The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202219252)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219252

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

14 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns of repairs required to the front and rear doors of the property, following break-ins.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured non periodic tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom house with garage and a garden. The resident has vulnerabilities and these are recorded on the landlord’s information systems.
  2. On 1 November 2022, the resident reported to the landlord she was experiencing regular break-ins, but there were no signs of forced entry. She believed it could be that her keys had been copied. As a result, the resident requested the landlord change the locks on her front and rear external doors. When she called the landlord about this, she was told it was her responsibility to change the locks. The following day, the landlord acknowledged this query by email, and it later approved the front and rear door locks to be changed.
  3. The landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property on 3 November 2022 to repair the locks on the doors. The resident asked the contractor for the barrel from her old lock, so that she could give it to the police as evidence. A dispute had taken place between the contractor and the resident. The following day, the landlord contacted the resident, and it told her the contractor had reported that she set her dogs onto them. The resident denied this. The landlord asked if she wanted support from its internal teams. It also asked if she was receiving support from adult social services or if she had a support worker.
  4. On 8 November 2022, the resident called the landlord to complain about her experience. The resident said the following:
    1. she could not leave her home as it was not secure
    2. the landlord’s contractor had taken the barrel of the rear door, therefore it could not be locked
    3. she could not do her food shop or go out for dog walks
    4. the landlord’s contractor was not attacked by her dogs
    5. if another contractor is sent for repairs to her property, she would keep the dogs away.
  5. The landlord’s call notes said it had spoken to the resident and visited the property on 10 November 2022. It had repaired the locks to the back door.
  6. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 24 November 2022 by phone call. On 28 November 2022 it noted that the resident no longer wished to pursue her complaint. It confirmed this in writing to the resident on 29 November 2022 and apologised for not responding sooner. It reiterated from the phone call that she would not get anyone into trouble by reporting her security concerns. The resident told the landlord that although the door repairs were completed, she was not satisfied with the thumb-turn lock fitted to the rear door. As she said, it provided an inadequate level of security. The landlord repeated its request that the resident kept her dogs away from its contractors. A repair order was raised to review any additional security that might be required.
  7. The following day, the resident asked the landlord for her complaint to be escalated. She reiterated she did not allow her dogs to attack the contractor. The resident felt the contractor was unprofessional. She had stated she was going to call the police, so the contractor left and had taken the barrel. This left her property unsecured for 6 days. The resident said she was informed by the police that the new locks provided were not sufficient as she was vulnerable. She mentioned her dogs had been poisoned and linked this to the break-ins. The resident felt the landlord’s complaint response of 29 November 2022 did not address her concerns. On 6 December 2022 the landlord fitted a new lock system to the resident’s rear doors.
  8. On 26 April 2023, this Service contacted the landlord as the resident said she had not received a response to her complaint escalation of 30 November 2022.
  9. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 5 May 2023. The landlord apologised to the resident as she said she had felt bullied by it. It would identify any further support it could offer her. Regarding the front and rear door repairs not being completed on 3 November 2022, the landlord told the resident its staff have the right to work without threat of violence. It also had a duty of care for all its staff members. The landlord attached a pet registration form as it had not received a completed form from the resident and said if she required any help, its staff would help her complete the form. The landlord concluded it was satisfied that it had not failed in provisions of service to the resident and adhered to its obligations. It did however award £50 for the delay in response at stage 2 of its internal complaints process.
  10. The resident remained dissatisfied and referred this matter to this Service on 10 May 2023. She said the £50 compensation did not take into account the distress she experienced. The resident wanted the landlord to install surveillance cameras, additional locks, and floodlights at the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Paragraph 42a of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. Unless it is because of a complaint handling failure.
  2. This report will look at the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns when they were initially raised in November 2022 up until May 2023 when the matter was referred to this Service. The Ombudsman is aware the resident had submitted further complaints since referral of this complaint to this Service. The resident received a new stage 1 complaint response on 2 November 2023. She complained of a lack of surveillance cameras, flood lights had not been installed and staff conduct. These matters that have been dealt with in the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 2 November 2023 will not be considered in this determination. It is unclear from the information received whether the resident had exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure about these issues. Hence, these events will not be commented on. This is in line with paragraph 42a of the Scheme.

Landlord’s policies and procedures

  1. The landlord will attend emergency repairs where there is an immediate danger within 24 hours, to make the area safe. For all other repairs, it will arrange a mutually convenient appointment.
  2. Additionally, the landlord is responsible for unsecure external doors, frames, and panels. As well as primary door and window locks.
  3. Under the landlord’s vulnerable resident’s policy, it can provide help with minor health and safety repairs that would usually not be its responsibility.
  4. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Stage 1 complaints will be logged and acknowledged within 5 working days, a written response will be issued within 10 working days of logging the complaint. Stage 2 complaints will be responded to within 20 working days of the request to escalate the complaint.

The resident’s concerns of repairs required to the front and rear doors of the property, following break-ins.

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. The principles of effective dispute resolution are:
    1. be fair, treat people fairly and follow fair processes
    2. put things right
    3. learn from outcomes
  2. This Service will apply these principles when considering whether the landlord has taken enough action to put things right and learn from outcomes.
  3. Initially, when the landlord first received the resident’s reports of feeling her security had been compromised, it advised her on the phone it was her responsibility to change the door locks. This was inappropriate as it says in the landlord’s policies it was responsible for unsecure external doors, as well as primary door locks. However, the following day, the landlord agreed the change of locks and the resident was informed of a 24-hour appointment on 2 November 2022. The was in accordance with its emergency repairs policy. The landlord’s contractor attended the property on 3 November 2022, which was appropriate.
  4. When the landlord’s contractor attended on 3 November 2022, it is not disputed that they changed the front door locks. However, it was disputed that the resident had released her dogs on the contractor which meant they could not complete repairs. She said she had difficulties locking the rear door. This Service can only comment on the evidence it has seen, so while we cannot be sure exactly what was said and happened at the time, the landlord’s records indicated its contractor had abandoned the remainder of the repairs after changing the front door locks. It would be reasonable for a contractor to leave and report concerns to the landlord if they felt unsafe. It was reasonable for the contractor to leave and report to the landlord the events on that day as they felt unsafe. However, the resident’s concerns of the repairs to the rear doors were heightened and caused her distress as she did not have fully functional locks.
  5. On 4 November 2022, the resident and the landlord discussed what happened the day before. The landlord told the resident that it was at its discretion whether it would send another contractor out due to safeguarding concerns for its staff. Although it had taken this precautionary measure, the landlord still had a duty to repair the resident’s doors. In this conversation, it was positive the landlord had asked if the resident required any further support from its internal teams or external measures such as adult social services, or if she had contacted a support worker. This was appropriate in the circumstances, given her vulnerabilities. The landlord also informed her it would look into her reports made to the police.
  6. The resident first notified the landlord on 8 November 2022 that she would place her dogs in a separate area, if its contractors attended to complete repairs. At that stage, it had been 5 calendar days since she had reported unresolved repairs to her rear doors. No evidence has been provided to this Service by the landlord that it completed a risk assessment. Given her vulnerabilities, this Service would have expected to see the landlord’s clear decision making regarding how it would undertake the repairs while safeguarding its staff. Instead, this meant the resident had expended time and trouble in trying to find a solution for both parties.
  7. As above, the landlord had offered support referrals to the resident. However, it was not proactive with the escalated level of risk as she said her rear exterior doors’ security remained compromised since 3 November 2022. She also notified it that she would contact her MP, as her dogs had been poisoned. It did not evidence to this Service it assessed the heightened risk. It was unreasonable that it had not discussed at the earliest opportunity, measures to make safe the area and how it can cooperate with the resident to achieve this.
  8. The landlord arranged for its contractors to visit the resident’s property, following her suggestion of keeping her dogs in a separate area. The contractor attended on 10 November 2022 and repaired the locks to the rear doors. This was 1 day after it had organised the repair works on 9 November 2022, but 7 calendar days since the repairs remained incomplete. Although the landlord’s response times from when it arranged the appointment on 9 November 2022 was appropriate, it was unreasonable for the resident to have waited since 7 calendar days. As she was vulnerable and had concerns for her safety as the rear door locks were not functioning, this would have caused her further distress and inconvenience.
  9. By 25 November 2022 the landlord had arranged for another visit to the resident’s property to review any works required to the rear doors. The resident had reported she did not feel the lock system the landlord had placed on 10 November 2022 was adequate. She said the police told her the locks were not sufficient.
  10. On 1 December 2022, there was evidence the landlord had made attempts to contact the resident so it could attend and fit new door bolts to the rear doors. The contractor attended the property on 6 December 2022 and fitted a new lock system which the resident was satisfied with. This was fair in the circumstances. The landlord was able to demonstrate it had listened to the resident’s concerns and gone above and beyond what was required of it, since it had already made the area safe on 10 November 2022. It evidenced it adhered to its vulnerable resident’s policy.
  11. In the landlord’s final response, it said the resident had not previously mentioned that she fitted a lock. The resident had ordered a temporary lock for the rear doors which arrived on 22 November 2022. She told the landlord on 6 December that she wanted reimbursement for this. However, the landlord’s records indicate it made safe the area on 10 November 2022, so it would be unreasonable for the landlord to be expected to reimburse the resident for the temporary lock. However, this indicated the landlord’s record keeping was poor, as from the information provided was on its systems, had it searched thoroughly. This would have been frustrating for the resident and felt that she was not being listened to, as she had previously supplied evidence of this.
  12. The resident told the landlord she was unable to leave the house from 3 November 2022 until 6 December 2022. As a result, she said she had spent more on food deliveries. While the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s frustrations, the landlord had provided food bank vouchers on 7 December 2022 in recognition of this. It had also previously offered support referrals on 4 November 2022 and 9 November 2022. As such, the landlord was reasonable in the circumstances. Additionally, during that time the resident was able to arrange a phone call for her appointment in relation to seeking work on 1 December 2022. This was despite being a short notice change from an in-person meeting. Meaning, she had not missed out on the appointment entirely.
  13. Overall, there were failings by the landlord it had not identified. Further, the landlord had not demonstrated any learnings. Although it had treated the resident’s repair request as a priority, given her vulnerabilities, it had not acknowledged or put right the failure that she was without adequate repairs to her rear doors from the 3 November 2022 until 10 November 2022. This would have undoubtedly been a distressing and inconvenient time for her. As such, this Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns of repairs required to the front and rear doors of the property, following break-ins. Orders have been made that reflect the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. When the resident first submitted her complaint on 8 November 2022, the landlord had contacted her, but the complaint was not acknowledged until 13 working days after. This exceeded the landlord’s complaints policy by 8 working days, which was inappropriate.
  2. During a phone call regarding the complaint between the resident and the landlord on 24 November 2022, its records show she wished to withdraw her complaint. When it followed up in writing to her on 29 November 2022, it was unclear from the information provided whether it had treated this correspondence as its stage 1 complaint response. The Ombudsman expects the landlord to have communicated clearly to the resident. The landlord provided reassurances that it would soon attend to review the need for any additional locks to the exterior rear doors. It also said the resident should not be worried about getting anyone into trouble when reporting her concerns.
  3. The landlord has since provided justification that the resident wished to withdraw her complaint as she did not want to report failures associated with a member of staff. This was confirmed in its final response. Ultimately, in the correspondence of 29 November 2022, it had not confirmed in writing it had withdrawn her complaint and why, and therefore its communication was unclear.
  4. As the resident was dissatisfied, she asked to have her complaint escalated on 30 November 2022. As above, the landlord had not been clear about the status of her complaint to her. The resident’s contact with this Service in December 2022 shows she was expecting a further complaint response from the landlord. In any event, the resident had asked the complaint to be withdrawn, so the Ombudsman expects the landlord to have assessed whether it logs a new complaint or reopens the previous complaint. There is no evidence it had done so, which was inappropriate in the circumstances and did not adhere to its complaints policy.
  5. The resident did not believe she received a formal complaint response. In her communication with this Service on 26 April 2023, she said she had felt ignored by the landlord. This Service contacted the landlord and said there was evidence the resident escalated her complaint on 30 November 2022. The landlord would issue its stage 2 complaints response on 5 May 2022. This response was 107 working days after her escalation. This delay was unfair and inappropriate to the resident.
  6. The landlord had offered £50 in recognition of the delays at stage 2 of its complaints process. The Ombudsman will not find maladministration or service failure when the landlord had provided reasonable redress. Given that the resident had no acknowledgement of her escalation request, and no timescales were agreed until 27 April 2023, £50 was not proportionate to the effects on her. The Ombudsman expects when a complaint was logged at stage 1 or escalated to stage 2, landlords must have set out their understanding of the complaint and the outcomes the resident was seeking. It had not demonstrated it had appropriately done so at stage 1 of its complaints process. The Ombudsman also expects landlords do not refuse to escalate complaints through all stages of the complaints procedure unless it had valid reasons to do so. There had been no commentary provided as to why following the resident’s escalation, the complaint was not addressed appropriately.
  7. As such, this Service finds service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. Orders have been made that take into consideration the cumulative effect on the resident’s complaint journey. This includes additional compensation in respect of its poor communication, timeliness, and the landlord’s failure to address this in its final response.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns of repairs required to the front and rear doors of the property, following break-ins.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay directly to the resident’s bank account a total of £300 in compensation comprised of:
      1. £200 for the failures identified in its handling of repairs to the front and rear doors, taking into consideration the distress and inconvenience this caused.
      2. £100 for its complaint handling failures and in relation to the inconvenience caused and time and trouble expended by the resident.

If any of the £50 it offered in its stage 2 complaint response had previously been paid or offset against any arrears owed, this can be deducted from the total.

  1. If the landlord has not already done so, within 8 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is to self-assess against the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code released 8 February 2024. Which comes into effect on 1 April 2024. It is to ensure its complaints policy is in line with the Code.
  2. Provide this Service evidence of compliance of the above orders.