Quadrant-Brownswood Tenant Co-operative Limited (202228384)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228384

Quadrant-Brownswood Tenant Co-operative Limited

31 July 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. response to the resident’s concerns about the level of rent and the landlord’s governance structure in relation to rent;
2. response to the resident’s reports of a roof leak and the resultant damp and mould;
3. correspondence relating to a home improvement grant;
4. complaints handling.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraphs 42(d) and 42(m) of the Scheme note as follows:

42. The Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

d) concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase;

m) are about matters which relate to the processes and decisions concerning a member’s governance structures.

Throughout the period of the complaint, the resident raised concerns that the levels of rent were different for different tenants of the landlord. She did not consider this to be fair. The landlord advised that this was due to the pre-existing governance structures it had taken on when it took over as landlord. The resident also raised concerns that the governance structures relating to rent were in breach of equality law. The landlord subsequently advised that its structures had been developed in conjunction with the housing regulator.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraphs 42(d) and 42(m) of the Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the level of rent and the landlord’s governance structure in relation to rent is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
The Ombudsman is unable to make a binding determination about the reasonableness of rent. Such a determination would be more appropriate for the First Tier Tribunal. The Ombudsman is also unable to comment on a landlord’s governance structure and related processes and decisions. The resident has the option to seek legal advice on both of these concerns.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant at the property of the landlord since 22 February 2021. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. Throughout the period of the complaint, the resident made the landlord aware that she was impacted by respiratory issues.
The landlord uses a managing agent to carry out some of its responsibilities. Throughout the period of the complaint, the resident has dealt with both the landlord and the managing agent. For the purposes of this report, both the landlord and the managing agent have been referred to as ‘the landlord’, unless it is otherwise necessary to distinguish between them.
Prior to the start of the tenancy, on 14 February 2021, the resident noted concerns about damp in the property. She provided photos of the damp at this time. It is not evident that the landlord acknowledged these reports or took any action.
On 17 November 2021, the resident requested an update on the issues with damp and queried an issue with the roof. It is not evident that the landlord responded, and so she sought an update on 29 January 2022. She still did not receive a response, and so she raised a formal complaint on 10 July 2022.
The landlord’s managing agent provided a response on 22 July 2022. The response noted the complaint could be escalated to a formal stage one complaint if the resident remained dissatisfied. The response included the following:
1. It acknowledged that it had missed the target response time of seven days when responding to the resident, for which it apologised.
2. It acknowledged that the repairs needed to the roof had not been actioned in time and that it had not responded to her queries. It apologised and noted this was due to a poor handover following staff turnover.
3. It noted it had instructed its contractor to commence works as soon as possible. It also offered £150 compensation.
On 2 August 2022, the landlord noted it was working with its contractors to determine it was possible to complete the repairs without the need to erect scaffolding.
In or around October 2022, the resident made enquires with Warmer Homes London regarding an improvement grant. Warmer Homes London advised it would need the landlord’s permission for any application. It also noted that the landlord would need to contribute a third of the costs of any works.
On 19 October 2022, the resident provided the landlord with these communications and requested permission to make an application. The landlord provided this permission on 20 October 2022.
On 10 November 2022, the resident sought an update from the landlord regarding the grant. The landlord noted it was required to contribute a third of the costs and that it was seeking further information. On 13 December 2022, the resident sought an update from the landlord regarding its position. It is not evident that the landlord provided an update at this time.
On 21 December 2022, and again on 5 January 2023, the resident sought an update regarding repair works to her roof. She reported that the ongoing damp was causing damage to her property and that she was using dehumidifiers to address it. She noted there had been two visits from surveyors but that no further updates had been given.
On 14 February 2023, Warmer Homes London advised the resident that, in relation to proposed double glazing works, the property did not fit its criteria for a grant.
On 12 March 2023, the resident noted that no action had taken place regarding the roof. She also noted that the works kept disappearing from the landlord’s online repairs portal.
In or around May 2023, the resident referred her concerns to this service. This service subsequently contacted the landlord for a further formal response. The resident informed the landlord that she remained concerned about the outstanding repairs, its communication in relation to the Warmer Homes grant, and its overall complaints handling.
Based on the landlord’s internal communications, it was discovered at this time that while quotes for the works had been sought, these had not been actioned. On 26 June 2023, the landlord advised that the roof works had now been approved. It noted that internal repairs would be addressed following the completion of the works. It also noted that the managing agent had provided an initial response and so offered the resident the opportunity to go straight to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process. It is evident that the resident opted for the landlord to initially respond at stage one of its process.
The landlord provided its stage one response on 11 July 2023, which included the following:
1. Regarding the repairs, it acknowledged the delays had been due to a “combination of errors.” It noted it had failed to seek quotes in a timely manner, failed to review reports from its surveyor, and had also misplaced some reports.
2. It noted it had carried out further inspections on 26 June 2023 and that the roof repairs were now completed.
3. Regarding the Warmer Homes grant, it noted that this had been rejected due to the property not being eligible.
4. Regarding complaints handling, it noted that the initial approach of the managing agent providing an informal response had prolonged the issue. It also noted its stage one response was 14 days late.
The resident replied on 13 July 2023 and advised that no roof works had been completed. The landlord subsequently escalated the complaint.
The landlord provided its stage two response on 26 July 2023, which included the following:
1. Regarding the repairs, it acknowledged it had mistaken the visit on 26 June 2023 to have been for the actual repairs instead of just an inspection. It advised that works were now approved and that its contractor would contact her.
2. It also noted it had inspected the damp and mould on 3 July 2023, and the subsequent report had recommended insulation works. It advised it was now considering approval for these works.
3. It offered £200 for the impact the delays had caused.
4. Regarding the Warmer Homes grant, it reiterated that it had never withdrawn consent but had sought more information about the costs. Given that the grant was not approved, no costs were ever considered.
5. Regarding complaints handling, it acknowledged that there had been delays throughout its communication, for which it offered £100 compensation.
Following the stage two response, the resident sought updates for the repairs in October 2023 and November 2023, without a response. The landlord completed further inspections in November 2023 and December 2023. The resident once again chased updates in early 2024, and on 22 March 2024, the landlord confirmed that all works had been approved and it was arranging the costings. It is evident from its internal communications from this time that it sought to claim for these works through its insurer. The resident chased further updates in April 2024; however, by May 2024, the landlord’s insurer confirmed the works would not be covered.
In July 2024, the landlord confirmed that the works had been further delayed due to it considering additional improvement works alongside the repairs. As of 23 July 2024, the resident has advised this service that the works remain incomplete, and the property is still affected by damp and mould.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Throughout the period of the complaint, the resident has raised concerns about how the issues she reported and the landlord’s subsequent service delivery may have impacted her physical and mental health.
The Ombudsman is unable to make a determination that the actions or omissions of a landlord have had a causal impact on a person’s health. Such a determination is more appropriate through an insurance claim or by a court. Should the resident wish to pursue a claim relating to the impact on her health, she has the option to seek legal advice.
The Ombudsman has, however, taken into account any general distress and inconvenience that the landlord’s service delivery may have caused. The Ombudsman has also considered whether the landlord’s approach should have considered the resident’s reported vulnerabilities.

Policies and procedures

The landlord operates a responsive repairs policy. The policy notes that the landlord is responsible for the roof. The policy also notes that urgent repairs will be addressed within seven days and routine repairs will be addressed within 30 days.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy. Stage one responses should be provided within 10 working days, and stage two responses within 20 working days.

Roof leak

As noted above, the landlord’s repairs policy has different response times for both urgent and routine issues. The policy does not, however, note leaks or damp and mould in the examples given for either. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, both leaks or damp and mould could fall into either category, depending on the severity of the issue and other factors such as the vulnerability of the resident. It is, therefore, necessary for the landlord to take reasonable actions upon receiving a report to satisfy itself as to what its reaction should be.
In this case, the resident reported issues with damp and mould from the moment she moved to the property. It is not clear how severe this damp and mould was; however, there is no record or correspondence to show that the landlord took any action to assess it. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord was liaising with the resident about other issues at this time, so there was every opportunity for it to make further enquiries, which it did not do. This meant that the resident had to live with the damp and mould for longer than was necessary, and she also had to expend time and trouble chasing the issue.
Despite having provided photos of the issues she was experiencing, the resident had to chase updates for over a year without any meaningful response. This was unreasonable and demonstrated a complete breakdown in both the landlord’s repair system and communication. The landlord was aware of the resident’s health concerns and she provided her position that the issues were impacting her health. The Ombudsman would, therefore, expect a heightened response instead of a lack of meaningful contact. This would have caused the resident significant distress.
In the absence of a response, the resident had to expend time and trouble raising a formal complaint. The landlord’s approach to complaint responses is discussed further below. In its initial response in July 2022, the landlord appropriately acknowledged that its communication had been poor and it had often failed to respond to the resident. It also appropriately apologised for its failings.
In addition to acknowledging its poor communication, the landlord also acknowledged it had failed to action any works to the roof. It explained that this had been due to a poor handover between staff. While the Ombudsman does not consider this to be an acceptable excuse for the delays, as the landlord should have robust systems in place for handovers to avoid such mistakes, it nevertheless allowed the resident to understand what had gone wrong.
The landlord offered £150 compensation for the failures it had identified. It was not clear specifically how the offer had been calculated, given that the landlord had identified issues with both communication and a failure to raise works. The landlord later noted that it had only been made aware of the roof repairs in August 2022. However, it had been made aware of issues with damp prior to then. Given its later position that these issues were connected, this demonstrates that it should have been considering compensation from February 2022 onwards. Its offer was not, therefore reflective of the impact caused to the resident over this period.
The landlord concluded its initial response by advising that its contractor would seek to complete the roof repairs. It did not, however, offer any support or advice about the ongoing damp and mould issues. While the roof may have been the source of the damp and mould, the landlord should have considered what mitigating steps, such as a mould wash, it could do in the interim. Despite the health conditions of the resident, it is not evident that the landlord considered any such action.
Following this response, it is evident that the landlord arranged for surveyors to inspect the property. It also provided an appropriate and timely update regarding its intention to complete the roof works without the need for scaffolding. This, however, was the last of its proactive updates, and once again, the resident had to chase updates without a response through to June 2023. The landlord had multiple opportunities to either provide an update or raise a formal complaint but failed to do so. This compounded the distress the resident was experiencing and further reflects the complete breakdown in the landlord’s repairs processes and overall communication.
In its stage one response, the landlord appropriately acknowledged that there had been multiple errors which had led to the delays. It counteracted this, however, by demonstrating its poor complaint investigation. It erroneously stated that works had been completed when only an inspection had taken place. This once again demonstrated a significant failing in its record keeping, which would have been considerably frustrating for the resident.
Once it was made aware of its error, the landlord once again acknowledged its mistakes in its stage two response. It also appropriately raised further works and noted that it had finally assessed the resident’s property regarding the damp and mould (some 17 months after her initial reports). While it noted it had identified works relating to insulation, it did not commit to them in any timeframe, and it is not evident that these have been revisited. This would have caused the resident further frustration.
As with before, the landlord recognised that there had been an impact on the resident due to the delays, and it offered £200 compensation. However, given that the issues had been ongoing for over a year without a firm end date, this amount was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
Following its stage two response, while the landlord completed further inspections, there appears to have been further delays caused by it exploring an insurance claim. The landlord’s repair responsibility is not dependent on whether it can claim through its insurance, and when it became apparent this process was causing an unreasonable delay, it should have taken alternative action. It also failed to keep the resident updated throughout this period, leading her to expend yet more time and effort chasing answers.
As of July 2024, the landlord has still not completed the works. In a communication from 17 July 2024, the landlord’s chair informed the resident that her property “could have been rectified some time ago,” but that instead, it had taken further time to consider extensive additional works. Despite the significant delays and the understandable frustration of the resident, the tone of this correspondence was also combative and not supportive of the impact the delays would have had. This would have further damaged the landlord/tenant relationship. While it may be useful to make improvements, it is not evident that this was discussed with the resident or that any interim works have been considered to mitigate the ongoing impacts of the leak or the damp and mould.
In summary, there were significant delays to the landlord’s communication, sometimes covering several months. This poor communication was repeated throughout the period of the complaint, demonstrating that the landlord did not learn from the findings of its earlier complaint investigations. Additionally, there were multiple failings with the landlord’s repair obligations. It failed to complete inspections within a reasonable timeframe or in line with its policy. It failed to raise works, follow up on quotes or reports, and misplaced documents. It also did not have a robust records system in place for staff handovers, resulting in works being lost. It additionally failed to provide an explanation as to why the repairs kept disappearing from its online repairs system.
Given the multiple failings, a finding of maladministration has been made. The Ombudsman notes that, had the landlord not acknowledged its failings and offered some compensation, a finding of severe maladministration would have been made. Nevertheless, there was a significant impact caused to the resident. Given that the works remain incomplete, despite the expectations raised in the landlord’s formal responses, an order for £4,100 has been made, being made up of £50 per month for the period of February 2021 (when the resident first reported issues with damp) to present for the landlord’s ongoing poor communication and £50 per month for the ongoing failure to complete the works.
An order has also been made for the landlord to provide a single point of contact for the resident. The single point of contact is to provide a schedule of all outstanding works and a timeframe for their completion. They are also to provide the landlord’s position on the insulation works noted in the stage two response. Additionally, they are to provide weekly updates until the completion of the works. These updates should include any unforeseen delays and an explanation as to why the delays are reasonable in the circumstances. If the delays are not reasonable, the landlord should provide its position on further compensation.

Improvement grant

It is not disputed that following her enquiries with Warmer Homes London, the resident provided the landlord with copies of her communications when she requested its permission to make an application. It is not known whether the landlord read the past communications at this time. If it had, it would have been aware of the obligation to contribute a third of the costs of any improvement works. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman would not expect the landlord to agree to unknown and uncosted works at this time. It was, therefore, reasonable that it provided its consent for the resident to make an application without also committing to any works.
Following the resident’s application, the landlord confirmed in November 2022 that it was seeking more information from Warmer Homes London about the grant. It advised the resident it would “keep you updated.” The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to provide an update within a reasonable timeframe. Such an update could either be a final answer or simply confirmation that its discussions were ongoing. However, in this case, it is not evident that the landlord provided any further updates, despite the resident chasing it in December 2022.
Given that the grant did not progress, it was reasonable that the landlord did not provide any further position on the matter. It was also reasonable that it confirmed in its formal responses that it had not withdrawn its consent but merely sought further information. However, the landlord’s failure to keep the resident updated about its discussions with Warmer Homes London, despite its promise to do so, would have been frustrating for the resident.
On the basis of the landlord’s poor communication, a finding of service failure has been made. An order for £100 compensation has been made to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Complaints handling

The landlord’s complaints policy notes that where a complaint is made, it will provide a formal complaint response. It does not note that it will initially seek to deal with the complaint with a written informal response. Similarly, this service’s Complaints Handling Code (the Code) does not allow for such informal stages.
Following the resident’s initial complaint in July 2022, the landlord’s managing agent provided a detailed response on 22 July 2022. While this response noted the complaint could subsequently be escalated to stage one, the landlord’s later description of this response as an “informal response” would have caused confusion given the amount of detail it included. This informal response stage also artificially extended the landlord’s complaints process, which unreasonably delayed it from providing a final resolution.
The landlord later appropriately noted that this informal response was not in line with its policy and offered the resident the opportunity to go straight to stage two. While the resident declined this offer, this was nevertheless an appropriate attempt to mitigate the impact of its initial failure to follow its policy.
The landlord also noted there had been confusion caused by the initial response coming from its managing agent and the subsequent responses coming from the landlord itself. Given that this change in approach meant there was a delay in the escalation of the complaint, which required the intervention of this service, it was appropriate that the landlord recognised this and the impact it had on its complaints handling.
In its stage one response, the landlord acknowledged that the response was provided 14 days after its 10-day deadline. While it explained this was due to the extensive information it had to review, it is not evident that it alerted the resident to a delay to its response, as required by the Code. Additionally, despite having recognised the delay, it did not use any wording to indicate an apology.
In its stage two response, the landlord appropriately recognised the communication issues across its complaint handling and offered £100 compensation.
In summary, the landlord’s initial approach of using an informal response, along with the delays to its stage one response, would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. While it could have done more to express an apology, it recognised these failings and the impact they had on the resident. Its offer of £100 compensation was, therefore, proportionate in the circumstances. A finding of reasonable redress has been made.

Determination (decision)

As noted above, in accordance with paragraphs 42(d) and 42(m) of the Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the level of rent and the landlord’s governance structure in relation to rent is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its response to the resident’s reports of a roof leak and the resultant damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its correspondence relating to a home improvement grant.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure in respect of its complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £4,200, comprising:
1. £4,100 for the impact caused to the resident by its failures relating to the leak and resultant damp and mould;
2. £100 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its poor communication relating to the home improvement grant.
This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £350. This amount (less any amount already paid by the landlord as part of its previous offer) must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.
Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is to provide the resident with a single point of contact. This single point of contact must:
1. Provide a schedule of all outstanding works and a timeframe for their completion.
2. Provide the landlord’s position on the insulation works noted in the stage two response.
3. Provide weekly updates until the completion of the works. These updates should include any unforeseen delays and an explanation as to why the delays are reasonable in the circumstances. If the delays are not reasonable, the landlord should provide its position on further compensation.

Recommendations

The landlord to reiterate its offer of £100 in relation to its complaints handling, if this is yet to have been accepted.