London & Quadrant Housing Trust (201916023)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201916023

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

2 December 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to a leak at the resident’s property.
2. Handling of remedial works following the leak.
The Ombudsman has also investigated:
1. the landlord’s complaint handling.
2. the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord’s property. The property is a two-bedroom, ground floor flat.
On 4 November 2019, the resident reported a leak within his boiler room. It is not clear what action the landlord took in response. However, the resident says that on 6 November, there was also a leak within his living room. The resident says that he rang the landlord to report the leak and while an operative attended the property, no action was taken to remedy the leak.
On 9 November, the resident contacted the landlord again as he was becoming increasingly concerned about the leaks within the property. The landlord arranged for a plumber to attend on the same day so that the leak could be stopped, and repairs carried out accordingly. The plumber isolated the water supply and follow-on works were raised to repair the source of the leak.
On 11 November, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. Within his complaint correspondence, the resident explained that the situation with the leak had become progressively worse; but that following the plumber’s attendance on 9 November he and his family had been left without water.
On 10 December 2019. the resident wrote to the landlord to advise that the leak at the property had caused damage to the ceiling within the boiler room and the living room. The resident requested if repairs could be completed quickly as he was concerned that further damage could be caused. The resident sent a further letter on 10 January 2020 and 10 March 2020 as no response had been received.
On 18 March, the resident contacted this Service as he was dissatisfied with the lack of response from the landlord. Following our intervention, the landlord subsequently acknowledged the complaint on 27 March – advising that it would provide the resident with a formal response in 10 working days.
The landlord’s stage one response to the complaint was issued on 7 April. Within this, it said:
1. It wished to apologise that the resident needed to raise a formal complaint for his concerns to be responded to.
2. It understood a leak occurred in November 2019 from the resident’s water tank. Due to the urgency of the situation, it raised an emergency order for a plumber and a carpenter to attended on the same day. Its records show that the water was isolated in the loft and follow on works were required to renew the pipe joints.
3. Its records also show that the operatives tried to provide water; however, there was no answer at the door. It notified its contact centre and advised that if the resident called, he should be informed that he could purchase water and he would be reimbursed upon the provision of receipts.
4. It wished to apologise that the resident was left without water as a result of the repair; however, it was necessary to isolate the water to prevent further damage from occurring.
5. It understood that the repairs had been completed; however, the ceiling in the living room still needed to be repaired. Owing to the then current situation with the Covid-19 pandemic, it was only providing an emergency repairs service. “Emergency repairs” were considered to be those where Health and Safety had been compromised.
6. It planned to attend the resident’s home on 8 April to isolate the electrics and ensure that the living room ceiling was safe. Its operative would return the following day to reinstate the ceiling. However, plastering and decorating was deemed “non-essential”, and would be carried out once normal service had resumed.
7. It would make contact with the resident during the next week to ensure that the living room ceiling had been reinstated. If the resident did have any receipts to provide, he could forward them for further consideration.
On 17 April, the landlord emailed the resident in relation to the repairs. It advised that the maintenance team had tried to reach him via telephone; however, the line appeared to have been disconnected. It asked if the resident could provide photographs of the ceiling so that it could be assessment – or if he could confirm his availability so an inspection could be raised.
The resident wrote to the landlord on the same day to express his dissatisfaction with the stage one response. The resident said that the contents of the landlord’s letter were incorrect, and the boiler room ceiling had not been repaired. As such, both the living room ceiling and boiler room ceiling required repairs. In closing, the resident said that he did not accept the landlord’s apology as it was too late, and that the landlord should compensate him for the failure to carry out the repairs.
The landlord and the resident continued to exchange correspondence; and on 20 April, the resident confirmed that he wished for an operative to attend to inspect the damaged ceilings. It is not clear whether an inspection took place. However, on 27 April, the landlord informed the resident that there was “no immediate risk” in relation to the ceilings, and it would therefore arrange for the repairs to be completed once normal services had resumed.
The resident subsequently contacted this Service in June as he was unhappy with the landlord’s response. We informed the resident that given the situation with Covid-19, repairs had been postponed. However, as restrictions were being lifted, jobs were beginning to be booked in. We therefore asked the resident to wait to hear from the landlord, but that he should seek an update if he had not heard anything further by the middle of July.
On 2 August, the resident informed this Service that the repairs were still outstanding. He sought a further update from the landlord on 8 August. On 10 August, the landlord advised that “nothing had changed” since its last email in June. However, it added that once it was able to commence works within the property, it would be in touch to update the resident with its intended actions.
On 15 September, this Service asked the landlord to progress the resident’s complaint to the next stage of its complaints process given that the situation with regards to the repairs was not progressing.
On 22 September and 10 November, the landlord informed the resident that it was still only carrying out “critical repairs”. It confirmed, once again, that it would progress the resident’s repairs once normal service resumed.
In February 2021, the resident informed this Service that the repairs were still outstanding, and that he had not received any further complaint correspondence or compensation. We chased the matter and asked the landlord to issue a stage two complaint response. On 22 February, the landlord advised that it carried out an inspection at the property in January 2021, and no urgent works were identified. It said that it explained to the resident that the reboarding of the ceiling and decoration would take place once it was able to provide “normal services”. The landlord added that no communication had been received from the resident expressing dissatisfaction following the visit in January; however, it would escalate the complaint to stage two of its procedure nonetheless.
The landlord issued its stage two response to the complaint on 1 March 2021. Within this, it said:
1. The resident had complained about the leak in the boiler room and living room; water damage within both rooms; and the water supply being turned off. The resident subsequently raised dissatisfaction about the length of time that it was taking to complete the repairs within the two rooms, and that no compensation had been offered in respect of the inconvenience and distress that had been caused by the leak.
2. It understood that the leak occurred on 9 November, and while its plumber attended on the same day, repairs could not be completed. However, the water supply was isolated and the plumbed later attended to offer bottled water – but this offer was declined. As the bottled water had been refused, it was advised that the resident could purchase his own water and request reimbursement. However, it had not received any receipts.
3. The follow on works to repair the leak were completed on 14 November, and the water supply was reinstated. The complaint was then closed on 20 January 2020. It acknowledged that the resident had not been informed of the case closure, and wished to apologise.
4. Following contact from the Ombudsman in March 2020, it arranged to attend the property on to remove the living room ceiling as it contained asbestos. It had also arranged to return and reinstate the ceiling on 8 April, with plastering and decoration works following at a later date.
5. Its contractor contracted the resident on 7 April to confirm its attendance and to ask the resident to move any furniture out the way. However, the contractor reported back that the resident was unsure about having the works completed during the pandemic – and that he had nowhere to move his furniture to. The resident had also expressed a wish to be decanted while the asbestos removal works were being undertaken. As such, the works were put on hold.
6. A named member of staff contacted the resident with regards to the living room ceiling, as it wanted to ensure that it was safe for the asbestos removal works to be put on hold. When the resident replied on 17 April, it became clear that the boiler room ceiling also required repair. Following discussion, it was agreed that an inspection would take place to check the ceiling. The member of staff also advised that compensation would be considered once the repairs were completed.
7. Correspondence continued, and in September 2020, the landlord confirmed once again that only emergency repairs were taking place.
8. An inspection was scheduled for 6 January 2021, to try to move the repairs forward. However, the supervisor was unable to honour the inspection as he was self-isolating. The appointment was subsequently rescheduled for the end of the month.
9. After the inspection, the supervisor reported back that there was an eight-inch piece of artexed ceiling that was loose in the boiler room which needed to be addressed. However, the works were declined unless the whole ceiling was going to be completed. The landlord explained that as it was operative an emergency service, only the loose section of the ceiling was going to be boarded. It was also noted that a decant was not necessary to carry out the works.
10. It understood that the resident had requested escalation of the complaint as he was unhappy that the repairs were still outstanding and that the landlord had not compensated him.
11. After reviewing the complaint, it upheld the original decision. As a responsible landlord, it took the welfare of its residents and staffs seriously, and therefore had to take steps to ensure their safety. It wished to apologise for the delay; however, when normal service could resume would be dependent on advice and guidance from the Government.
12. There were delays between November 2019 and March 2020 during which the repairs could have been completed, but had not been raised. After this period, the delays were caused by the pandemic, so it could not compensate for this. It also wished to compensate the resident for the delay in raising the stage two complete. It noted that the Ombudsman had requested that the complaint be escalated in September 2020; however, this was not done.
13. It wished to offer the resident £225 compensation, broken down as follows:
  1. £20 x 4 months for the ceiling repairs that had not been raised – totalling £80.
  2. £20 x 5 months for failing to escalate the resident’s complaint – totalling £100.
  3. £20 for closing the resident’s complaint without notification.
  4. £25 for the lack of water supply for 5 days.
14. The compensation payment would be processed once the resident confirmed he was accept to accept the offer. The payment would be offset against the then current arrears on the rent account.
15. Any damage caused to the resident’s personal goods fell outside of the complaints process, as liability issues were subject to an insurance investigation. Details for its insurance team were provided accordingly.
16. If the resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response to his complaint, he could refer the complaint to the Ombudsman for further consideration.
The resident declined the landlord’s offer on 14 March. He said that the offer was not commensurable to the inconvenience that they had been caused at the time – adding that the repairs should have been completed before the first lockdown in March 2020. The resident said that he also wished to point out that they were without water for two weeks, and not five days.
In November 2021, the resident informed the landlord that the repairs within the property remained outstanding. He added that water within the property was still “a major issue”.

The landlord’s Repairs policy

The landlord’s repairs policy details that for routine repairs, it will aim to complete the repair at the earliest mutually convenient appointment. For emergency works, where there is an immediate danger to the occupant or members of the public, it will attend within 24 hours. For out of hours emergencies, the policy states that the landlord will attend within four hours. The out of hours service will be to make safe, and lower the risk. Any follow on repairs will then be completed at the earliest mutually convenient appointment.

The landlord’s Complaints policy

The landlord’s complaints policy explains the process that will be followed on receipt of a complaint. The procedure has two stages and the policy states that stage one responses will be issue within 10 working days of receipt of the complaint. If the landlord cannot respond within 10 days, it will notify the resident and right again within a further 10 working days. If the landlord is unable to resolve the complaint at stage one, residents can request the escalation of their complaint.
The landlord’s process at stage two is to have the complaint reviewed by someone not previously involved in the complaint. The policy states that it will get in touch with the resident within two working days so that they have the opportunity to explain their side of things. It will then write to the resident with the outcome of the complaint within 20 working days of the request to escalate. If the landlord is unable to respond within the timescale, it will write to the resident to explain why and write again within a further 10 working days.

The landlord’s Compensation policy

The landlord’s compensation policy states that where things go wrong, it will try to put them right as quickly as possible. Where an apology alone is not sufficient, it will consider an offer of compensation. The policy sets out the landlord’s approach when considering compensation payments, and contains information about fixed awards for a failure to respond to queries or complaints, and an appendix setting out a compensation payment schedule in the event of certain repairs or defects.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the leak

The evidence that has been provided to the Ombudsman demonstrates that the landlord has not fully appreciated the circumstances surrounding the leak which led to the resident’s complaint. In the stage two response, the landlord said that it understood the leak to have begun on 9 November. However, this is not in keeping with the resident’s testimony and the contemporaneous evidence.
The Ombudsman has been provided with a copy of the landlord’s repair records. These show that on 4 November, the resident reported a leak at the property. The notes read that the water was leaking through the ceiling and wall, and that the resident was unable to contain it. The landlord’s records do not contain any information about how it responded to this report. It would be reasonable to expect the landlord to record information about how it responded to the resident’s report, and to ensure that it kept an accurate audit trail in relation to repairs.
The resident has advised that he reported the leak again on 6 November, and that while a member of staff attended, nothing was done to resolve the problem. The Ombudsman has not been provided with any contemporaneous evidence relating to this attendance, and the landlord’s repair logs do not contain an entry for 6 November. As such, it is not possible for the Ombudsman to establish what happened on this day.
The next entry in the records was a further report from the resident on 9 November. The entry reads that there was an uncontrollable leak from the tank, and the resident was unable to turn the water off. The records do not detail what action the plumber took during his attendance; however, both the landlord and the resident have confirmed that the water supply was isolated that day. Therefore, based on the evidence that is available, the landlord was notified of the leak on 4 November; however, it did not take action until 9 November when the resident made a further report. This was inappropriate and a departure from the landlord’s policy as detailed above. Furthermore, the landlord should reasonably have identified and acknowledged this failing when investigating the resident’s complaint.
In response to the resident’s concerns that they were left without water, the landlord advised that the plumber had returned to provide bottled water – however, this was refused by the resident. In the circumstances, it was reasonable for the landlord to offer the resident bottled water. While the Ombudsman has not been provided with contemporaneous evidence relating to this, the landlord’s comments have not been refuted by the resident. The landlord said that as the resident had not accepted the bottled water, it would be prepared to refund the resident for water that he had purchased upon provision of the relevant receipts. This was a reasonable offer. It is noted that the resident did not provide the landlord with such evidence during the course of the complaint. If the resident did incur costs on purchasing water while the supply had been isolated, he should provide receipts to the landlord accordingly so that he may be reimbursed.
When the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint, it offered him £25 for a lack of water for five days. This offer was in line with the landlord’s compensation schedule which states that an offer of £5 per day should be made in the event of a loss of water. In response, the resident said that they had been without water for two weeks – and not five days.
It is not in dispute that the water supply was isolated on 9 November 2019. However, from the evidence that has been provided to the Ombudsman, it is not clear when the supply was reinstated. The repair records show that the job to repair the pipe was completed on 15 November, and it would be reasonable to expect that the water supply would be reinstated once the repair to the source of the leak was complete. As such, the evidence suggests that the water was available at the property again on the sixth day after it had been isolated. The landlord’s offer was therefore £5 short in the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of remedial works

After the repair to the source of the leak had been completed, the resident notified the landlord on three occasions between November and March 2020 that the remedial works remained outstanding. When the landlord responded to the complaint, it acknowledged that there was a four–month period during which the repairs could have been completed prior to the first lockdown in March 2020; however, it had failed to raise the job. The landlord apologised to the resident and offered him £80 for the inconvenience he had been caused. However, the landlord said that following this, the delays were owing to the outbreak of Covid-19, and that it was prevented from completing the repairs owing to Government restrictions. The landlord’s response and offer were not appropriate in the circumstances.
As detailed above, within its correspondence to the resident up until the stage two response in March 2021, the landlord continued to advise that it was only carrying out emergency repairs, in line with Government guidance – and as such, the making good within the property would have to wait. However, from the evidence provided to the Ombudsman, the landlord’s responses were not in keeping with Government guidance at the time. On 26 March 2020, the country entered its first lockdown. Under the restrictions no person was entitled to leave the place where they were living without reasonable excuse. The Government subsequently issued guidance for landlord, tenants and local authorities on 28 March. This stated that it was recommended that access to a property was only proposed for “serious and urgent issues”. On 18 May, the Government advised that routine repairs could be resumed. However, it was noted that no work should be carried out if a resident was self-isolating or shielding, unless it was to “remedy a direct risk”.
On 1 June 2020, the Government issued further guidance allowing landlords to undertake wider issues of repairs and safety inspections, provided that these were undertaken in line with public health advice. In October 2020, the Government introduced a tier system for local lockdowns, and on 5 November the second national lockdown came into force. This was lifted on 2 December, and on 21 December London subsequently entered into “tier 4”, which imposed some restrictions on contact. However, during this period, Government guidance provided that repairs could still be carried out if public health advice was followed.
Therefore, until 1 June 2020, Government restrictions prevented the landlord from carrying out non-emergency repairs. However, from June 2020 onwards, the landlord would have been able to complete the remedial works at the property without being in contravention of the regulations, so long as public health guidance was followed. It is therefore not clear why the landlord informed the resident in March 2021 that Government restrictions were still preventing it from carrying out the remedial works.
Based on the evidence that is available, the landlord’s handling of the repairs from June 2020 onwards was inappropriate. The landlord should reasonably compensate the resident for the poor communication, and the inconvenience he was caused as a result of the remedial works remaining outstanding.
In correspondence to this Service in November 2021, the resident advised that the repairs are yet to be completed. It is not clear why the landlord has not taken steps to arrange and carry out the necessary works approximately nine months after its stage two response, and two years after the source of the leak was repaired. That it has not done so is a significant failing in the circumstances. The landlord should now take steps to complete the repairs and to compensate the resident for the inconvenience that he and his family have suffered.

Complaint handling

When the landlord issued its stage two response to the complaint in March 2021, it acknowledged that this Service had asked it to escalate the resident’s complaint in September 2020, but that it had failed to do so. The landlord also explained that its review had found that the resident’s complaint was closed without notifying him in January 2020. It apologised for these failings and offered the resident a total of £120 in respect of both failings.
While it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the above failings, and to try to put things right, the landlord failed to identify or acknowledge the delay in issuing the stage one complaint response. The evidence shows that the resident first raised his complaint on 11 November 2019. However, the landlord did not issue its stage one response until 7 April 2020. This was a significant departure from the timescales detailed in its policy. While the landlord did apologise for closing the complaint in error in January 2020, there was still a period of two months prior to this within which it failed to acknowledge or respond to the complaint.
Furthermore, as detailed above, when the landlord investigated the complaint at stage two it failed to identify that its response to the leak itself was delayed and that the resident had to report the repair on more than one occasion. The landlord should reasonably have identified this when investigating the resident’s concerns. As such, while the landlord did offer some compensation for failings in its complaint handling, the Ombudsman’s investigation has identified further failings and it would be reasonable to offer the resident further compensation in the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was:
1. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of remedial works at the property.
3. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
4. Service failure in the landlord’s record keeping

Reasons

The evidence provided to the Ombudsman shows that the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s report of a leak at the property in line with its service standards. The landlord failed to identify this when investigating the resident’s complaint and missed an opportunity to put things right.
While the source of the leak was repaired, the resident has advised that the remedial works remain outstanding. When the landlord responded to the complaint, it acknowledged that there was a period during which it had failed to raise the repairs; however, following this, it was prevented from carrying out the works owing to Covid-19 restrictions. The landlord’s response is unclear given that restrictions on repairs were lifted in June 2020. Furthermore, the remedial works still remain outstanding nine months after the landlord issued its stage two response.
The landlord appropriately acknowledged some failings in its complaint handling when it issued its stage two response. However, the landlord did not acknowledge the extent of the complaint handling failures; and its investigation failed to identify a delay in responding to the initial report of a leak. The evidence provided to the Ombudsman shows that the landlord’s repair records are lacking in detail, and this investigation has been hindered given the absence of an accurate audit trail.

Orders

Within five weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. Reoffer the £225 compensation which was offered within the stage two response.
2. Apologise to the resident for the failings that have been identified by this investigation.
3. Pay the resident a total of £605 comprised of:
  1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by failing to make good the leak within 24 hours of the resident’s report.
  2. A further £5 for the lack of water at the property between 9 and 15 November 2019.
  3. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in completing the remedial works.
  4. £100 for the complaint handling failures identified through this investigation.
Contact the resident and arrange for the repairs to be completed. The landlord should provide the resident and the Ombudsman with a schedule detailing the estimated completion dates for the repairs.

Recommendation

Within six weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should remind its staff of the importance of accurate record keeping – especially where repairs records are concerned.
Within four weeks of the date of this letter, the resident should provide the landlord with any receipts relating to water that was purchased while the supply at the property was isolated. The landlord should take steps to reimburse the resident once any such receipts have been received.
Within six weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should contact the resident to discuss his concerns about the water supply at the property. Within his correspondence to this Service, the resident has advised that water is a “major issue” at the property. The resident’s concerns are unclear; however, it is noted from the repair records that there have been further leaks at the property and issues with the boiler too. As such, the landlord should take steps to investigate this matter further.