London & Quadrant Housing Trust (201916043)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201916043

London & Quadrant H T

21 January 2020


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 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 complaints

 

The complaint is about:

 

  • the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage to the carpet in her hallway during refurbishment works carried out in the property consequent to her disrepair claim;

 

  • the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of outstanding work to paint the walls in the property consequent to her disrepair claim;

 

  • the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of her rear kitchen door not locking or closing;

 

  • the landlord’s handling of her complaint.

 

Jurisdiction

 

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (‘the Scheme’). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

 

After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(h) of the Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:

 

  • the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage to the carpet in her hallway during refurbishment works carried out in the property consequent to her disrepair claim

 

  • the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of outstanding work to paint the walls in the property consequent to her disrepair claim

 

Paragraph 39(h) of the Scheme states: “The Ombudsman will not investigate concerns which in the Ombudsman’s opinion: concern matters that are, or have been, the subject of legal proceedings and where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of those proceedings;”

 

The settlement agreement for the disrepair claim included the repair works which led to the two complaints listed above, as well as compensation for decoration and carpet cleaning. If there is any challenge as to whether the disrepair claim settlement agreement has not been followed correctly (including the quality of any works or the way those works were completed) then this would need to be taken back to the process which resulted in those works; ie the legal disrepair claim.

 

As above, any issue which has been part of a legal process is outside the jurisdiction of the Housing Ombudsman Service.

 

The Housing Ombudsman Service tries to identify all jurisdiction issues as early as possible in the process. However unfortunately some issues require the assessment of any experienced adjudicator before we are able to confirm our jurisdiction.

 

Background and Summary of events

 

Background

 

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and occupies a two-storey house.

 

  1. The landlord’s repair responsibilities policy guide confirms that it is responsible for repairing “insecure” external doors.

 

  1. The landlord’s repairs webpage advises that, due to the corona virus pandemic, it is only undertaking “critical repair requests”. It defines these as “emergency or very urgent work that should be completed ‘in days’ and cannot be safely left for any longer than that”. An example provided of such a repair is “your home has a security risk and there is no other way in or out”.

 

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy provides for a two-stage complaints process. At stage one the complaint is to be acknowledged within one working day, with no set timeframe for the complaint response. To escalate the complaint to final stage, the resident is to advise it of which aspect of the complaint remains unresolved. The policy states that the landlord “will consider all requests for escalation”.

 

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy confirms that complaints “where a legal claim is made against L&Q, including disrepair cases and insurance claims” are outside the scope of its complaints policy and procedures.

 

Summary of events

 

  1. The resident’s solicitor commenced a legal disrepair claim with the landlord on 16 September 2019.

 

  1. The landlord acknowledged this on 26 September 2019 when it agreed to the appointment of a single joint expert; however, it disagreed with the resident’s choice.

 

  1. A notice of hearing was served on the landlord on 4 November 2019 for a pre-action hearing to take place on 3 February 2020.

 

  1. It is evident that a settlement was reached and advised to the court, works were agreed with the resident on 27 November 2019, and the works were carried out in January 2020.

 

  1. On 10 March 2020 the resident’s solicitor emailed the landlord’s solicitor to advise that she wanted a post inspection of the works carried out under the disrepair claim as she was unhappy that the rear door of the property would not close, the stair and landing carpets were “ruined”, and there were marks on the living room walls. She added that the property was “smelly and dusty”.

 

  1. The landlord’s repairs logs show that on 10 March 2020 a repair job was raised to attend to the rear kitchen door as it was “not closing/locking”.

 

  1. A note recorded by the landlord on 18 March 2020 showed that there was no answer when its worker attempted to call the resident about the repair and on arriving at the property there was no answer. As no further contact was received from her, the repair was closed.

 

  1. The resident’s solicitor relayed to her on 18 March 2020 that a decorating allowance had been agreed with the landlord of £100 for the lounge and £150 for the hall and stairs, and “further cleaning of the carpets in the stairway and landing”. A cheque for the total of £250 was received on 23 March 2020.

 

  1. On 24 April 2020 the resident advised this Service of her dissatisfaction with the works, contending that the quality of the works was “not done to a sufficient standard”, the disrepair works had left the house “extremely dusty” and had led to rats entering the property. She reported that her furniture had been damaged and the cost of redecorating had put her into a “financial deficit”. The resident added that her back door would not close and required replacing, and confirmed that she had since been offered a further £200 on 20 April 2020 for carpet cleaning which she had refused. The landlord was copied into this email.

 

  1. The landlord advised the resident on 28 April 2020 that the subject matter of the complaint was being dealt with through the legal disrepair protocol thorough their respective solicitors and therefore could not be dealt with as a complaint. It referred her back to her solicitor to raise any concerns she had.

 

  1. The resident informed the landlord on 28 April 2020 that her solicitors were no longer acting on her behalf. It responded to this the next day, requesting that she ask her solicitors to formally confirm to it that they were no longer representing her.

 

  1. This Service intervened on 2 June 2020 to request that the landlord consider the complaint. We relayed to it that the resident had advised her solicitor had confirmed to its solicitor on 5 May 2020 that they no longer represented her.

 

  1. On 8 June 2020 the landlord emailed the resident to acknowledge the complaint. It confirmed that it was unable to investigate “the outcome or settlement reached” resulting from the legal disrepair claim she had made against it. The landlord confirmed that any aspect of her complaint stemming from the claim was outside the scope of its complaints process. It advised that a formal response would be provided to her in ten working days.

 

  1. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 18 June 2020 in which it reiterated that, in respect of the resident’s legal disrepair claim, “the repair works included and the settlement… had now been concluded and [was] therefore closed”. It focused its response on her reports of mice and the rear kitchen door not closing or locking.

 

  1. The landlord noted that a repair was raised on 10 March 2020 to address the kitchen door. It stated that it attempted to contact the resident to confirm the time for its attendance but “did not receive an answer” and explained that this was” usual practice for [its] ’out-of-hours’ repair workers to confirm attendance before attending site particularly when the visit is outside of normal working hours”. The landlord confirmed that the repair request was subsequently closed, and it had not since received any further contact about it. It advised the resident to contact it if repairs were still required.

 

  1. The landlord noted that the rodent infestation was reported to it on 13 March 2020 and the resident had since received three visits from its pest control contractor with a final visit to be arranged. It re-offered the settlement proposed from her legal disrepair claim and repeated that this could not be investigated again. The landlord confirmed that, as there was nothing further to add regarding the reported issues with mice and the rear kitchen door, the complaint had exhausted its complaints procedure and would now be closed.

 

  1. In a telephone call to this Service on 1 September 2020, the resident confirmed that the rodent infestation had been resolved and her outstanding complaints related to damage caused to the carpet and to the decoration of the walls as a result of the legal disrepair works, and that she believed the rear kitchen door required replacement.

 

Assessment and Findings

 

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of her rear kitchen door not locking or closing

 

  1. The landlord’s repair responsibilities policy confirms its obligation to repair the resident’s rear kitchen door. It was therefore appropriate for it to raise a repair job for this on 10 March 2020 when it became aware of the issue.

 

  1. As an insecure external door, although not the only entrance or exit to the property, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to treat the repair to the rear kitchen door as an “emergency or very urgent” repair as this presented a “security risk”, as outlined above at point 3. The timeframe for such a “critical repair request” is only specified as “in days”.

 

  1. Therefore, the eight days taken by the landlord to attempt to attend the repair was in line its procedure; and as there was no evidence of any detriment to the resident, this was a reasonable response time in the circumstances.

 

  1. In the landlord’s stage one complaint response on 18 June 2020, it requested that the resident report the repair again if necessary. However, it was made aware of the defect with the rear kitchen door on 24 April 2020 when it was copied into her email to this Service and there was no evidence of it raising a repair or contacting her about this. While this was not a direct repair request, the landlord did not act on the report of the outstanding repair, which constituted a failure on its part.

 

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

 

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy, above at point 5, confirms that complaints involving legal disrepair claims fell outside of its complaints procedure. Therefore, it was reasonable for it to only consider the new issues of the door repair and mice infestation in its response to the complaint. However, the complaint was not considered until intervention from this Service; it was therefore a failing on the landlord’s part in not acknowledging that new issues had arisen which could be raised a formal complaint.

 

  1. The landlord’s stage one complaint response on 18 June 2020 stated that “there was nothing further to add” and confirmed that the complaint was closed. This was not in line with its complaints policy, above at point 4, as it denied the resident the opportunity to escalate her complaint and was contrary to its policy which was to “consider all requests for escalation”. Therefore, there has been a failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

 

Determination

 

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of her rear kitchen door not locking or closing.

 

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

 

Reasons

 

The landlord initially took reasonable actions to attend to the resident’s report of her rear kitchen door not locking or closing, but failed to recognise from her subsequent correspondence that the repair remained outstanding.

 

The landlord did not provide the resident with an opportunity to escalate her complaint, which was not in accordance with its complaints policy.

 

Orders

 

The landlord is to pay £100 compensation to the resident for its failure to handle her complaint in accordance with its complaints policy and for its failure to acknowledge a repair for the rear kitchen door.

 

The landlord should contact this Service within 28 days to confirm it has complied with the above order.