the landlord’s handling of her complaint of 15 September 2022. Her complaint was submitted in the form of an “updated version of the previous document” which she had supplied to the landlord on 16 November 2022.
The landlord emailed the resident on 13 December 2022. It advised that due to the complexity of the case, and information it had been required to gather, it needed to extend the timeframe for its response. The landlord said that it would cover this delay within its stage 2 response and account for it in any compensation award.
On 15 December 2022, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It said that it:
1. Was still working on a response to the additional information the resident had supplied on 16 November 2022, and this would be supplied as soon as possible.
2. Still needed to physically inspect repairs to “get an accurate idea of the works involved and if we need to order parts”, even when residents provided photos.
3. Apologised that the resident had waited “an excessive period” for the tap repair to be completed.
4. Acknowledged that the resident had not received a phone call to discuss her side of the events of 15 September 2022 before the caution flag was added to her account.
5. Agreed the stage 1 response had been “inadequate for the event that occurred” and that the resident should have been given an apology for the late response and what she perceived to be “poor behaviour” by the operative. The response also failed to direct her to the next stages of its complaint procedure.
6. Was unable to comment on the events of 15 September 2022 as it had “two conflicting statements of what happened” and “there were no witnesses and you have chosen not to supply the recording of the event you may have on file”. As a result, it could not ask the operative to retract his statement.
7. Had identified training needs and put in place future training on “complaints, communication and dealing with residents in their own homes” which the relevant operative would be included in.
8. Would review the “interim caution flag” on the resident’s account after its stage 2 complaint response and encouraged her to discuss any future implications she could foresee from this with it.
9. Knew the resident was disappointed with the addition of the flag, but this protected both her and its employees by ensuring there was a witness to any appointments in her home.
10. Had awarded her a total of £650 compensation, broken down as:
  1. £390 for distress, time, effort and inconvenience.
  2. £50 for her “right to repair”.
  3. £50 for any water charges incurred due to the leaking tap.
  4. £160 for the late stage 1 complaint response, complaint handling and late acknowledgement of her stage 2 request.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 29 December 2022. It said that having reviewed her complaint of 3 December 2022, this was “remarkably like” her original complaint and so it had “closed this” and would address it under the existing complaint reference. The landlord provided responses to points and questions raised by the resident in her correspondence of 16 November 2022 and 3 December 2022. These did not significantly add to the contents of its stage 2 complaint response and so will not be expanded upon here.

Assessment

In making her complaint to the landlord, and later bringing it to this Service, the resident has provided extensive documentation of events. This describes not just the incidents giving rise to complaint, but her allegations of various “systemic issues” within the landlord’s practices.
Whilst the Ombudsman seeks to highlight and address systemic failings wherever identified, the purpose of this investigation is to determine the resident’s complaint based upon the individual circumstances of her case. As such, this investigation will assess only to the landlord’s handling of these matters to reach its determination.
It is worth mentioning that on 27 July 2023, the Ombudsman published a ‘special investigation report’ concerning the landlord. This analysed the themes from this Service’s casework, alongside information from the landlord, to determine where the landlord was failing and made recommendations to address those issues. If she has not done so already, the resident may wish to examine this report.

Tap repair

The landlord’s repairs policy does not provide a timescale for it to attend to non-emergency repairs, stating only that “for routine day to day repairs, we will aim to complete the repair at the earliest mutually convenient appointment”.
The resident reported the repair issue with her kitchen tap to the landlord on 29 July 2022 – with the landlord not attending until 15 September 2022. Although this was a lengthy delay, it is evident from the fact that the landlord acknowledged the repair and booked this appointment on 3 August 2022 that this was not caused by any oversight or failure of process.
Following the appointment of 15 September 2022, the landlord contacted the resident on 27 September 2022 in order to book a further appointment for the repair. Similarly, the appointment date of 14 November 2022 provided was some time away, but the landlord was clear that this was the next available appointment. It also reasonably agreed to place the resident on its priority list should an earlier appointment become available via cancellation – in recognition of the fact the repair was subject to a complaint.
The Ombudsman is acutely aware of the enormous impact of the covid-19 pandemic upon services offered by landlords – with repairs being amongst the most affected. Although the timing of this complaint falls beyond the point at which services were directly disrupted by the pandemic, the knock on effects persisted long afterwards – with many landlords dealing with a backlog of repairs and release of pent up demand accrued during period of restrictions. This context provides reasonable mitigation for the delays in the landlord attending to the repair.
The resident has said that the landlord failed to provide the operative who attended on 15 September 2022 with the photos which she had supplied alongside her repair request. She asserts that this led to the operative stating “that he would not be undertaking any work, and that he was just going to taking a photo” – which “incited” the altercation between them. However, the operative’s written statement on events indicates that he left the property due to feeling “uncomfortable and intimidated” rather than being unable to complete the repair there and then.
The resident said she was advised by the operatives that attended on 14 November 2022 that they had also not been supplied with her photos (although they did have the photo taken by the previous operative). However, she said that on this occasion the tap was repaired “in less than 15 minutes” with the replacement of an ‘O-ring’ – a standard part that an operative carrying out plumbing repairs would reasonably be expected to have immediately available. This indicates that the repair could have been completed on the first attendance, with or without the resident’s photos.
Due to the differing accounts of events, this Service is unable to determine the exact reason why the tap was not repaired on 15 September 2022 – and whether it would have been had the altercation not occurred. For this reason, it would be unreasonable to attribute this to any failing on the landlord’s part.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response stated that, although the photos provided by the resident were “extremely useful”, its operatives still needed to visit the property to “get an accurate idea of the works involved and if we need to order parts”. Whilst this is a reasonable position, it would still be appropriate for the landlord to ensure that relevant photographs provided by residents when reporting repairs were passed onto the attending operatives – something which it is apparent from its communications with the resident that it has the means to do. An order has been made in relation to this below.
The stage 2 response acknowledged that the resident had waited “a long time” between reporting the repair and it being completed. The landlord appropriately apologised for this inconvenience and offered her compensation of £50 for her “right to repair” as well as £50 as a “gesture of goodwill” towards any excess water charges she had incurred from the leak. In light of the nature of the repair – which cannot be said to have significantly affected the resident’s enjoyment of her home, and the length of delay, this represented reasonable redress on the matter.

Altercation

As previously established, the resident and the landlord’s repairs operative both provided differing account of the events of 15 September 2022 – each accusing the other of being confrontational. Both accounts were provided to the landlord within a few hours of events.
Internal landlord emails show that it added the caution flag to the resident’s account on 16 September 2022 stating that “we have to take our operative concerns and report at face value” but that this would be reviewed “once we know the outcome of the complaint”. The landlord’s procedure relating to caution flags explains that these “are used to notify colleagues and contractors that there is a risk to colleagues or contractors…when someone has threatened violence or been violent towards colleagues in the past”.
In light of that fact that its operative had alleged the resident had “physically pushed” him, it was reasonable for the landlord to take this interim measure whilst it investigated the incident more thoroughly and determined the level of risk involved.
The landlord initially requested for a member of its housing team to contact the resident and discuss the incident, but later decided that this would be best done as part of its complaints process “as this is the method [through which] she raised her concern”. Whilst this was a reasonable decision, the landlord subsequently failed to contact the resident as part of its stage 1 complaint investigation, meaning that she was denied her opportunity to respond to the operative’s allegations or expand upon the information provided in her initial account. The landlord acknowledged this failing within its stage 2 complaint response.
Within its internal emails on 16 September 2022, the landlord stated that “there is a process for adding caution flags which includes writing to the resident and outlining why”. Despite this, it took until 27 September 2022 for the landlord to write to the resident. The letter failed to provide appropriate details of allegations against the resident, referring only to “the report provided by the operative who attended” – although it did invite the resident to contact it should she wish to discuss the matter.
This letter was also the first occasion on which the landlord referred to the caution flag also being implemented for the resident’s benefit, stating that “the reason for this interim measure is to ensure the safeguarding of both yourself as well as any L&Q employees”. This justification appears to have been an afterthought, which had not been raised or considered during the initial discussions about adding the flag.
During these discussions the landlord expressed “we have to put our operatives/staff safety first” stating the flag could be removed “if the evidence shows the tenant not to be a threat”. This displayed a concerning lack of consideration of the resident’s complaint (which had been shared earlier within the same chain of emails) and the possibility that its operative had behaved in the manner she alleged.
The resident has said that, contrary to the landlord’s stated intention, the prospect of 2 operatives attending her property increased her anxiety – leading to her arranging for a relative to also be present for the tap repair on 14 November 2022. Although this Service is sympathetic to these feelings, there was no reason for the landlord to believe that its wider pool of operatives posed any sort of risk to the resident. The landlord’s logic of 2 operatives attending so that “there is a witness” was reasonable and there is no evidential basis for this Service to make suggestion to the contrary.
The letter of 27 September 2022 also advised that the implementation of the flag “may impact on repairs and other visits to your home as two operatives/staff will need to be available to attend for any visit”. The resident expressed her concern about receiving a reduced level of service, such as delayed repair visits, due to this. However, there is no evidence of this in the tap repair – with the second appointment being attended 48 days after it was booked, an identical time frame to that of the original appointment when the caution flag was not in place.
Within its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord encouraged the resident to discuss “any future implications” she could foresee from the caution flag. It said that it “would certainly be prepared to talk with you about accommodating your repair needs” including staff from its housing team attending repair appointments where possible. This showed due consideration of the resident’s concerns and there is no evidence of any detriment caused in her access to repairs or other services due to the presence of the caution flag.
The resident was telephoned by the landlord on 27 September 2022, to rebook her repair. Despite the ongoing complaint investigation, and the fact that the resident had clearly expressed in her complaint “under no circumstances should he [the operative who attended on 15 September 2022] be sent to my home again”, the landlord appeared not to have appropriately recorded this information and/or made it accessible to staff. This resulted in the resident having to explain the situation to the landlord and supply it with the first name of this operative to ensure he was not allocated to the job.
On 11 November 2022, a few days ahead of the tap repair appointment, the resident requested details of the operatives who would be attending. It is of concern that one of the 2 names the landlord provided to the resident was that of the operative who was subject to her complaint. Although this operative did not eventually attend the job – being replaced by another, the fact that he was ever assigned to it shows the landlord did not have a robust process in place to avoid this. This could have resulted in significant distress for the resident and a further unpleasant altercation.
The stage 1 complaint response was, as described by the landlord at stage 2, “inadequate for the event that occurred”. The landlord stated that the operative had accused the resident of being “verbally abusive” but failed to mention the allegation that she had pushed him. It said that it had arranged for 2 operatives to attend the resident’s property at all times to allow her “not to feel threatened” but did not provide any details of if and when this would be reviewed – leading the resident to express her belief that this was “a permanent arrangement, not interim” in her escalation request.
It was after the stage 1 complaint response that the resident made the landlord aware that she was in possession of a recording of the altercation on 15 September 2022. The landlord requested a copy of this recording but advised it would need to check on the legality of using it. This was appropriate considering the potential ramifications from such a recording, such as disciplinary proceedings against the operative or tenancy action against the resident. However, the resident then advised the landlord that she would not be providing a copy of the recording to it.
The resident has expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord did not attempt to gain consent from the operative for it to use the recording in its investigation – as it had been advised to by the ICO. However, at the point the landlord provided its final complaint response there is no evidence that the resident had indicated any intention to supply the recording. There was, therefore, no reason for the landlord to seek such consent from the operative at that time.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response said that it was “unable to comment” on the events of 15 September 2022 as it had no witnesses, only the accounts of the resident and operative. This was a reasonable position as, with a lack of independent evidence, the landlord was unable to reasonably prefer one account over the other. Due to this, it would have been inappropriate for the landlord to request the operative to “admit culpability” or withdraw his account as the resident had requested.
The landlord has also provided evidence that the matter was referred to its HR department, which supported this position and confirmed that no further action or investigation was required.
The resident has expressed concern that the presence of the caution flag would allow the landlord to “defame” her to third parties and ‘injure her reputation’. However, the landlord’s policy establishes that the flag is used to notify “colleagues and contractors” and there is no evidence that any information regarding its presence was shared outside of that remit.
The stage 2 response confirmed that a review of the caution flag on the resident’s account would be conducted now that its investigation had been completed. It clarified that if the flag was removed “there should be no implications going forwards” and so the resident’s tenancy and records would be “unblemished” as she had requested.
The landlord awarded the resident compensation of £390 for the “distress, time, effort and inconvenience” she had experienced. This amount is in keeping with the level of redress featured in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for maladministration and can be considered reasonable given the relatively brief duration of its failings – which were limited to its initial communication around the implementation of the flag and investigation of her concerns during the stage 1 complaint process.
The landlord also identified appropriate training opportunities to improve its communication, complaint handling and conduct of operatives working in residents’ homes. This was in keeping with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles which “expect landlords to demonstrate improvements in service delivery as a result of lessons learned from complaints”.
In summary, there was insufficient evidence available to the landlord for it to prefer either the resident’s or operative’s version of events. The landlord’s decision to add a caution flag to the resident’s account as an interim measure was reasonable. However, it appeared to show insufficient regard for her version of events in making this decision and did not appropriately contact her to discuss the incident and make her aware of the allegations against her. Whilst the landlord’s stage 1 complaint investigation and response were insufficient, its stage 2 response was thorough, apologised for its failings and made a reasonable offer of redress for these.

Complaint handling

The resident logged her complaint with the landlord on 15 September 2022, immediately after the altercation with the operative had occurred. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) requires landlords to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days of receiving them. The landlord failed to do this, causing the resident to follow up her complaint with several emails and phone calls. Following 1 of these, on the 29 September 2022, an “urgent” request was sent to the stage 1 complaint handler asking them to provide her with an update.
Despite this the complaint handler failed to contact the resident until they provided the stage 1 complaint response on 20 October 2022. The Code says that complaint investigations “must be conducted in an impartial manner, seeking sufficient, reliable information from both parties so that fair and appropriate findings and recommendations can be made”. In failing to contact the resident the landlord cannot be said to have sought such information in support of a fair and appropriate outcome to the complaint. Had it done so it may have been alerted earlier to the existence of her recording of the incident, which the resident may have agreed to provide at this stage as the landlord-tenant relationship had not been damaged to the extent that it clearly was by the stage 1 response.
The stage 1 response was provided 24 working days after the resident had made her complaint, far exceeding the 10 working days the Code allows. There is no evidence that the landlord discussed or agreed any extension to provide its response with the resident. The stage 1 complaint provided no apology or explanation for this delay.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was sent via an email simply titled “your complaint”. This did not contain any of the requisite information for a stage 1 complaint response listed within the Code, including the complaint stage, a definition of the complaint, the decision on the complaint and how to escalate the matter to stage 2 of the landlord’s process.
After the resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 20 October 2022, the landlord again failed to acknowledge this within the required 5 working days. This led to the resident pursuing updates once again, with the landlord advising her that its complaints team was dealing with a “high volume” of cases and was unable to provide her with a timeframe for its response.
Whilst this may have the case, it was unreasonable for the landlord to intend to leave the resident’s complaint ‘in limbo’ for an indefinite period, with no idea of when she could expect a response. Residents should not be expected to accept a substandard service owing to their landlord’s resourcing issues, especially in instances where they are already complaining about a negative experience.
It was not until 15 November 2022 – 18 working days after the resident had escalated her complaint, that the landlord finally acknowledged it. Within this acknowledgement the landlord apologised for the delay and said it would respond by 13 December 2022 (20 working days from that point). This was reasonable to ensure the complaint handler had sufficient time to fully investigate the complaint and provide an appropriate response – rather than rushing to respond within 2 working days to meet the original 20 day target.
Whilst the landlord’s stage 2 response was not provided until 2 days after the target date of 13 December 2022, it had advised the resident as early as 2 December 2022 that it may require an extension, and confirmed this in an email on 13 December 2022, appropriately explaining that this was required due to the complexity of the case and information that needed to be gathered.
On 16 November 2022, the resident sent the landlord further information related to her complaint in the form of a 48 page document. In addition to this the resident sent regular and often lengthy emails to the stage 2 complaint handler, raising further queries and points regarding her complaint and related enquiries she was making with the landlord’s data protection officer and safeguarding lead. Owing to this level of correspondence, the stage 2 complaint handler advised that “I can only comment on the original complaint. However, I have asked the other teams to answer any of your other comments in the file you sent…and several other emails”.
The resident has expressed dissatisfaction that landlord did not respond to the comments of her document of 16 November 2022 in its stage 2 response. The role of the Ombudsman is to determine what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. Based on the volume of information which the resident continued to supply to the landlord, it would be unfair to have expected it to investigate and respond to all the additional matters raised within the timeframe allowed for its stage 2 complaint response.
The resident had already expressed her resistance to any extension to the 20 day timeframe and so it was reasonable for the landlord to attempt to expedite its response by restricting the investigation to the issues described in her original complaint and subsequent escalation request – something which this investigation has likewise elected to do.
In that regard, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was appropriate. It provided a comprehensive summary of events and explanation of its position and was open about its failings in handling both the resident’s complaint and the substantive issues. The landlord subsequently supplied its full response to the resident’s further information on 29 December 2022. This was a reasonable timeframe considering the amount of information the resident had provided, and the extensive nature of her queries which required input from multiple departments.
The resident attempted to raise a further complaint on 3 December 2022, which she says the landlord “summarily dismissed”. It is apparent that this complaint centred on the further information provided on 16 November 2022, along with the resident’s dissatisfaction at the landlord’s handling of her complaint of 15 September 2022. The landlord’s decided not to log a new complaint due to the fact that the matters raised were “remarkably similar” to those contained within the resident’s original complaint and escalation request.
This was reasonable and in accordance with the Code which allows for landlords to exclude complaints about “matters that have previously been considered under the complaints policy”. It would, however, have been appropriate for the landlord to have informed the resident of its decision within the 5 days allowed for acknowledgement of complaints. There is no evidence that the landlord communicated with the resident about this second complaint prior to 29 December 2022 – when it advised her it would be responding to it as a continuation of the existing complaint.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response awarded the resident compensation of £160 for its handling of the stage 1 complaint and delay in its stage 2 acknowledgement. However, it did not mention the delay in its stage 2 complaint response – which it had previously said it would “account for” in its compensation award. Whilst the inconvenience caused by such a 2 day delay was minor, the landlord had committed to addressing it and failed to do so.
It is the Ombudsman’s view that the level of distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling – particularly at stage 1, was commensurate with that caused by its handling of the original incident. For that reason, a finding of maladministration has been reached and further compensation ordered to match the level the landlord awarded for its handling of the altercation.
In summary, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint at stage 1 was poor, its acknowledgement and response at stage 2 were late, and it delayed unreasonably in advising it was excluding her further complaint. Although the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response apologised for its poor complaint handling and made an offer of compensation, this did not include the delayed stage 2 response (as it had committed to) and did not fully reflect the distress and inconvenience caused.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of:
1. A repair to the resident’s kitchen tap.
2. An altercation between the resident and its operative.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s formal complaint.

Reasons

It cannot be conclusively determined that the tap repair was not completed on the first attendance due to any failing on the landlord’s part. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had waited “a long time” between reporting the repair and it being completed and awarded her a total of £100 compensation related to this. Considering the nature of the repair – which cannot be said to have significantly affected the resident’s enjoyment of her home, and the length of delay this represents reasonable redress on the matter.
There was insufficient evidence available to the landlord for it to prefer either the resident’s or operative’s version of events. The landlord’s decision to add a caution flag to the resident’s account as an interim measure was reasonable. However, it appeared to show insufficient regard for her version of events in making this decision and did not appropriately contact her to discuss the incident and make her aware of the allegations against her. Whilst the landlord’s stage 1 complaint investigation and response were insufficient, its stage 2 response was thorough, apologised for its failings and made a reasonable offer of redress for these.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint at stage 1 was poor, its acknowledgement and response at stage 2 were late, and it delayed unreasonably in advising it was excluding her further complaint. Although the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response apologised for its poor complaint handling and made an offer of compensation, this did not include the delayed stage 2 response (as it had committed to) and did not reasonably reflect the distress and inconvenience caused.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation of £880 composed of:
1. The £650 awarded by its stage 2 complaint response – if not already paid.
2. A further £230 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration in its handling of her complaint.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the order to this Service.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord remind relevant staff of the importance of making photos provided by residents when reporting repairs available to attending operatives to avoid wasted appointments and the inconvenience of unnecessary repeat visits.
It is further recommended that the landlord reviews it process around adding caution flags to resident’s account to ensure that:
1. Residents are contacted at the earliest opportunity to discuss the incident/allegation and have the opportunity to respond.
2. Residents are notified in writing that a flag has been added within a reasonable time frame, provided with clear details of the reasons why, and advised when this will be reviewed.