London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202105177)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202105177

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

17 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of foul odours in a communal hallway.
2. Reports of inadequate insulation between the entrance porch and her flat above.
3. Complaints.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the property which is a 3 bedroom first floor flat in a block that was built around 2013. The landlord is a housing association which owns and manages the building. The plans for the building show that it has an inset entrance porch which gives access to the block entrance door and doors to the communal bike and bin stores. The resident’s flat is above and parts of two of her bedrooms are above the porch which means there is external space below parts of the bedroom floors.
Under the terms of the lease and responsibilities under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for maintaining, repairing, redecorating and renewal of structural parts of the building which are defined as being the roof, foundations, joists and external walls. The landlord is also responsible for maintaining common parts of the building and installations, including ventilation, that do not exclusively serve an individual flat. This means that the landlord is responsible for the vent shaft from the communal bin store and the insulation between the porch and the resident’s flat above.
The lease also says that the landlord is responsible for carrying out improvements where the landlord considers such works to be required.
The resident is responsible for keeping her flat in good repair and condition, and is responsible for the flooring, raised floors and screeds down to the joists or other structural parts supporting the flooring of her flat.
The landlord’s latent defects procedure defines latent defects as problems that become apparent after the end of the defect period but before the end of the first 12 years of a building’s life. It says defects can be caused by poor design, workmanship or materials on the part of the builder and that builders can be recalled to rectify defects within the first 12 years after completion. The procedure says that after 12 years any problems should be rectified as a reactive repair.
The latent defects procedure says that the landlord’s special projects team will review a latent defect referral within 5 working days and, if accepted, the team will arrange joint inspections after which the landlord’s development and sales team will manage the rectification of the issue. The procedure says that the special projects team will liaise with residents where defects do not affect multiple homes.
The landlord has a two stage complaint process and its policy says it will respond to stage one complaints within 10 working days and stage two complaints within 20 working days.
The landlord has a separate compensation policy which provides for compensation to be paid if there has been a service failure including failures to follow procedures and delays in responding to issues and complaints. For example, the landlord may pay £10 for failing to respond to a complaint within timescale and up to £100 for not resolving a reported defect within 20 working days.

Scope of investigation

Between January 2023 and June 2023, the Ombudsman carried out an investigation of the landlord under paragraph 49 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The investigation reviewed 103 determinations made by the Ombudsman during the period, identified common points of failure and made recommendations for improvement. The report was published in July 2023 and can be viewed at 2023-07-26-LQ-P49-Final-Report.pdf (housing-ombudsman.org.uk). The landlord has provided the Ombudsman with its improvement plan and the Ombudsman is monitoring its progress in making the changes that are needed.
Some of the events in this case took place over the same period as some of the cases determined in that investigation and some of the findings of the Ombudsman’s special report are relevant in this case. Whilst we have referred to these in this report, we have not made any orders or recommendations which would duplicate those made to the landlord in the Ombudsman’s special report.
The Ombudsman accepted the resident’s complaint for investigation in February 2022. Subsequently, the landlord logged a second complaint about issues relating to the bin store vent shaft in the building and provided responses on 3 and 30 November 2022. Having carefully considered the evidence, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the subject of the second complaint is a continuation of the issues being investigated in this case and that the landlord has had an opportunity to address them through its internal complaints process. As such, the events leading to the second complaint and the landlord’s handling of it have been included in this investigation.

Summary of events

The resident told us that she had reported a foul smell in the hallway outside her flat on several occasions from the covid-19 national lockdowns which were between 23 March 2020 and July 2020. Whilst the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s account, we have not seen evidence to confirm that reports were made during that period.
The evidence does show that the resident reported the smell in the corridor and that the insulation under her bedroom floors was inadequate on 11 March 2021. The landlord acknowledged her reports and said that its property manager would respond.
On 31 March 2021, the resident emailed the landlord’s complaint team saying that she had raised the issues of the smell in the corridor and inadequate insulation but had not received a response. The landlord acknowledged the contact on 9 April 2021 and said the property manager would respond within ten working days.
The resident was using a case management system to track her reports to the landlord. The evidence shows that the landlord received a reminder that the resident had raised the issues of the smell in in the corridor and the insulation of her bedroom floors on 15 April 2021.
The resident emailed the Ombudsman on 8 May 2021 saying that the landlord had not responded to her complaint about the corridor smell and inadequate insulation. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord asking it to respond to the resident’s complaint by 16 June 2021.
The resident emailed the landlord on 3 June 2021 saying that the smell in the corridor was coming from the vent shaft from the bin store below and that the vent should direct odours outside the building. The landlord responded saying it could not confirm the specifications of the ventilation and had referred the matter to its building services team. Following several internal emails being exchanged, the landlord’s surveyor said he would investigate further and an inspection was arranged.
The evidence suggests that the surveyor inspected on 15 June 2021 and the resident emailed the landlord afterwards saying that the surveyor had told her the issues were latent defects as the building was less than ten years old. The resident asked for the relevant team to resolve the issues and the landlord responded on 17 June 2021 saying that a report was being sent to its latent defects team.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 22 June 2021 confirming the outcome of the surveyor’s inspection and said that it would invoke its latent defect procedure. On 23 June 2021 the surveyor sent a latent defect referral form to the special projects team.
The resident chased the landlord for an update at least five times between 14 July 2021 and 13 September 2021. The landlord responded on 13 September 2021 asking the resident to allow 10 working days for a response.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman again on 20 September 2021 and the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord asking it to escalate the resident’s complaint and respond by 18 October 2021.
On 6 October 2021 the resident emailed the landlord saying that she had been charged £200 for a survey but no work had had been done. The landlord replied saying it would chase the latent defects team and find out who was now dealing with her complaint. The resident tried to contact the latent defects team directly but subsequently advised the landlord that she had been unsuccessful in contacting the team by telephone.
The resident chased the landlord for a response three times between 9 October 2021 and 19 October 2021.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman again on 21 October 2021 and the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord asking it to provide its stage two response to the resident’s complaint by 28 October 2021. The landlord emailed the resident on 22 October 2021 to confirm it had escalated her complaint and apologised for the delay in responding.
On the same day, the resident emailed the complaint officer to summarise the issues she was complaining about and the staff members she had been dealing with. The resident emailed again on 26 October 2021 providing a copy of the invoice she had received for the survey.
The landlord provided its stage two response to the resident’s complaint on 27 October 2021 saying:
1. It had logged her reports of 11 March 2021 as a service request and not a complaint. However, her email had been passed around and no one had responded to her. It was sorry for the service failure.
2. It had received the resident’s complaint from the Ombudsman on 2 June 2021 and the property manager had investigated and arranged for the surveyor to visit and make a latent defect referral.
3. The latent defect referral had not been accepted by its aftercare team and was sent back to the surveyor to provide further evidence. The surveyor would now arrange a joint inspection with the builder.
4. It should not have charged residents for the survey and would refund the charge.
5. It was sorry for the poor service it had given and offered £150 compensation.
6. Her complaint would be passed back to the property manager to monitor progress and keep her updated.
The evidence suggests that the landlord refunded the charge for the survey and paid the £150 compensation on 29 October 2021.
The joint inspection by the landlord’s surveyor and the builder took place on 4 November 2021 and the surveyor sent the latent defect form to the builder the following day.
The landlord emailed the resident on 8 November 2021 saying that the builder had accepted a latent defect. The resident replied saying that she had been told that the builder had not installed ducting in the vent shaft from the bin store which had caused the escape of odours into the communal hallway.
The landlord sent a further stage one response to the resident’s complaint on 23 November 2021 in which it confirmed that the builder had accepted a latent defect for the bin store ventilation and said the builder would carry out work to rectify the problem. The resident responded asking what was happening about the missing insulation between the porch and her flat above and said insulation had also been found to be missing on other blocks and had been rectified. She said that the surveyor had suggested that a camera survey would be done to check for any other missing insulation. The landlord confirmed that the builder was getting quotes to rectify both the bin store ventilation and insulation issues.
On 9 December 2021 the resident emailed the landlord asking for an update and timescales for the work to the bin store vent shaft and insulation between the porch and her flat above and chased again on 14 December 2021. The landlord responded on 15 December 2021 saying that the builder had the quotes for the work and would pass them to the relevant team.
The resident chased the landlord for updates on 10 January 2022 and 24 January 2022 and the landlord responded on 24 January 2022 saying that work to the bin store vent shaft should take place soon. It said that it could not take the insulation issue further as insulation had not been included in the building’s design which meant that the cost would be passed on to residents if the landlord provided it.
The resident replied saying that she was shocked by the landlord’s change in position. She said that the landlord had previously confirmed that the missing insulation was a latent defect that had been accepted by the builder and that she was aware that similar issues had been rectified in other buildings. The resident said that building regulations required that there was insulation between heated and unheated areas and asked what had happened to the landlord’s plan to do a camera survey.
The landlord asked the resident to telephone to discuss the matter further but the resident advised she was abroad and unable to make calls. She asked for email contact instead and chased for updates on 29 January 2022 and 8 February 2022. On 15 February 2022 the resident asked the landlord for its final response on the matter of the insulation between the porch and her flat above and for a timescale for the repairs to the bin store ventilation and she chased the landlord for a response on 21 February 2022.
The landlord’s surveyor responded on 21 February 2022 saying that he would chase the builder regarding the ventilation repairs but could not raise orders for the insulation between the porch and the resident’s bedrooms above. He said that he could raise a heat loss survey as evidence of the latent defect and the resident replied asking if the cost would be recharged to residents.
The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate on 21 February 2022 saying that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the repairs needed to the bin store ventilation, the missing insulation between the porch and her flat above, and its handling of her complaint.
The evidence suggests that the builder sealed the access panels of the vent shaft in the communal corridors in April 2022 to prevent smells from the bin store escaping into the corridor. It also shows that the resident continued to chase the landlord for updates on when ducting would be installed in the vent shaft to prevent future odour issues and challenging its position regarding the insulation between her bedrooms and porch below.
The evidence suggests that the seals were removed from the vent shaft access panels in October 2022 and that, on 12 October 2022, the builder told the landlord that no ducting had been included on the original plans for the building. The builder said that, as such, there was no latent defect and it would not install ducting.
On 3 November 2022 the landlord sent a stage one response to the resident in respect of a second complaint about the bin store vent shaft though it is not clear from the evidence what led to this. The landlord’s letter said that its fire safety team would investigate and take appropriate action.
The resident emailed the landlord on 9 November 2022 saying that she wanted to escalate her second complaint because issues with the bin store ventilation had been going on for three years and the defect had not been rectified. The evidence shows that the resident chased the landlord for a response on 18 November 2022.
On 20 November 2022 the resident emailed the landlord saying that she had noticed that the vent shaft had now been blocked in the ceiling of the bin store. She said this had created a new issue as now the smell in the bin store itself was overpowering. The resident was concerned that toxic and combustible gases were building up inside the bin store and asked the landlord to fit ducting inside the ventilation shaft as it had previously agreed to do.
The landlord sent a further stage one response to the second complaint about the bin store vent shaft on 30 November 2022. It said that it was issuing a further response as its previous one had not been sufficiently detailed and that its fire officer had visited and arranged for the vent to be blocked in the bin store ceiling. The landlord said it would inspect the shaft regularly to make sure it was kept free of combustible items. It confirmed that the builder had changed its position regarding the latent defect as no insulation had been included in the original drawings and the landlord had decided not to do the work as the cost would have been passed onto residents.
On 12 July 2023 the landlord emailed the resident saying it had escalated her second complaint about the bin store vent shaft to stage two of its process and would provide a response by 8 August 2023.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord followed proper procedure and 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.
The Ombudsman’s special report highlighted the following common points of failure in the landlord’s handling of disrepair and complaints which are relevant in this case:
1. Policies and procedures documented but not adhered to.
2. A poor knowledge and information management leading to delays and inadequate complaint responses.
3. Excessive and unexplained delays in responding to service requests and complaints.
4. Residents not being kept informed of progress leading them to chase for responses and raise complaints.
5. Failure to identify and acknowledge complaints when they were made.
6. Inadequate responses at stage one leading to complaint escalation.
7. Delays in responding to complaints meaning residents had to chase progress and ask the Ombudsman to intervene.
The presence of the above common points of failure and their impact on the resident in this case are explained further in the findings below.

Handling of the resident’s reports of foul odours in a communal corridor

The landlord’s latent defect procedure should ensure that suspected defects are appropriately investigated and rectified, and it sets out the specific responsibilities of the different teams involved in the process. However, as highlighted in the Ombudsman’s special report, the evidence suggests that the landlord did not adhere to its procedure in this case.
Although the landlord acknowledged the resident’s reports on 18 March 2021, it took a further eleven weeks (until 4 June 2021) to advise the resident that its surveyor would investigate. Further we have not seen any evidence to show that the landlord took any steps to investigate the issues reported until 3 June 2021 when various emails were exchanged between the landlord’s staff members. It is not clear from the evidence why it took the landlord so long to react to the resident’s reports but the delay was unreasonable and caused the resident to chase for responses.
Internal emails seen by this Service suggest that staff members were not aware of the procedure that should have been followed and that there was a reluctance among the landlord’s staff members to take responsibility for addressing the issues the resident had reported. For example, on 3 June 2021 the landlord’s property manager contacted various colleagues who each said, in one way or another, that it was not their role to deal with them. It is acknowledged that the surveyor did agree to visit to investigate further.
The landlord’s latent defects procedure explains how a potential latent defect should be researched before a referral is made and it would have been reasonable for the staff members involved to have referred to it. However, the landlord’s failure to follow its procedure meant that no action was taken to investigate the resident’s reports until the surveyor visited on 15 June 2021 which was over three months after the resident had reported the issues. This delay was unreasonable and contrary to the landlord’s procedure which says that it aims to complete research to establish whether a reported issue is likely to be a latent defect within 20 days of the issue becoming apparent.
A further example of staff not seeming aware of the procedure that should be followed was after the surveyor’s visit. Although the surveyor attempted to pass on his findings on 17 June 2021, it took several days and internal emails before he was advised of how to make the latent defect referral. The Ombudsman would expect that staff members are aware of, and have access to, the policies and procedures relevant to their roles and are able to follow the expected processes without the need for multiple emails to be exchanged between colleagues.
Under the landlord’s latent defect procedure, the landlord’s special projects team should have reviewed the latent defect referral made by the surveyor within five working days. However, it took a month (from 17 June 2021 to 23 July 2023) for that team to inform the surveyor that his referral had not been accepted. Further, the rejection of the referral was not reasonable as there is no requirement in the landlord’s procedure for plans or design drawings to be provided with a defect referral and the procedure says that any necessary joint inspections should be arranged by the special projects team.
According to the landlord’s latent defect procedure, the special projects team should have been liaising with the resident. However, the evidence shows that the resident’s primary contacts were the property manager and surveyor and that they struggled to get help from their colleagues to resolve the issues the resident had raised. The evidence shows that many of the resident’s contacts went unanswered and that, when responses were given, they were often delayed and did not answer the questions the resident had asked.
The landlord should take steps to ensure that its staff follow its procedure in the future.
Internal emails suggest that the poor knowledge and information culture identified in the Ombudsman’s special report was also a factor in this case. For example, the evidence suggests that the landlord was not able to locate the drawings for the building and needed to ask the builder to supply copies and it also suggests that the landlord did not know which contractor had removed the seals from the vent shaft doors in October 2022 or why this had been done.
The evidence shows that despite the resident chasing the landlord for updates and responses multiple times over many months, the landlord failed to escalate resolution of the issues she had raised. For example, after the resident had chased the landlord five times between 14 July 2021 and 13 September 2021 its response on 13 September 2021 was to tell the resident that she needed to wait a further 10 working days for a response. This was unreasonable given that it had been six months since the resident had raised the issues and that the landlord had not provided any updates to her since 22 June 2021.
Further, the evidence suggests that staff did not see an issue with the resident not receiving responses or being kept informed. For example, when the resident said in an email on 8 February 2022 that she had not received responses to previous emails, she was advised to try calling the relevant team instead.
The landlord’s correspondence during November and December 2021 gave the resident the expectation that both issues had been accepted as defects and would be resolved. For example, in its complaint response of 23 November 2021, the landlord said that the builder would rectify the problems with the bin store ventilation.
The access panels in the bin store vent shaft were sealed in April 2022 which resolved the issue of the smell in the corridor. However, this was over a year after the resident had reported the issue and meant that residents continued to experience the foul smell in the hallway in the meantime. Further, the resident’s expectation was that this was a temporary measure until the builder installed ducting in the shaft to rectify the latent defect.
However, the evidence suggests that the seals were removed sometime in October 2022 and it is not clear from the evidence why this was done or which contractor did the work. The removal of the seals resulted in the smells returning in the hallway.
The builder had told the landlord on 12 October 2022 that it would not install ducting in the bin store shaft as no ducting had been included in the original building design. Given the builder had changed its position in accepting a latent defect for the vent shaft, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have questioned this but no evidence has been seen that it did so.
Further, the landlord’s latent defects procedure says that latent defects can be a result of “poor” design and it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered whether the absence of ducting in the design drawings constituted “poor” design. However, no evidence has been seen that it did so, or that it considered alternative options to resolve the issue.
Internal emails dated 8 November 2022 show that the landlord had concluded that the bin store vent shaft was no longer required but it is not clear from the evidence seen what the basis for the landlord’s decision was, what it had considered, or that it consulted with residents before it subsequently sealed the shaft in the bin store. The evidence suggests that sealing the shaft caused new issues with foul odours building up in the bin store itself causing the resident to make a second complaint about the vent shaft. The resident told us that the issue of the smell in the bin store remains unresolved.
The landlord told the resident that the builder had changed its position regarding accepting the latent defect for the vent shaft in its complaint response of 30 November 2022. However, it also said that no latent defect existed because the ceiling of the bin store had not intended to be insulated. This suggests that the landlord had confused the previously accepted defect about there being ducting missing from the bin store vent shaft and the separate issue of the missing insulation between the porch and the residents flat above.
No evidence has been seen that the landlord explained to the resident why it would not fit ducting in the vent shaft as it had previously given the resident to expect. This was a further failing by the landlord.
The landlord’s failure to follow its latent defect procedure caused an unreasonable delay of thirteen months (from 11 March 2021 to 11 April 2022) in resolving the foul odour in the corridor. It changed its position regarding the further work that it had said would be done and gave no explanation for this to the resident. Further it sealed the shaft in the ceiling of the bin store which caused a new issue of smells in the bin store itself. The landlord did not keep the resident informed and failed to answer many of her contacts causing her to have to chase progress multiple times over many months and make two formal complaints.
The landlord’s failings amount to severe maladministration in its handling of the residents reports of foul odours in the communal corridor.
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 considers 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.
Although the smell in the communal corridor was resolved, the landlord did not address the build up of odours in the bin store itself and orders have been made below for the landlord to do so. Orders have been made for the landlord to ensure that its staff members follow its procedure when a latent defect is suspected and to apologise to the resident for its failings.
The landlord gave the resident £150 compensation in October 2021 in acknowledgement of the “poor service” it had given up to that point. The Ombudsman does not consider this amount as sufficient redress given that over six months (from 11 March 2021 to 27 October 2021) had already elapsed since the resident had reported the issue and that the smell was not resolved for a further five months (from 27 October 2021 to 11 April 2022). Nor does it reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident who had to chase the landlord multiple times over many months. An order has been made for the landlord to pay an additional £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Handling of the resident’s reports of inadequate insulation

The evidence suggests that the landlord does not dispute that there is no insulation between the porch and two of the resident’s bedrooms above. Under the terms of the lease, the external walls of the building fall under the landlord’s maintenance and renewal responsibilities and it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered whether it should provide insulation to the ceiling of the open porch.
As detailed in the findings above, the landlord did not follow its latent defects procedure in investigating the missing insulation as a latent defect. It did not respond to some of the resident’s contacts and, where it did reply, there were delays and its responses did not clearly answer the points raised by the resident.
The situation regarding the insulation was further complicated by defects in the wall insulation being investigated around the same time as the resident’s reports of the insulation below her flat and some of the landlord’s communications were not clear whether it was referring to the wall insulation or the insulation between the porch and her flat above. This caused confusion to the resident and the landlord’s staff.
The defect referral made by the surveyor on 26 June 2021 did include the two separate issues of the bin store vent shaft and the absence of insulation between the porch and the resident’s bedrooms above. However, the evidence shows that, where the landlord did respond to the resident’s contacts, it often failed to address the matter of the insulation. For example, the landlord’s complaint response of 23 November 2021 confirmed the builder had accepted a latent defect for the bin store ventilation but did not refer to the insulation between the porch and resident’s bedrooms above causing the resident to have to ask the landlord to confirm its position.
The landlord’s subsequent emails saying that the builder was getting quotes for the insulation work, and that the quotes were being passed to the relevant team, gave the resident the expectation that the missing insulation had been accepted as a latent defect and would be resolved.
However, on 24 January 2022 the landlord told the resident it would not provide insulation as it had not been included in the building’s design. Given that the landlord was investigating defects in respect of wall insulation during the same period, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have investigated whether the builder’s assertion that insulation had not been included in the design was correct, and if so, whether the building design had been adequate. Further, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered whether insulation was necessary and, if so, whether it was obliged to provide it under the terms of the lease. No evidence has been seen that the landlord did any of these things.
As with the landlord’s change in position regarding further work to the bin vent shaft, no evidence has been seen that the landlord questioned the builder, considered whether the absence of insulation constituted “poor” design or considered alternative options. Further, although the landlord said that the reason for not installing insulation was that the cost would be charged to residents, no evidence has been seen of the basis for that decision, whether the landlord considered funding the work itself or considered consulting with residents about doing the work.
As highlighted in the Ombudsman’s special report, the evidence in this case suggests that the landlord failed to respond to some of the resident’s contacts regarding the insulation. For example, no evidence has been seen that the landlord considered or responded to the resident’s email of 24 January 2022 about the absence of insulation not complying with building regulations.
The landlord’s email of 21 February 2022 gave the resident the expectation that a heat loss survey could be done to further evidence that there was a defect. However, no evidence has been seen that the landlord has done a heat loss survey or that it responded to the resident’s query about whether residents would be charged. This was a further failing by the landlord.
The landlord failed to follow its latent defect procedure in investigating the absence of insulation between the porch and resident’s flat above, and the evidence suggests that it did not adequately consider its repairing obligations or the defect position before deciding that it would not install installation. It did not respond to some of the resident’s contacts and, where it did reply, there were delays and its responses were unclear.
The landlord’s failings caused the resident to have to chase multiple times over many months and the issue remains unresolved. This amounts to severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of inadequate insulation between the porch and her flat above.
Orders have been made below for the landlord to carry out a heat loss survey, arrange an independent survey and to reconsider it’s obligations in respect of providing insulation. Orders have also been made for the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay £600 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Handling of the resident’s complaints

The resident’s report of 11 March 2021 about the smell in the corridor and inadequate insulation did not say that she had reported the issues before or that she was dissatisfied. As such it was reasonable that the landlord did not log this contact as a complaint though it should have provided a response within a reasonable timescale.
However, the resident’s subsequent contact on 31 March 2021 did clearly say that she had not received a response to her report, and the landlord should have logged this as a formal complaint and investigated why no response had been given. The reminder received by the landlord on 15 April 2021 should have been a further prompt for the landlord to check whether any response had been given. However, the reminder was logged on the landlord’s complaint record for another complaint that the resident had made about a different matter.
The landlord did log a complaint on 3 June 2021, after the Ombudsman’s intervention, but its failure to recognise the resident’s complaint earlier meant that it’s stage one response of 22 June 2021 was provided almost three months after she had told it that she was dissatisfied. This delay was inappropriate and contrary to the landlord’s policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). Further the evidence suggests that the landlord initially sent the resident a response relating to another resident’s complaint and corrected this two days later after the resident queried the response she had received.
The landlord’s stage one response did not include the complaint reference number or set out what stage the complaint was at which were further failings and contrary to the requirements of the Code.
The landlord escalated the resident’s complaint on 22 October 2021 but this was after two further interventions from the Ombudsman. The delay meant that the landlord’s stage two response of 27 October 2021 was sent over a month after the resident had requested escalation on 20 September 2021. Again, this delay was contrary to the landlord’s policy and the Code.
As with the staff members involved in resolving the latent defects reported, the evidence suggests that the officer reviewing the resident’s complaint at stage two of the landlord’s process did not know who should deal with the issues and did not have sufficient records of what had happened. The evidence shows that the reviewing officer emailed various colleagues to find out who was dealing with the issues and what had happened previously and met similar indifference and buck passing as previously described. For example, one staff member replied they were not sure of the answers so would leave colleagues to answer, another said the issues were not on their radar and copied the email on to another team.
Although the landlord’s stage two response of 27 October 2021 acknowledged that the resident’s issues and complaint has been passed around and that there had been service failures, no evidence has been seen that the landlord investigated why this had happened or took any action to prevent it continuing. The complaint reviewer should have checked the relevant procedure to see which team was responsible and escalated the case if needed and the inadequate responses received should have prompted the reviewer to have considered escalating the case. That it did not could suggest that inadequate responses from colleagues was a normal occurrence.
The failure to identify the responsible team resulted in the complaint being passed back to the property manager on 28 October 2021 to progress the actions arising from the stage two complaint review. This was not reasonable considering that the property manager had been unable to resolve the issues since they had been raised by the resident in March 2021. Further, the evidence shows that the property manager did not understand why the complaint had been passed back or the expectations of the landlord’s complaints procedure.
It is not clear from the evidence why the landlord sent a further stage one response to the resident’s complaint on 23 November 2021 given it had already sent a stage two response on 27 October 2021. However, it suggests that the staff members were not clear about the landlord’s procedure. Further, the letter did not address the issue of the inadequate insulation.
The Ombudsman asked the landlord to send us further evidence and information about any relevant events that had happened since it had provided its evidence to us on 13 April 2022. In its response of 11 August 2023, the landlord sent us its case file for the resident’s second complaint about the bin store ventilation.
The Ombudsman has not seen the second complaint that the resident made about the bin store ventilation that resulted in the landlord’s stage one response of 3 November 2022. However, the resident’s email of 9 November 2022 stated that she felt it was a continuation of the previous issues and asked for the complaint to be escalated as the defect had not been rectified.
The landlord should have escalated the complaint to stage two of its process but instead it sent a further stage one response on 30 November 2022. Although the letter provided more detail than the previous one, the response suggests that no adequate investigation had been carried out as it did not explain why the landlord felt that the builder’s change of mind regarding the latent defect was reasonable. Further the response incorrectly referred to the builder’s quote for insulation as being connected to the bin store ventilation issues when in fact it had been for insulation between the porch and resident’s flat above.
It is not clear from the evidence seen why it took the landlord until 12 July 2023 to acknowledge that it had escalated the resident’s second complaint about the bin store ventilation. However, this meant that the landlord took eight months to escalate the complaint which was inappropriate and contrary to the landlord’s policy and the Code.
Although the landlord’s acknowledgement of 12 July 2023 had said that it would provide a stage two response to the resident’s complaint by 8 August 2023, no such complaint response has been seen by the Ombudsman. This could suggest that either no response was given to the resident or that a response was given after 11 August 2023 but the landlord did not send us a copy. Regardless of the reason, the landlord did not fulfil the requirements of its policy or the Code in its handling of the resident’s second complaint about the bin store ventilation.
The landlord did not adhere to its policy or the Code in handling either of the resident’s complaints. It’s responses were inappropriately late and its failure to properly investigate the issues raised meant its responses were inadequate. The landlord’s failings meant that the issues the resident had complained about were not properly resolved and caused the resident to have to chase responses and ask the Ombudsman to intervene.
The landlord’s failings amount to severe maladministration in its handling of the resident’s complaints.
Orders have been made below for the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay £500 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. We have not made further orders in relation to our findings regarding the landlord’s complaint handling as they would duplicate the recommendations made in the special report which the landlord has already accepted and is implementing.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of foul odours in a communal hallway.
2. Reports of inadequate insulation between the entrance porch and her flat above.
3. Complaints.

Reasons

The landlord’s failure to follow its latent defect procedure caused an unreasonable delay of thirteen months in resolving the foul odour in the corridor. It changed its position regarding the further work that it had said would be done and gave no explanation for this to the resident. Further it sealed the shaft in the ceiling of the bin store which caused a new issue of smells in the bin store itself. The landlord did not keep the resident informed and failed to answer many of her contacts causing her to have to chase progress multiple times over many months and make two formal complaints.
The landlord failed to follow its latent defect procedure in investigating the absence of insulation between the porch and resident’s flat above, and the evidence suggests that it did not adequately consider its repairing obligations or the defect position before deciding that it would not install installation. It did not respond to some of the resident’s contacts and, where it did reply, there were delays and its responses were unclear.
The landlord did not adhere to its policy or the Code in handling either of the resident’s complaints. It’s responses were inappropriately late and its failure to properly investigate the issues raised meant its responses were inadequate. The landlord’s failings meant that the issues the resident had complained about were not properly resolved and caused the resident to have to chase responses and ask the Ombudsman to intervene.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with the following orders:
1. A senior member of staff must contact the resident to apologise in person (by telephone or meeting) for the failings identified in this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with details of the date of the contact, the senior manager’s name and role, and details of the discussion.
2. Pay the resident total compensation of £1,700. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears, and is comprised of:
  1. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of odours in the communal hallway.
  2. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of inadequate insulation.
  3. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s complaints.
Within eight weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with the following orders:
1. Arrange for a heat loss survey to be carried out in respect of the resident’s bedrooms above the entrance porch. The landlord must provide the resident and the Ombudsman with a copy of the survey and the cost of the survey must not be passed on to the resident.
2. Arrange for a suitably qualified surveyor to visit the building to:
  1. Assess whether the bin store ventilation shaft and insulation between the porch and resident’s bedrooms above have been installed in line with the building’s design and technical specifications.
  2. Assess whether the bin store ventilation shaft and insulation between the porch and resident’s bedrooms above met the building regulations at the time of the build.
  3. Recommend options to resolve the issues of the build up of odours in the bin store and odours escaping into communal hallways.
  4. Recommend options to improve the thermal comfort of the two bedrooms above the entrance porch.

The landlord must provide the resident and the Ombudsman with a copy of the surveyors report and the cost of the survey must not be passed on to the resident.

The landlord must consider the results of the above surveys and reconsider its position regarding further work to the bin store ventilation and providing insulation between the porch and resident’s flat above.
The landlord must write to the resident to:
1. Confirm its understanding of its repairing responsibilities in respect of the bin store ventilation and insulation above the entrance porch.
2. Set out any further work it intends to carry out to resolve the issues of the build up of odours in the bin store and odours escaping into communal hallways.
3. Set out any further work it intends to carry out to improve the thermal comfort of the two bedrooms above the entrance porch.
4. Advise on the timescales for the work proposed and any cost implications for the resident.
5. Explain its reasons if decides not to carry out any work recommended in the surveys above.

The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with a copy of its letter.

Take steps to ensure that its relevant staff members are aware of their responsibilities under its latent defects procedure and adhere to it in future. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with an explanation of the steps it has taken.