London & Quadrant Housing Trust (201914783)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201914783

London & Quadrant H T

22 February 2021

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. allegations of not maintaining the drainage system at the property;
   2. request to make a claim for damages;
   3. associated formal complaint.

Background and summary of events

2. In October 2017 the resident reported an ingress of water into his property and advised that damage had been caused. He subsequently submitted a claim under his insurance policy, but this was declined on 23 October 2019. The insurer said that the landlord had stated that the cause of the water ingress was due to failure of the drainage system and this was not an insured peril under the policy. Therefore the damage caused was not covered.
3. On 30 November 2019, the resident emailed the landlord to complain about the poor drainage system and that his insurance claim had been declined as a result. He also asked for details of how to make a claim against the landlord for the damage to his property. In the absence of a response, the resident sent a follow up email on 25 January 2020.
4. Following the Ombudsman’s intervention in February 2020, the landlord issued a Stage 1 response on 12 March 2020. It said that it did not have a routine or regular maintenance service for drains, gutters and rainwater goods and that its policy was to address issues as they were reported. If any large-scale works were then identified, it assessed them for future programmes.
5. The landlord said that, following the reported issue in October 2019, regarding a rainwater downpipe, a specialist had attended and made recommendations which were completed in November 2019. It said that it had contacted the specialist to obtain details of what the issue was and would share this with the resident. It noted that the resident had submitted a claim for damages, but it was unable to review or be involved in this as part of the complaints process. However, it confirmed that the resident could submit a claim if he considered that it was responsible for any damage and it provided details of how to do this.
6. In the resident’s response of 22 March 2020, he confirmed that he wanted to receive the details of the specialist’s report. He also reported that there was still scaffolding outside his property and he had been told that various works had been placed on hold despite the complaint response saying the work had been completed in November 2019. He also asked why his original complaint had not been responded to.
7. The landlord responded on 24 March 2020, when it provided the information it had received from the roofing specialist. The specialist had reported that the rainwater pipes from the roofs discharged onto balconies but the outlets on the balconies were small and could not take heavy downpours. He reported that the landlord had cleared and enlarged the outlets and diverted some of the rainwater pipes where possible. In respect of the delay in responding to the complaint, the landlord said that this was normally dealt with by the customer relations team, but it had not carried out a review of the resident’s previous complaints. It also said that it did not know why scaffolding was still erected at the property and it would make enquiries.
8. In the resident’s email of 27 March 2020, he said that there were some inaccuracies in the landlord’s previous email. He said that he had been in contact with his area manager in February 2020 as there were a number of outstanding issues including increasing the outlet size for a drain around the flats, removing a plant, clearing drains and gutters, and arranging a maintenance schedule. He was happy that the roofing specialists’ recommendations had been completed in November 2019 but believed that not all the work had been done. He had also reported what appeared to be a blockage of drains in the property above him but had been told that this was stagnant water being swept off. However, he had noted that there was detritus hanging out of the drains and had asked if the roofers had carried out any work to this area.
9. The resident said that he had recently spoken to an area manager and was told that the investigations into the overall drainage issues had only just been completed and work would now begin. He said that the area manager said that a three-month maintenance schedule was being arranged to address two main issues: improvements works and residents blocking drains. In view of this, he asked the landlord to let him know what stage his complaint was at and requested a final response detailing what work had been done.
10. The landlord wrote to the resident’s local councillor on 15 April 2020 in response to correspondence it had received. The Ombudsman has not been provided a copy of the correspondence it received from the councillor. In the response letter, the landlord said that it had found that the damage caused to the resident’s property had been caused by the guttering becoming blocked by vegetation and other items negligently disposed of by other residents. It explained that it had arranged for its contractors to clear the gutters, increase the outlet size, and renew downpipes and it hoped this would resolve the drainage issues. However, this work had been placed on hold following the government guidance regarding Covid-19 and social distancing.
11. The landlord then issued a response to the resident on 14 July 2020, acknowledging that he had raised issues about the outlet size of drains, removing a plant, clearing drains and gutters and arranging a maintenance schedule. It said that it had forwarded the issues to the appropriate department and would address them once it had received a response. It had not received a report detailing the recommendations made by the roofing specialist as this was discussed during a telephone conversation. It had requested information from its contractor regarding the leaking balcony reported on 10 June 2020 to determine if it was caused by a defect or resident actions and would respond once it received the information.
12. In response to the residents request for an update on his complaint, the landlord said that it had been closed as the complaint was about the insufficient drainage and the gutters not being regularly maintained and it not providing a formal response. It noted that the resident had asked for his service charges to be amended to reflect the damage to his home caused by the overflowing guttering. However, as previously discussed, this was not something it would consider as the allegation of damage caused was a liability matter and needed to be handled by the insurance team (and it had previously provided the details the resident needed to support any claim he wanted to pursue). It confirmed that it would not be reviewing the original complaint any further but would continue to assist the resident with the points he had raised since then.
13. The resident emailed the landlord on 16 July 2020, requesting an update on the contractor’s recommendations and the outstanding improvement works. He stated that it was not appropriate to close his complaint until the cause of the difficulties had been resolved and would therefore refer the matter to the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

14. The resident has said that he has not had a sufficient response from the landlord and that there has been a further leak at the property. He has also said that there is insufficient drainage and no maintenance schedule to clear the drains.
15. With regard to the more recent leak, it should be noted that the Ombudsman is unable to consider a particular issue until it has been raised as a formal complaint and exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process (in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme). In this case, the complaint that was brought to the Ombudsman was about the landlord not responding to the resident’s concerns about the poor drainage systems on the exterior of his building which led to damage to his property.
16. In its final response to the resident, the landlord noted that he had raised a number of new issues about outstanding works to address the drainage issue. However, it declined to address these as part of the complaint as it believed they were sperate to the complaint that had originally been raised. It agreed to investigate the matter separately and provide a response.
17. The Ombudsman has not been provided with any evidence to show that a further complaint response was issued before the matter was referred to this Service. Therefore, this Service is only able to consider the complaint issues raised and addressed by the landlord throughout the complaints process which was exhausted in July 2020.
18. In accordance with the terms of the tenancy agreement and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord was obliged to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, including drains, gutters and external pipes. Therefore, it was necessary for the landlord to investigate the resident’s concerns about the adequacy of the drainage system at his property and to take appropriate steps to resolve any issues it identified. In doing so, the landlord arranged for a roofing specialist to attend, undertook the works recommended by the specialist, and provided the resident with details of how to pursue a claim with its insurers regarding the damage to his belongings. This demonstrates that the landlord took the reports seriously, applied appropriate resources to investigating the matter, accepted responsibility for the repairs and sought to resolve the issue by implementing the specialist’s recommendations.
19. Whilst the resident had concerns that the roofing specialist’s recommendations had not been completed in their entirety (due to the continued presence of scaffolding at the property), this is not supported by the evidence provided to this investigation. The internal emails between the roofing specialist and the landlord identified the cause of the issues as the poor design of rainwater pipes and small outlets, and confirmed that appropriate remedial works had been undertaken to address these particular issues (outlets were enlarged and rainwater pipes were diverted where possible). The correspondence also noted that more recent problems had been identified on other balconies to the front and quotes were being provided.
20. As a result, this Service is satisfied that the landlord correctly reported that the recommended work had been completed, as supported by the specialist’s observations. Although the specialist mentioned other work that needed to be done, this was reported in reference to other balconies at a different part of the building and there is nothing to suggest that this was directly related to the issues identified at the resident’s property. Overall, the landlord has appropriately addressed the resident’s complaint about the poor drainage system by accepting responsibility for the issues, identifying the cause of the problem, seeking professional advice and acting on the recommendations made.

Claim for damages

21. With regard to the resident’s claim for damage caused to his personal belongings, the landlord was right to advise that this would be better dealt with through its separate claims process, rather than its complaints process. In the same way, the Ombudsman is unable to determine matters of causation and liability in terms of how a landlord’s actions might have caused damage to a resident’s belongings. Such issues are better dealt with as an insurance claim, where appropriate professional evidence can be properly reviewed. As a result, the landlord acted reasonably in providing the resident with the necessary details for him to submit a claim for consideration, outside of its complaints process.

Complaints handling

22. The resident has also complained about the delay in the landlord responding to his complaint which he first raised on 30 November 2019 and chased on 25 January 2020. Copies of the emails he sent have been provided to the Ombudsman. In response, the landlord said that it had not responded to the earlier complaint as it was generally handled by its customer relations team and it had not carried out a review of previous cases.
23. This response does not adequately address the resident’s query and does not offer a reasonable explanation as to why his previous correspondence received no response, regardless of which department should have actioned it. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord had not received the resident’s emails, or that it had properly investigated why no response had been issued in November 2019 and January 2020.
24. By delaying in its response to the resident’s initial complaint correspondence and then failing to fully address this aspect of the complaint in later correspondence, the landlord has not provided a satisfactory response to the complaint. This meant that the resident had to expend further time and trouble on pursuing the complaint with the landlord which would have been understandably distressing and inconvenient. The delay also meant that the landlord’s position on the claim for damages was not conveyed to the resident until some time after his request was first made, which also delayed his pursuance of that matter through other avenues. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to recognize these failings with an offer of redress and this Service has therefore made an order in that regard below.

Determination (decision)

25. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme there was:
    1. no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to:
       1. allegations of not maintaining the drainage system at the property;
       2. the request to make a claim for damages;
    2. service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the formal complaint.

Reasons

26. The landlord accepted that the drainage system was not suitable and agreed to the work recommended by the roofing specialist which was intended to resolve the immediate problem and prevent future issues. It also accepted recommendations made in respect of works not related to the resident’s property, but the building as a whole.
27. The landlord has clearly explained why it could not provide an outcome to the residents claim for damages and has provided the appropriate contact information for him to pursue the claim. It has also confirmed that it would provide information to the resident and the insurer to support the consideration of the claim.
28. The landlord has not provided a clear explanation as to why it failed to respond to the resident’s initial complaint or subsequent chaser email. It has not confirmed whether it received these emails which left the resident unable to pursue his claim for damage to his property for several months.

Orders

29. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay £100 compensation to the resident in recognition of its failure to acknowledge and respond to his complaint for three months.

Recommendations

30. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord should review its complaint acknowledgement and recording process to ensure that complaints are not being missed when sent by residents.