London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202128367)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202128367

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

26 September 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 handling of the resident’s:
1. Request for repairs to a boundary wall and fencing.
2. Associated formal complaint.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord, which is a housing association, for a 3–bedroom terraced house. The house is separated from the neighbouring property at the bottom of the garden (the neighbour) by a boundary wall and fence. The landlord is aware the resident has health conditions.
The resident contacted the landlord on 7 April 2020 to say the neighbour had started to remove the dividing wall between the properties. She called again 2 days later to say the neighbour had knocked the wall down, and the only thing separating the properties was the fence (no evidence has been provided to show what the wall looked like before the neighbour knocked it down, or what it currently looks like). She said she felt unsafe and uncomfortable. The landlord contacted the resident shortly after and advised that the issue would be placed on hold due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
There was no further action until 7 September 2020 when the landlord noted the resident said the fence was no longer secure due to the neighbour removing the wall.
The resident chased for an update on 12 May 2021 and the landlord said it would inspect the wall. On 4 June 2021 the resident chased the landlord as it had not attended her property. The landlord said it had spoken with the neighbour who advised the wall had been crumbling, and it had attended the neighbour’s property and raised wall repairs which were due to be completed.
The resident called the landlord on 26 August 2021 as she had not received an update. The landlord said the wall repair had been raised against the neighbour’s address. The resident raised a formal complaint as she was unhappy she had not been updated, and no repair was raised for her address.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint 5 days later and said it had chased its surveyor to find out why repairs were not completed. It also said it would provide an outcome by 14 September 2021.
The resident chased again around 17 September 2021. The landlord said it had not received a response from its surveyor due to annual leave, so had forwarded the query to another surveyor. It could not provide details of a repair raised for another neighbour due to data protection. The resident agreed to close the complaint pending the surveyor’s wall assessment.
Ten days later the resident contacted the landlord again. Its surveyor confirmed he had attended (unclear which property), and it would raise a work order for the wall to be rebuilt.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 30 September 2021 in which it repeated the conversation from around 17 September 2021.
The landlord left a voicemail for its contractor on 1 December 2021 to authorise the wall repairs.
The resident wrote to this Service in March 2022, saying that she had not felt safe for 2 years due to the demolished wall. She said the fence was in disrepair and she had not heard anything from the landlord in relation to the wall repair since the stage 1 response of September 2021.
The resident said she escalated her complaint to stage 2 with the landlord in June 2022, but no evidence of this has been provided.
There is no evidence of any further action until 21 October 2022 when the landlord emailed a third surveyor after a different neighbour had raised issues about the same wall. The surveyor replied a week later and said he had visited the neighbour and the boundary wall had not been fully removed. The neighbour had put up fencing and, as it did not affect the resident, there would be no further work.
After contact from this Service on 21 November 2022, the landlord escalated the complaint to stage 2 and acknowledged the escalation on 2 December 2022.
After the escalation, the surveyor visited the resident on 5 December 2022 and emailed the landlord afterwards. They recommended that (while it was not strictly necessary to maintain the boundary due to the fence) the wall should be rebuilt due to the complaint. The landlord issued its stage 2 response the same day. It explained the surveyor’s recommendation, awarded £270 compensation (£50 for time and effort, £60 distress, £60 inconvenience, and £100 for the delayed stage 2 response), and said operatives would be in touch.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaint process

On 22 March 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to speak with the third surveyor as the fence was now broken. The resident contacted the Ombudsman in November 2023 to advise that the wall had still not been rebuilt or the fencing replaced.
On 31 May 2024 the landlord noted that the fence was old and worn and that it had previously been against the boundary wall that was removed by the neighbour. The landlord then attended the resident’s property on 4 July 2024 but was unable to check the condition of the boundary wall due to the fencing height.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Between January and June 2023, the Ombudsman carried out an investigation into the landlord under paragraph 49 of the Scheme, which allows us to conduct investigations beyond individual complaints to establish whether there is evidence of a systemic failing within a landlord. It reviewed findings of complaints made to the landlord between March 2019 and October 2022 and identified common points of failure such as repairs handling and complaints. The report made recommendations for improvements to be made and was published in July 2023 and can be viewed here London & Quadrant P49 Report (the report).
The events in this case took place during the period covered by the report, and some of the findings are relevant to this case and are referred to herein. We have not made any orders or recommendations which would duplicate those already made to the landlord in the Ombudsman’s report. Since 1 August 2023, following the publication of the report, this Service has investigated complaints about the landlord, with less than half now resulting in a finding of some level of maladministration, which suggests it has made some improvements.
The events of April 2020 are noted for context, but there is no evidence the resident raised a formal complaint until 26 August 2021. This Service encourages residents to raise complaints in a timely manner, normally within 12 months of the issues arising, so that the landlord can consider them whilst they are still ‘live’ and whilst the evidence is available to properly investigate (reflected at paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme). Therefore, we would reasonably consider events from August 2020 onwards. As there was no evidence of any action taken by the landlord due to the pandemic until 7 September 2020, this date is taken as the starting point for this investigation.
The resident has told the landlord and this Service about the impact the situation had on her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt these comments and empathises with her situation, but it is beyond the remit of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s health.
The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord (reflected at paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme). While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

The resident’s request for repairs to a boundary wall and fencing

After the first lockdown, the government introduced restrictions from 22 September 2020, and a second full national lockdown came into effect from 5 November 2020. Restrictions were lifted slightly over Christmas 2020, but there was a third national lockdown from 6 January 2021. Although schools re-opened on 8 March 2021, the “stay at home” order remained in place until 29 March 2021. On 19 July 2021 most legal limits on social contact were removed in England and the final closed sectors of the economy reopened. During lockdown the landlord and its repairs contractors operated an essential only repair service.
The landlord’s repairs policy says, whilst it is responsible for unsafe garden walls, it is not responsible for boundary fences which separate a garden from a neighbour’s garden.
The report found residents were “not kept informed of the progress of repairs leading them to chase and complain.” The evidence showed the landlord’s communication with the resident was poor with the resident having to chase for updates. It is not clear if she was told the landlord was not responsible for fence repairs in September 2020, but she chased at least 3 times between May and August 2021 which caused inconvenience, and ultimately led to the formal complaint being raised.
It is not clear if the resident was informed of the surveyor’s comments of October 2022 that no further work would be carried out to the wall, or whether she was updated after the landlord attended the neighbour’s property to inspect the wall. The evidence suggests that, from September 2021 onwards, she was living with the ongoing expectation of the wall repairs being done, and uncertainty caused by a lack of communication and updates, which was unreasonable.
In relation to repairs, the report identified that “residents suffered excessive and unexplained delays” and there was “no tracking of repair progress, contributing to excessive delays.” The evidence showed this was the same in this case with a number of long delays where there is little evidence of any action taken. It was not clear whether repairs were raised for the wall or fence in September 2020. However, there was no evidence of any action between this date and May 2021 (a period of approximately 8 months). It is then not clear what the landlord did between September 2021, when the resident was told a repair would be raised, and December 2021, when it authorised the repair, a period of a further 3 months, and between March and October 2022, approximately another 6 months.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the pandemic contributed to the lack of repairs at points, which was beyond the landlord’s control. The landlord (as the body in a contractual agreement with the resident) is responsible for the repair, regardless of whether it outsources the work to a contractor. With that in mind, it should have done more to follow up with both the resident, its surveyors, and contractors, rather than leaving it to the resident to chase for updates, which was a failing.
However, whilst landlords are expected to respond to repair requests and complaints in a timely manner, residents are also expected to use reasonable efforts to pursue such matters and maintain ownership where they consider there to be undue delays. There is no evidence the resident chased the repairs on a regular basis or with a high degree of urgency from April 2020 to date. Whilst it is not possible to say with any certainty why this was, it does suggest she did not consider the boundary wall to be a pressing issue which was significantly impacting her use of the property. However the delays over a 4 year period were unreasonable, and represent a failing.
The landlord offered £50 for time and effort chasing the repair, and £120 for distress and inconvenience caused. It also said its contractors would contact the resident suggesting it would rebuild the wall. This demonstrated that it took the complaint seriously and sought to ‘put things right’ in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles at the time of issuing the stage 2 response. The amount of compensation offered was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for an issue where a resident has been significantly impacted and put to time and trouble.
However, it is more than 18 months since the stage 2 response and, whilst there is little evidence the resident has pursued the wall repairs, the wall has still not been repaired and the landlord has not followed through with the actions it said it would, which is not reasonable.
It failed to monitor the repair, chase its contractors, communicate effectively or manage the resident’s expectations effectively. As a result, there was maladministration and further actions are needed to resolve this complaint satisfactorily. This includes the payment of a further £100 compensation for the continued time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

The landlord’s handling of the associated formal complaint

The landlord’s complaint handling policy in place at the time of the complaint said it aimed to log and acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days, and send a written decision within 10 working days.
The report said, although the landlord had policies and procedures in place for complaints, it was “not consistently putting them into practice and responses demonstrated little empathy, instead listing actions it would take without explaining its investigation.” The landlord’s own annual 2021-2022 complaint handling reports identified complaints escalated to stage 2 because of the poor quality of its stage 1 responses.
Whilst the resident initially agreed to close the complaint in September 2021 after being told the wall would be repaired, she contacted this Service in March 2022 as the repairs had not been completed.
The landlord’s complaints policy says if a resident is dissatisfied, it will escalate to stage 2. It says it will send a stage 2 response within 20 working days of the request to escalate, and if it needs longer, it will explain why to the resident and write within a further 10 working days.
The resident contacted this Service 29 March 2022 and was told to escalate the complaint to stage 2. However, in a call with this Service a month later, she still had not done so, and said she escalated the complaint in June 2022.
Following contact from this Service, the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 5 December 2022. It is not clear if the resident followed up the complaint escalation with the landlord and there is no evidence to confirm exactly when the complaint was escalated. It is therefore not clear exactly how delayed this response was, but it was clearly over the 20 working days outlined in its policy.
The landlord offered £100 in recognition of the delayed stage 2 complaint response. This was reasonable and proportionate given the lack of evidence of the resident chasing a response. Therefore, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has identified its own failures in service and made an offer of redress which satisfactorily resolves this part of the complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for repairs to a boundary wall and fencing.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident, with respect to its handling of the associated formal complaint, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Carry out a survey of the boundary wall (including photographs) and provide a copy of the survey report to this Service and the resident. Subject to the survey’s recommendations, it must then either:
  1. Rebuild the wall within 4 weeks; or
  2. Provide a full explanation as to why it will not rebuild the wall, with reference to its obligations and the survey’s findings.
2. Pay the resident £270 originally offered in the stage 2 response (if it has not already done so), plus a further £100 compensation to acknowledge the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience incurred chasing the issue from the stage 2 response to date.

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to consider updating all residents affected by work to a boundary wall, even when only one neighbour raises an issue.