London & Quadrant Housing Trust (201915921)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201915921

London and Quadrant Housing Trust

23 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:

Response to the resident’s reports about repairs to internal doors;
Response to the resident’s reports about decoration vouchers;
Handling of the complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord at the property. The resident moved into the property on 16 August 2010 as part of a mutual exchange. The property is a four bedroom semi–detached house.

Relevant policies, contractual conditions and legislation

Your home and maintenance responsibilities as a tenant – this is a landlord document for residents which sets out repair responsibilities. It states that the resident is responsible for ‘Keeping internal doors in good condition’ and that the landlord will repair ‘Fires doors’ and ‘Broken internal door handles and tightening hinges’. The document also identifies a 24 hour response time for emergency repairs and that all non-emergency repairs will be arranged by a mutually convenient appointment.
Resident responsibilities also include ‘To prevent damage caused by neglect or misuse (you may be charged where this occurs)’. In terms of chargeable repairs it states the landlord will only carry out resident responsibility repairs ‘when there is a significant health and safety risk or non-repair would cause further damage to the property.’
Tenancy Conditions – this sets out the contractual terms between the landlord and resident. It includes that the landlord will keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the premises including:

‘Outside walls, outside doors, window sills, window catches, sash cords and window frames including necessary painting and decoration.’

‘Internal walls, floors and ceilings, doors and door frames, door hinges and skirting boards but not including painting and decoration.’

The resident’s obligations also include treating the inside of the premises in a tenant like manner and to make good any damage caused. It goes on to state that the landlord reserves the right to recover from the resident any expenditure incurred as a result of the resident’s neglect or default.

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 – This sets out statutory repair requirements for landlords. This requires that the landlord must keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling house and keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling house for the supply of water, gas, electricity, sanitation, space heating, and heating water.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) Housing Act 2004 – This is a system for assessment of health and safety hazards in the home. Landlords need to take this into account when considering their responsibilities. Under the hazard category ‘fire’ it identifies ‘preventative measures and the ideal’ which include:

‘Internal doors (including entrance doors to flats) should be made of appropriate materials and properly fitted, and, where appropriate fitted with self-closers.’

And ‘relevant matters affecting likelihood and harm outcome’ include:

‘Internal doors – insufficient doors or doors of inappropriate materials or ill-fitting doors.’

Complaints Policy – The landlord has a two stage complaints process. Stage one includes:

‘Contact the customer within one working day to: – personally, acknowledge the complaint – fully understand the issues and what outcome the customer seeks – identify any vulnerabilities or needs relevant to resolving the complaint – identify what actions may be needed to resolve it – agree with the customer the frequency and method of contact during the handling of their complaint.’

Where there are requests for escalation to stage two the person handling the complaint is required to review it with their manager and the manager is required to ‘fully understand the customer’s concerns and seek to undertake all appropriate actions to resolve the complaint.’ This may result in further actions or may lead to a decision that escalation is not warranted. Escalation to stage two is required if there have been substantive errors in the handling of the complaint or there are policy issues to be considered.

Summary of events

On 23 July 2019 the resident contacted the landlord to report issues with doors and door frames. The landlord’s maintenance log states ‘Whole Of Property – Door Frames Are Split/Doors Have Come Off. Please Inspect, Repair & Report As Necessary – CARPENTER’
A carpenter attended on 13 August 2020. No works were caried out though there is evidence the carpenter discussed the nature of the works with the resident. The landlord’s call log states that on 15 August 2020 ‘resident called in following app…she was not happy to be told she may have to pay for the repairs as these are heavy fire doors that are too heavy for the frames and the hinges were constantly coming away, the frames have clearly split from this’.
The resident contacted the landlord again on the 5 November 2019, and an appointment was scheduled for a carpenter to attend on 12 December 2019. Repairs were not completed on the day and it is not clear from the records why this was the case though they do show that on 19 December 2020 an appointment was rebooked to repair internal door frames and fit intermittent smoke strips to kitchen door. On 23 December a letter was sent to the resident confirming a new appointment for 5 February 2020.
During a call to the landlord on 15 January 2020 the resident mentioned that she was awaiting decoration vouchers. This related to mould treatment that had taken place previously at the property.
On 5 February 2020 a carpenter attended and rehung a fire door in the kitchen and fitted smoke seals to the door. The resident called the landlord on that day and raised concerns about the standard of works being carried out stating that damaged door frames were being glued rather than replaced. She was informed by the call operative that if she was not satisfied with the finished work she should take photos and raise a complaint on their website. The resident called again later on the same day and requested that someone attend to view the work that had been carried out. During the first call the resident again raised the issue of decorating vouchers and the call operative noted that they would make further enquiries about the issue.
On 2 March 2020 the resident made a complaint to the landlord online. The resident raised concerns that an inspection appointment to look at the doors and door frames issues, due that day, was cancelled by telephone 15 minutes before because of an emergency. She confirmed that an email providing a new appointment was received though no apology for the cancellation was offered in the email. The complaint specifically identified that two fire doors installed by the landlord were not done properly when first installed. The complaint also identified that after having ‘damp’ treated in several rooms £280 decoration vouchers were supposed to issued and that these had still not been received.
The resident was contacted on 16 March 2020 and informed that the specified staff member was not doing inspections at present due to the current situation (presumably the Covid19 pandemic) and that the appointment had been rearranged for 20 April 2020. The resident raised concerns about the length of time she was having to wait for the appointment.
On 17 March 2020 the landlord sent an email to the resident apologising for the delay in contacting her about the complaint. It stated that the matter would be looked into, that updates on bringing the inspection forward had been chased and the query on the decorating vouchers had also been chased. Later that day the landlord sent a further email to the resident stating that the decoration vouchers did not translate from the operative’s PDA to their system and that this would now be processed on 18 March 2020. It also confirmed that there would be a further communication when there is an update regarding the inspection.
On 18 March 2020 a stage one response letter was sent by the landlord. The response:

Mentioned that the landlord’s repair responsibility publication was enclosed.
Confirmed that in respect of standard internal doors that the landlord repairs broken door handles and tightens hinges only and that anything beyond this is the resident’s responsibility. That the resident is expected to keep internal doors in good repair.
Confirmed that the internal doors are not fire doors (apart from the kitchen door) and that it had therefore been explained to the resident that the landlord’s repair responsibilities did not extend to these doors.
Confirmed that on 5 February 2021 the kitchen door had a smoke seal fitted and was rehung.
Apologised for the inconvenience called by the missed inspection appointment on 5 March 2020 and explained the further delay due to the Covid19 pandemic. It confirmed a new date was agreed for the 20 April 2020.
Acknowledged that some inconsistent advice about repair responsibilities was provided by different teams though concluded there had been no failure in provision of service and that landlord obligations had been adhered to.

An undated landlord record shows that the resident was further contacted about the planned inspection and was informed that due to the current situation (presumably the Covid19 pandemic) the appointment was likely to change. It identified that the resident advised that she was self-isolating and would rather the appointment be changed. It was rebooked for 1 June 2020.
On 3 April 2020 the resident emailed the landlord stating that the decoration vouchers had still not been received. An internal landlord email dated 7 April 2020 identified that these had been forgotten and would be sent out that day.
On 8 April 2020 the resident responded to the stage one letter sending a number of emails including photographs. Issues raised:

Questioned whether a broken door frame should be her responsibility.
Identified that the work to rehang a kitchen fire door was not of an adequate standard including issues such as a gap around the door and it not shutting properly. The resident questioned how this would stop a fire.
Identified a kitchen fire door had not been rehung as the inadequate repairs to the frame meant it would not hold the door.
Pointed out that the decoration vouchers had still not been received.

On 28 April 2020 the landlord sent an email response to the resident stating that the images provided showed the door frames were cracked due to how the doors were opened and closed and that the damage formed part of the resident’s responsibility. It stated its own images showed a rehung fire door. In relation to the resident’s concerns about the standard of work on the rehung door it states the door will be surveyed as soon as social distancing is no longer required. It also confirmed that the decoration vouchers were sent on 27 March 2020.
On 28 April 2020 the resident sent an email reply stating that the door was designed to be opened and closed and the image attached showed the crack comes from the hinge. It stated that the images sent show one door was still missing and this door was prepared for a smoke strip though this was not fitted. It identifies that this is one of two fire doors. The email confirms that decoration vouchers had not been received.
On 5 May 2020 the resident called the landlord and stated that she had been waiting for decoration vouchers for months and had received £60 vouchers on that day when she was expecting £240.
On 13 May 2020 the landlord emailed a letter to the resident entitled ‘Stage 1 complaint – landlord final response’. The response:

Restated much of the content of previous stage 1 reply, reiterated that residents are expected to keep internal doors in good repair and added that ‘staff advised me that the doors and frames are in the condition they are due to use and the wear and tear they were subjected to.’
Concluded that in respect of the doors and door frames that the landlord had not failed in its service and had adhered to its obligations.
Confirmed the planned inspection though stating that the resident had been informed that ‘a new date would be agreed when normal service resumes’.
Confirmed that the award of £60 decoration vouchers was correct and was the maximum the landlord would provide.
Confirmed that the landlord’s complaint process had been completed stating ‘My manager was satisfied that I responded to you appropriately, further review will not add value and on this basis, escalation of the complaint or further review will have no influence on the outcome’.

On 1 June 2020 the resident contacted the landlord stating she had waited in all day for an inspection appointment having been called on Friday to confirm the inspection would go ahead. The call operative was unable to find any record of the appointment for an inspection.

Assessment and findings

Repairs to internal doors and door frames

There are contradictions between the landlord’s policy document ‘Your home and maintenance responsibilities as tenant’ and the tenancy conditions. The first document states it is the tenant’s responsibility to keep internal doors in good condition and does not specifically mention internal door frames. The tenancy conditions indicate that the landlord will keep in good repair internal doors and door frames. The tenancy conditions are the contract between the landlord and the resident so this document must be applied.
The landlord’s responses to the issues raised appear to be based on the policy document without taking into account the tenancy conditions and this resulted in some confused explanation of the issues. Elements of the responses suggest that internal doors (with the exception of fire doors) and doors frames generally are not the landlord’s responsibility to repair which according to the tenancy conditions is incorrect.
However, the responses do also confirm the landlord’s assessment that the door frames were cracked due to how the doors were opened and closed, the wear and tear they were subjected to, and confirm that the damage formed part of the resident’s repair responsibility. If the repairs required were the result of resident damage then both the policy document and tenancy conditions allow the landlord not to carry out repairs as these would be the resident’s responsibility. It is though reasonable to expect that if the resident challenges this assessment, as it appears in this case, that a qualified surveyor should inspect the property to confirm the assessment.
The landlord’s policy document states it will repair fire doors, and the landlord did rehang a fire door in the kitchen and fitted it with a smoke seal. However, the implication from the landlord’s responses is that the kitchen door had also become detached due to resident damage, in which case this could also be deemed the resident’s responsibility to repair. The landlord has not made clear if in this instance it applied its policy to carry out resident responsibility repairs where there is a significant health and safety risk or if it concluded the problem was not due to resident damage.
As the landlord accepted the responsibility for repairing the internal fire door it must then be expected to do this in a reasonable timescale. The issue with doors was reported on 23 July 2019 and the fire door was not rehung until 5 February 2020. Although there are not specific timescales for non-emergency repairs in the landlord’s procedures it is reasonable to expect that a fire door repair should be carried out in a shorter timescale.
The resident raised concerns about the quality of the work relating to the rehung fire door and concerns that this significantly compromised its effectiveness as a fire door. In response, the landlord agreed to have the works inspected and it also identified that the issues of doors/door frames generally could be discussed with the resident. A number of appointments were cancelled by the landlord, in part due to the impact of the Covid19 pandemic although in one instance no notice of cancellation appears to have been provided. A commitment to carry out the visit was confirmed in the landlord’s final response letter. The landlord informed the Housing Ombudsman on 4 February 2021 that due to the ‘government’s lockdowns’ it had still been unable to undertake the inspection. It is understandable that the Covid19 pandemic will have impacted on the landlord’s ability to deliver services, though as the inspection was to view the quality of repairs to a fire door it is reasonable to expect that the inspection should have been given a high priority. There is also no evidence showing that the landlord considered alternatives to a physical inspection, such as a video inspection/discussion with the assistance of the resident.
The resident identified that there were two fire doors in the kitchen area, the second of which had not been rehung and did not have a smoke seal fitted. The landlord did not respond on this issue and only referred to the door that had been rehung. It did not therefore provide an adequate response on this important matter. It is of concern that the landlord has failed to address fire safety issues specifically raised by the resident during the course of the complaints procedure. In addition, the landlord does not appear to have adequately considered the HHSRS in dealing with the matters raised.

Award of decoration vouchers

The records provided for this adjudication do not identify the date on which the resident was first informed she would receive decoration vouchers. The resident has identified that this was some time in December 2019 and this has not been challenged in the landlord’s responses. The resident alerted the landlord on 15 January 2020 that she was waiting for the vouchers and further chased the matter on a number of occasions, including as part of the formal complaint. At one point the landlord incorrectly informed the resident that they had been sent. The resident identified that they were received on 5 May 2021 although the last landlord internal communication suggested they were being sent on 7 April 2021. While there are no published landlord service standards on timescales for the issue of decoration vouchers it is reasonable to expect that these should be processed within 28 days of being confirmed.
The value of the decoration vouchers that should have been issued is disputed. The resident identified the amount was £280 while the landlord confirmed that the correct amount was £60. The evidence provided to us does not enable us to make a judgement on this issue. The landlord could though have provided written notification of the value to the resident at the time they were confirmed which would have helped prevent any dispute. It should be noted that the resident raised the matter, including the amount, on a number of occasions and there is no evidence that she was informed that her understanding was incorrect until the vouchers were received.

Handling of the complaint

Stage one of the landlord’s complaint policy identifies that contact and information gathering should happen within one day of the complaint being received. However, the evidence indicates that contact of this nature did not commence until 17 March 2021 even though the complaint was made on 2 March 2021.
The landlord’s formal response letters do not adequately cover all the issues raised by the resident. The first stage one response letter does not cover the issue of decoration vouchers. The final response letter does not address the issue of a potential second fire door in the kitchen area or the issue of the standard of repair works, although a planned inspection is mentioned. It does not provide the latest position on arranging an inspection which had by then been reset for 1 June 2020. On the matter of the decoration vouchers there is no explanation as to why the award is £60 nor an explanation of why there was such a delay in issuing the vouchers.
The landlord decided not to escalate the complaint to stage two of its complaint policy. The complaints procedure does allow staff to take this approach if certain criteria are met. In its final response the landlord stated ‘further review will not add value’. The failings in the way the landlord dealt with the issues, and the complaint, were apparently not identified at the end of stage one as this should have resulted either in further action or the matter being escalated to stage two.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about repairs to internal doors.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was a service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about decoration vouchers.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was a service failure in the way the landlord handled the complaint.

Reasons

The landlord delayed in repairing a fire door in the kitchen. It also failed to adequately respond to the resident’s concerns about the quality of work, repairing a second fire door and issues with the doors and door frames generally. It is also of significant concern that the landlord failed to respond to the potential fire safety issues raised by the resident.
The landlord delayed in processing an award of decoration vouchers and did not provide timely written confirmation of the amount that would be paid.
The landlord did not follow its policy on timescales for responding to the complaint and its formal response letters did not fully cover the issues raised. The landlord did not fully identify the issues arising at the end of stage one of its complaint policy and therefore failed to progress the case further.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £275, broken down as follows:

£200 for any distress/inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to service failures identified with its handling of the reports about the internal doors at the property;
£25 for any distress/inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to service failures identified with its handling of the reports about decoration vouchers;
£50 for any distress/inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the service failures identified with its complaints handling.

The landlord to confirm compliance with the above compensation order within four weeks.

The landlord to investigate the resident’s reports about the potential fire safety issues within the property, and to provide written confirmation of the results of this inspection to the resident (and this Service) within eight weeks of this investigation. This written report will include details of any identified works, with timescales for completion.

Recommendations

The landlord to review it repairs responsibility policy document to ensure it adequately reflects tenancy conditions.