London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202001175)

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001175

London & Quadrant H T

4 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 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 concerns:

1. The landlord’s decision to replace a double–glazed bedroom window, that it had installed at the resident’s property, with a single–glazed window following planning permission issues with the local authority.
2. The landlord’s communication and complaint handling.

Background and Summary of events

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
3. The property is a flat, situated on the ground floor of a building with similar properties that is listed in a conservation area.
4. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the single–glazed window in her bedroom as it let in a draught and moisture.
5. The landlord installed a double–glazed, UPVC window to the resident’s property in 2018, without obtaining permission from the local authority.

Summary of events

6. The local authority served a formal notice of enforcement on 2 October 2019 to the resident and on 14 October 2019 to the landlord. The notice stated that the property was in a listed building and the above unauthorised modification was to be removed as the new window was impacting the architectural, historic and aesthetic aspects of the building. The local authority requested for the double-glazed window to be replaced with a single-glazed one matching the rest of the building. The notice took effect on 25 November 2019 and the works were to be carried out within three months from this date.
7. The resident’s solicitor issued a letter to the landlord on 21 October 2019 to advise that the resident will be submitting an appeal and to query if it intended to do the same. The resident’s solicitor also advised the landlord that it should not apply for an injunction while the appeal was under consideration. Additionally, the resident’s GP issued a letter to the landlord on 25 October 2019. The GP’s letter advised that the resident had tendinitis and joint pains which, together with her breathing and past anxiety and low mood, would be likely to be worsened by colder temperature and humidity. The GP recommended for the double-glazed window to be kept because the single–glazed window would negatively impact the resident’s physical and mental health.
8. On 28 April 2020, the planning inspectorate issued the resident with an appeal response. The planning inspectorate confirmed that the resident’s appeal was valid and that the “starting date” was on that day. The planning inspectorate also advised that should their view on the validity of the resident’s appeal change, they would contact her at a later date.
9. On 5 May 2020, the local authority issued the landlord with a planning enforcement appeal notice. The notice advised that all representations in relation to the resident’s above appeal should be submitted to the planning inspectorate by 9 June 2020 and confirmed the above breach committed by the landlord, the remedial action that should be taken, and the resident’s grounds for appeal. This was received by the landlord on 19 May 2020.
10. On 19 May 2020, this Service emailed the landlord, as a result of being contacted by the resident. The resident contacted us on that date as she had raised a complaint with the landlord regarding the installation by it of a double-glazed window without planning permission, which then led to the local authority requesting that this be removed. This Service requested for the landlord to issue the resident “with a written update within 21 days and no later than 9 June 2020” in relation to her above complaint.
11. On 20 May 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that it had received correspondence from this Service and that it had logged the above formal stage one complaint from her. The landlord advised that it would investigate this and provide her with a response within 10 working days.
12. On 3 June 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that it had reviewed her complaint; however, it was unable to move forward via its complaints procedure as the case was being handled by its legal department. The landlord closed the resident’s complaint and advised that it would contact the resident once its legal department had made a decision. Following this communication from the landlord, the resident contacted this Service for advice on the same day. We then contacted the landlord to query if this was its final complaint response and why the matter was not being dealt with as a complaint.
13. The landlord responded to this Service’s query on 4 June 2020. The landlord provided confirmation that the correspondence sent to the resident on 3 June 2020 constituted its final complaint response. The landlord advised that the case had been passed to its legal department, who were trying to reach an agreement with the local authority, as the resident did not want her window changed back to single–glazed and was not fully cooperating with the landlord.
14. On 6 July 2020, this Service responded to the landlord’s email from 4 June 2020 and requested for it to provide the resident with the following information:

a. the reason why it did not apply for the relevant planning permission before replacing the window

b. whether it had appealed to the local authority’s planning notice

c. if it had reached any agreements with the local authority

d. the status of the injunction application.

15. Additionally, this Service requested that the landlord provide the resident with a complaint response, addressing the queries above. In the event that the landlord would not handle this case as a complaint, we requested a reason why and evidence of legal proceedings. Furthermore, this Service also wrote to the resident to advise of the above.
16. The landlord then wrote to the resident on 15 July 2020 to address the following points:

a. The double-glazed window was fitted due to human error, as the operative who visited the property in 2018 erroneously confirmed obtaining planning consent.

b. On 21 March 2019, the landlord’s building surveyor met with a representative of the local authority who advised that the local authority “would have probably declined planning permission for the windows to be replaced in double glazing as the property is a listed building in a conservation area.”.

c. The landlord chose to not appeal the local authority’s decision to remove the double-glazed window and replace it with single glazing, as it advised that it was unlikely for the local authority to change their decision.

d. The landlord intended to take legal action against the resident if she continued to refuse access to the property to replace the double–glazed window with one that complied with the local authority’s requirements.

e. This was the landlord’s final complaint response and that escalating the complaint further would not change the outcome.

17. On 17 July 2020, the resident wrote the landlord to request for the manager of the operative who investigated her above complaint to contact her via telephone.
18. On 20 July 2020, the landlord responded to the resident and advised that it had reviewed her complaint and the response that she had received. The landlord determined that her complaint was handled as per its “standards and guidelines”; and that a further telephone call would not change the outcome of her complaint. The landlord apologised for not following the “correct process” and for not obtaining planning permission for the replacement window at the property. The landlord advised that action was taken to ensure that this mistake would not be made again by briefing its senior leaders and interviewing and training staff to ensure that the process for planning permission was sought going forward.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s repairs responsibilities policy

19. As per its repairs responsibilities policy, the landlord is responsible for maintaining “the structure and exterior of the unit and property, including walls, roofs, windows, external doors, drains, gutters, external pipes and boundaries”.
20. The landlord commits to only undertake routine repairs to defective items that it is responsible for during a tenancy in the following instances:

a. there is a health and safety hazard that presents a serious risk of harm

b. non repair would cause further damage to the unit or property

c. the element of the unit, property, fixture or fitting no longer fulfills its purpose and repair is required in order to restore it to a functioning condition.

The landlord’s decision to replace a double–glazed bedroom window

21. Based on the information brought to this Service, the landlord agreed to replace the resident’s single–glazed, bedroom window as a result of her reports of an outstanding window repair in 2018. As per the landlord’s repairs responsibilities policy above, it is responsible to either repair or replace external windows. The landlord acted reasonably and in line with its policy as it considered the resident’s reports and acted to remedy the defect.
22. As a result of the meeting between the landlord and the local authority on 21 March 2019, it was found that the landlord had installed the wrong type of window at the resident’s property. Furthermore, it was determined that the replacement was unauthorised because the building is in a conservation area and the local authority would have declined permission to install double–glazed windows because these do not match the building’s aesthetic. In this instance, the landlord proved responsible for a service failure, as it failed to carry out the necessary searches and obtain planning permission before carrying out a repair.
23. Moving forward, based on the information brought to this Service, the landlord did not take any action in respect of this matter until the local authority’s enforcement notice issued on 14 October 2019. Following the enforcement notice, the landlord was compliant with the local authority’s request to replace the double-glazed window with one that matched the building’s aesthetic.
24. Upon receipt of the enforcement notice, the resident advised the landlord of her intent to appeal this decision, through an official letter from a solicitor issued on 21 October 2019. Based on the information brought to this Service, the planning inspectorate responded to the resident’s appeal on 28 April 2020 and accepted this as valid; however, there is no evidence that they have issued a final decision on the matter. It is noted that, in spite of the above, the landlord has been acting unreasonably towards the resident as, in its correspondence issued on 15 July 2020, it advised the resident that it would take legal action against her, if she continued to deny access for the window to be replaced.
25. Taking into consideration the information brought to this Service, it has been found that the landlord:

a. Was responsible for a service failure with the procedures that it should have followed before carrying out a repair (obtaining planning permission for the double-glazed window or at least checking if this was required).

b. Failed to take action to remedy its mistake as soon as it was made aware of this.

c. Did not consider the resident’s appeal to the planning inspectorate as it forwarded her case to its legal department and threatened her with legal action if she continued to deny it access for the works to be carried out to install a replacement single-glazed window.

26. In the landlord’s letter to the resident, dated 20 July 2020, the landlord advised it had taken steps to ensure that it would not repeat this mistake in the future by briefing its senior leaders and interviewing and training staff, which was reasonable.

The landlord’s complaints procedure

27. The landlord has a two–stage complaints procedure:

a. At stage one, the landlord commits to provide a response within 10 working days. If a resolution is not reached in that timeframe, the landlord will explain the reasons behind this and make another contact within a further 10 working days.

b. At stage two, the landlord commits to review the initial complaint, contact the resident within two working days to discuss the complaint and then provide a written response within 20 working days or within the above further timescale if it cannot do so.

The landlord’s compensation policy

28. In its compensation policy, the landlord commits to consider offering compensation:

a. where it failed to follow its own policies and procedures

b. when an apology would not be sufficient

c. when a resident experienced “undue stress and upset” because of late or inadequate responses to their complaints.

29. Additionally, the landlord’s compensation policy states that “Compensation should not be made to cover up service failures. Where we have failed to provide a service or been negligent, we would seek to learn lessons from our mistakes and put things right for the future.”.

The landlord’s communication and complaint handling

30. Based on the information brought to this Service, the landlord failed to:

a. effectively communicate with the resident

b. handle the resident’s complaint.

31. As previously detailed in this report, the resident contacted this Service on 19 May 2020 to advise that she had made a formal complaint to the landlord; however, she had received no response from it. We contacted the landlord regarding this matter, which resulted in it logging the resident’s dissatisfaction as a formal stage one complaint. Taking this into account, it is evident that the landlord failed to comply with its complaints policy as it did not acknowledge or respond to the resident’s complaint until it was contacted by this Service.
32. Moving forward, the landlord adhered to its complaints policy as it provided the resident with a stage one complaint response on 3 June 2020, which was within the indicated 10 working days timeframe.
33. However, the landlord decided not to progress the complaint as the case was being handled by its legal department, which was a result of the resident denying access to the property for the installation of a replacement single-glazed window to be carried out. The landlord was unreasonable in doing this because the resident had appealed the local authority’s decision that the landlord must install the replacement window and the appeal to the planning inspectorate was under review at that time. Seeing that no final decision had been made (in relation to the resident’s appeal) the landlord should not have requested permission to enter the property to carry out the replacement and could have dealt with the complaint.
34. It is noted that the landlord did not make any further contact with the resident in regard to this matter until 15 July 2020. The communication sent to the resident on 15 July 2020 was again issued at the request of this Service, in an email dated 6 July 2020. In this communication, the landlord addressed the points raised by this Service and the resident; however, it failed to apologise or attempt to liaise with the resident whatsoever. Subsequently, the resident wrote to the landlord on 17 July 2020 and requested a call back from it. The landlord replied to this request in writing, on 20 July 2020, advising that it had reviewed her complaint and found this was handled “as per its standards and guidelines” and that a telephone call would not change her complaint’s outcome. Taking the above into account it is reasonable to determine that:

a. The landlord failed to effectively communicate with the resident as it mainly responded at the request of this Service and it also rejected the resident’s request for a manager call back.

b. The landlord failed to comply with its complaints policy as it did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint until it was contacted by this Service; and once it logged a stage one complaint, it refused to investigate this on the grounds that the case was with its legal department.

c. Although the landlord’s complaints policy did not cover cases where legal claims were made against it, in this case it appeared to have instructed its legal department prematurely by doing so prior to the outcome of the resident’s planning inspectorate appeal. There is also no evidence that legal proceedings had been issued in this case that would have justified dealing with the subject matter of her complaint as part of such proceedings instead of under its complaints procedure.

35. Additionally, the landlord has also failed to adhere to its compensation policy as there is no evidence that it considered making any offers for compensation for inadequately handling the resident’s original double-glazed window installation, her complaint or for any undue stress and upset caused to her by these service failures.

Determination (decision)

36. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of:

a. The landlord’s decision to replace a double-glazed window, that it had installed at the resident’s property, with a single–glazed window following planning permission issues with the local authority.

b. The landlord’s communication and complaint handling.

Reasons

37. The landlord failed to: obtain the required planning permission; take any action to acknowledge or redress its mistake before the enforcement notice was issued; communicate effectively with the resident; wait for a final decision to the resident’s appeal to be issued before trying to replace the window again; and adequately investigate the resident’s complaint.

Orders

38. The landlord to pay compensation of £250 to the resident as per below:

a. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her by the landlord’s failure to obtain planning permission or await the outcome of the planning appeal.

b. £100 for the time and trouble incurred by her caused by the landlord’s poor communication and complaint handling.

39. The compensation has been calculated by taking into account the landlord’s compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. This is to be paid in full to the resident within four weeks of this determination.
40. Additionally, the landlord is to act in accordance with the planning inspectorate’s decision in relation to the resident’s appeal in respect of the replacement of the unauthorised window at the property, once this is issued.

Recommendations

41. The landlord should ensure that its staff receive further training on identifying residents’ dissatisfaction in line with its complaints policy and recording this accordingly. This is to ensure that, in the future, complaints are acknowledged and handled effectively.
42. The landlord should ensure that its above staff training emphasises that they adhere to its complaints policy’s response times and that residents are updated on a regular basis.
43. The landlord should contact this Service within four weeks of this determination to confirm that it has complied with the above orders, whether a final decision to the resident’s appeal has been issued and how it will comply to this and if it will follow the above recommendation.
44. The Ombudsman accepts that, because of the present restrictions due to the corona virus pandemic, the timing of the above actions will depend on what is reasonable in the light of Government guidance regarding the health of the resident and of the landlord’s staff.