Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202004850)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004850

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

31 March 2022


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 handling of:
    1. the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB)
    2. the resident’s concerns about repairs to various areas of his property.
    3. the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. His reports of ASB concern his next–door neighbour who is understood to also be a tenant of the landlord.
  2. In May 2020 the resident reported ASB and noise nuisance (banging doors, and the neighbour looking over the fence) to the landlord. The landlord advised him to download its noise recording app or contact the local authority. The resident wrote to the landlord in July 2020 to report similar concerns. No evidence has been provided for this investigation to show the landlord’s response to this.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord in October 2020 about its lack of response to his concerns of ASB. He also reported the neighbour’s ivy plant was growing over the fence between his and the neighbour’s properties, and there were repair issues with his patio, pathway, a fence, and extractor fan. In the landlord’s final complaint response issued in May 2021, it said it would attend to inspect the reported repairs. It also said it would not take further action in respect of the ASB. It offered a £50 goodwill gesture for its delay acknowledging the resident’s stage two complaint.
  4. In the resident’s correspondence with this Service, he explained that he was dissatisfied the landlord had not listened to his recorded evidence of ASB. He He was also dissatisfied with its offer of compensation.

Assessment and findings

Handling of ASB reports

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy sets out that it will review all reported incidents of ASB. The policy says the landlord does not consider day to day noise as ASB. It will not take any further action when it has not identified ASB and will advise residents why it is not investigating further. It will work alongside local authorities to tackle ASB.
  2. The Ombudsman remedies guidance (available on our website) suggests awards between £50 and £250 for cases where there has been service failure by the landlord which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome of the complaint. Examples include failure to meet service standards for actions and responses (such as delays in responding to a complaint) but where the failure had no significant impact on the outcome of the complaint.
  3. In May 2020 the resident reported concerns with his neighbour. The landlord advised the resident to contact the local authority for issues relating to noise nuisance, or download its noise recording app. It said banging doors were not ASB, but general day to day living noises. The landlord offered reasonable and appropriate advice which was in line with its ASB policy. The evidence shows the resident agreed to close the ASB case towards the end of May. The local authority advised the resident in July 2020 that it would not take any action in response to what was recorded in his diary sheets.
  4. The resident then raised a formal complaint concerning the landlord’s handling of his ASB reports. In the landlord’s first complaint response, it outlined its investigations into the resident’s reports from May 2020 (in terms of speaking to the neighbour). Then, in its second stage one response it said the neighbour was not its tenant, and that it would not take any action against them. The landlord has provided evidence for this investigation to show the neighbour was its tenant. As such, its reasoning for not investigating further was unreasonable, and inaccurate. The resident highlighted this error to the landlord in his stage two complaint. However, the landlord failed to address his concerns, and missed an opportunity to apologise for its error and take steps to correct it.
  5. The landlord based its final decision not to take any action regarding the ASB reports on its handling of historical reports (from 2015 and May 2020), and because the local authority decided not to take further action in July 2020. Although the evidence shows the landlord did acknowledge and address the resident’s concerns in May 2020, it was unreasonable not to consider investigating further in May 2021 as it had no way of knowing that the ASB had not worsened as it had not asked the resident to provide any evidence or sought any evidence itself regarding the current situation. Instead of dismissing his concerns, the landlord should have at least reiterated its advice to report noise nuisances to the local authority in order to demonstrate that it had taken his concerns seriously. Especially given the length of time the resident’s complaint had been open. The landlord should have sought to establish the current situation, and then base its decision not to take action on that.
  6. Throughout his complaint, the resident referred to a recorded piece of evidence which he said demonstrated the ASB. He asked the landlord to view it but the landlord did not mention or acknowledge the evidence in its complaint responses. Its internal correspondence show it had discussed that it would not be able to detect where the noise from the recording originated. However, no evidence has been provided for this investigation to show it communicating this to the resident. Although the evidence the resident referred to may not have changed the landlord’s decision regarding his ASB case, the landlord’s failure to inform the resident that his evidence would not support his case was unreasonable, as the resident was left to believe the landlord had dismissed his concerns.
  7. Ultimately, no evidence has been provided for this investigation to show the landlord taking any reasonable steps to address the resident’s reports of ASB after May 2020. Its lack of action was unreasonable. The landlord should pay the resident £100 compensation for any distress and inconvenience he experienced as a result of its errors. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, as set out above.

Handling of repairs

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that the landlord is responsible for repairs to cracked, or uneven paths, pavings and driveways, and boundary fences.
  2. The resident reported numerous concerns relating to the condition of his property (his pathway, patio area, fence panel, and extractor fan), and issues with his neighbour’s garden (ivy, and a metal ornament on the boundary fence). The landlord explained due to the COVID-19 pandemic all inspections, and non-critical repairs had been put on hold. It said it could now attend to inspect and provide a further update as restrictions had begun to ease. This was a reasonable response as it demonstrated that the landlord was willing to resolve the resident’s complaint but it had initially been unable to assess his concerns due to the temporary restrictions on visiting its properties.  Based on the reports provided by the resident, no evidence has been provided for this investigation to show that the landlord should have dealt with his concerns as emergencies. Therefore, it was reasonable for it to attend and inspect once restrictions began to ease.
  3. Although it is understandable that the delays inspecting would have been frustrating for the resident, given the circumstances, and the landlord’s limited service at the time, they were not unreasonable. The evidence shows the landlord subsequently raised work orders to remove the ivy and replace the fence panel. It remains unclear what action it decided to take for the other repair issues. It is therefore recommended that the landlord should address any outstanding repairs at the resident’s property.

Complaint Handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord. It explains that it will issue its stage one complaint response within ten working days, and its stage two within 20 working days.
  2. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it will offer discretionary goodwill gestures to acknowledge impact, distress, and inconvenience.
  3. The resident wrote to the landlord on 29 July 2020 and set out his dissatisfaction with how it had handled his reports of ASB. Although the resident did not specifically state that he wanted to raise a complaint, his email had the bearings of one, in line with the landlord’s definition, as he clearly set out his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of his ASB reports. If a landlord is not sure whether a resident is asking to raise a complaint, it should ask the resident to clarify this. However, the landlord failed to respond to or acknowledge the resident’s concerns.
  4. The landlord provided two stage one complaint responses. One on 8 November 2020, and the second on 16 December 2020. It is unclear why it did this as this is not in accordance with its complaints policy. In the landlord’s stage one complaint acknowledgement (dated 18 November 2020) it said it would provide its response by 1 December 2020. It issued its response on 16 December 2020. Although this was not a significant delay, it again failed to act in accordance with its policy. In its response it acknowledged the delay and said it would consider compensation. However, there is no evidence of the landlord mentioning any offer of compensation until its stage two response in May 2021.
  5. The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 17 December 2020 and set out certain discrepancies from the landlord’s complaint response. The resident and this Service contacted the landlord again in January and February 2021, asking for an update and response to his complaint. The resident submitted a new complaint in March 2021. The landlord acknowledged his stage two complaint on 21 April 2021 and issued its final response on 18 May 2021.
  6. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (available on our website) sets out that if a landlord refuses to escalate a resident’s complaint it should provide an explanation and make it clear that its previous response was its final one. No evidence has been provided for this investigation to show the landlord explaining to the resident why it would not escalate his complaint or communicating with him about the issues he had raised from December 2020 to April 2021. The resident had to chase the landlord and seek involvement from this Service in order to find a resolution to his complaint. This was unreasonable, and demonstrates poor complaint handling by the landlord as it delayed the resident being able to bring his complaint to this Service for an investigation.
  7. In the landlord’s final complaint response, it apologised for its delay acknowledging the resident’s stage two complaint and offered him £50 compensation. Although the landlord recognised its failing, its offer was disproportionate to the actual level of distress and inconvenience its multiple failings in terms of complaint handling would have undoubtedly caused the resident. It took four months to acknowledge his stage two complaint, failed to respond to the complaint from July 2020, and produced two stage one responses rather than progressing the complaint to stage two. The landlord also failed to set out any learning from the resident’s complaints despite its complaints policy saying that it will do this. In light of the above, the landlord should pay the resident a further £100 compensation which will bring the total offer in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, as set out above.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of various repairs.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £100 for the frustration caused as a result of the failings identified with its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
    2. Pay the resident £100 for the delays and inconvenience caused as a result of its failings in terms of complaint handling. This is in addition to the £50 already offered by the landlord through its complaints process. The total compensation for complaint handling failures is therefore £150.

27. These payments should be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this Service when the payments have been made.

Recommendations

28. It is recommended that the landlord completes any outstanding repairs to the resident’s property, including removal of the ivy from the fence within four weeks unless the repairs raised in this complaint have already been completed.