London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202005112)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005112

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

23 Feburary 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
1. Broken lift and intercom at the property and the amount of compensation offered.
2. Handling of rent arrears.
3. Adding her husband as an occupant to the tenancy agreement.
4. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident was an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord at the property and was subject to the terms and conditions of the tenancy agreement. The landlord is a housing association.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy. The policy requires that the resident is kept updated throughout the complaints process. If the resident makes a complaint at the first stage, the landlord should respond within 10 working days. If the resident is dissatisfied with the response, the resident can request a review of the decision and it aims to provide a response within 20 working days.
Under the tenancy agreement the resident agrees to pay the landlord rent and all other charges for her home on the first day of every month in advance. When the tenancy ends the resident must pay the landlord any rent and other charges or costs owed. The landlord may begin proceedings for possession to end the tenancy if the rent and other charges payable shall remain unpaid, wholly or in part, for 14 days after becoming due, whether formally demanded or not.
Under the landlord’s repairs and responsibilities policy the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of all ‘common entrances, halls, stairways, lifts, passageways and other communal areas, including estate grounds’. The policy highlights that for all non-emergency repairs it will arrange a mutually convenient time to inspect and perform the required works.
Under the landlord’s compensation policy it has fixed awards for service failure, this includes £10 for a failure to respond to a query within 10 working days or a failure to respond to a formal complaint within the timescales in its complaints policy. The policy highlights that the landlord can award up to £320 for high impact inconvenience, distress and time/effort.
Under the landlord’s compensation policy it may offer goodwill gestures and compensation payments to acknowledge impact, inconvenience, distress, and time/effort. It also offers compensation for loss of communal amenities/services where repair takes longer than expected and cause the resident inconvenience and distress. Under the policy all payments will be made upon the completion of the repairs and before payments are made to residents, it will check the rent or service charge accounts to see whether there are existing arrears. It will partly or fully offset a compensation payment or award against any such debt owed to it by the resident (except reimbursements for out-of-pocket expenses) and any remaining amounts will be paid to the resident.
Under the landlord’s adding and removing occupants standard if there is insufficient evidence to assess an occupancy request, the landlord would contact the tenant in order to gain the required information. A face to face interview with the tenant and proposed occupant may also be necessary to verify the evidence.

Summary of events

The resident moved into the property in September 2017, the lift at the time was not operational for a period of 102 days between 8 September 2017 to 20 December 2017. The landlord provided £300 compensation per resident for the inconvenience caused by the lift being inoperable, this matter was dealt with under the landlord’s formal complaint process in September 2019.
Further lift outages were reported by the resident at the property between 1 June 2018 to 31 August 2020 when the resident vacated the property. The landlord explained that the block was managed by a Managing Agent who was responsible for the lift repair. It advised that it was not the freeholder of the building and only received delayed updates concerning the lift repair from the Managing Agent and it had therefore been difficult to keep residents informed.
On 24 December 2019, the resident asked for her husband to be added to the tenancy agreement. The landlord advised that the resident’s husband would need to go through reference checks and complete its mid-tenancy adjustment process. The landlord provided documents explaining the process.
On 14 April 2020, the resident asked again to have her husband added as an occupant at the property.
On 13 May 2020, the landlord advised that this was possible and advised her husband would need to pass a referencing stage.
On 13 and 15 July 2020, the resident reported that the intercom at the property was not working.
On 16 July 2020, the landlord contacted the resident and advised that her fixed term tenancy was coming to an end and that her account was in arrears of £4,232.49. It stated that she would not be able to renew her tenancy unless she was able to clear the amount so it was equivalent to less than 1 month rent and then it would be able to send out the renewal notification letter with the intent to renew.
On 31 August 2020, the resident vacated the property and left the keys in the letterbox. She advised that the flat had been professionally cleaned and asked for a refund of the £1500 deposit.
On 1 September 2020, the resident made a complaint through an authorised support person to the landlord in relation to a number of issues at the property which included:
1. The lift at the property – that the landlord failed to inform incoming residents that the lift at the property had not been working from 1 June 2018 to present. She advised that the landlord had since adopted a policy that ‘no compensation will be paid until the lift is fixed’ in relation to the most recent breakdown.
2. That the landlord had failed to repair the lift in line with its obligations under the tenancy agreement and made multiple promises of repair with no follow through. She advised that being on the top floor the resident had faced serious physical distress, lost/stolen packages and missed / delayed deliveries.
3. She stated that she complained to the landlord in relation to a broken intercom on 13 and 15 July 2020 and was responded to by the landlord with a threat of eviction for rent arrears despite the Covid-19 protection law. She claimed that this constituted harassment.
4. Between December 2019 and May 2020, she asked for her spouse to be named on the contract as an additional occupant. She said that the landlord refused and threatened a new credit check, new references, mid-term assessments to add her spouse’s name as an additional occupant against its policies and procedures.
5. The resident asked for the following compensation:
  1. £4050 compensation for the lift outage (£150 per month for 27 months of lift outage).
  2. To provide an unconditional apology and share with her action being taken against the staff responsible for her harassment.
  3. In relation to customer service and complaint handling the landlord was to provide her with a compensation amount of three months rent (one for each year of the tenancy) totalling £4137 (£1379 X 3) for the three year tenancy.
  4. To provide a one-time compensation payment of £4137 for the harassment and detriment caused, for dealing with the landlord despite intentional harassment and provocation by the landlord.
On 2 September 2020, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage one complaint and advised that it would provide a formal response within 10 working days.
On 16 September 2020, the landlord issued the resident with its stage one response and addressed the following points raised by the resident:
1. It advised that a formal apology was issued to the resident but stated that the lift was inoperable when the resident tenancy began which was evident at the initial property viewing.
2. It acknowledged that the broken intercom was reported on 16 July 2020 and that it was not repaired before the resident vacated the property.
3. It offered an apology for any failings in communications but advised that there was no evidence to uphold the resident’s allegations of poor conduct and inappropriate behaviour. It said that all actions taken in response to non-payment of rent were in-line with its policies and the tenancy terms.
4. It advised that no formal notice was provided to the resident in relation to her rent arrears. It stated that when writing to residents regarding debt, officers are expected to make clear the actions available as outlined in the tenancy terms. It confirmed evictions would not be possible during Covid restrictions and if required action would be taken when conditions allowed.
5. The response confirmed a mid-tenancy term adjustment was not refused and the tenancy renewal process was overdue. It confirmed that adding a new occupant required the resident to provide documentation used for referencing and no further response was received from the resident.
6. It advised that compensation for lift outage and intercom would be provided when the lift was operational in accordance with its repairs policy.
On 22 and 24 September 2021, the resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response and asked for the matter to be escalated. The resident also made further complaints that were not dealt with under this complaint.
On 23 January 2021, upon receiving a complaint from the resident this service contacted the landlord and asked it to provide the resident with an update in relation to her complaint.
On 11 February 2020, the landlord provided the resident with an update in relation to the matter and advised the following:
1. That the resident’s case was at stage one of the complaints procedure.
2. It acknowledged that there had been a mix up with the allocation of the residents compliant to its legal team with an unrelated matter. It offered a formal apology for its failure and subsequent delays.
3. It advised that it would compensate the resident for the 28 months that the lift was not operational between 21 December 2017 until 1 June 2018. It calculated the rate at £75 per month times 28 months, totalling £2,100.
4. It advised that the intercom system at the property was not operational for a period of three months before the repair was complete. It offered the resident £90 compensation for the resident’s loss.
On 11 February 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord in relation to the update provided and advised the following:
1. That the resident had exhausted more than 3 years of time and energy in dealing with matters stated in the original complaint and suffered financial stress, personal hardship and harassment.
2. She expressed her disappointment with the landlord’s stage one response and stated that the landlord failed to include further issues added on 22 and 24 September 2020.
3. She advised that due to the hardships experienced in relation to the broken lift she requested a monthly compensation amount of £150 for the 28 months totalling £4050.
4. She advised that the £90 compensation for the intercom disrepair was also not acceptable due to the double impact of having no lift and no intercom which made living in the flat ‘wholly unfit, unsafe and dangerous’.
5. The resident made amendments to the total compensation she was willing to accept which included:
  1. For the lift and intercom disrepair and the danger of moving houses in Covid-19 she was willing to accept £4000.
  2. For poor customer service and complaint handling one months rent £1379 (down from three months or £4137 in original complaint).
  3. To provide a one-time compensation payment of £5000 for the harassment and detriment caused, for dealing with the landlord despite intentional harassment and provocation by the landlord.
  4. That the landlord return the £1500 housing deposit minus any rental arrears owed.
On 5 March 2021, the landlord issued the resident with its stage two response and addressed the following:
1. It offered its full and unreserved apologies for the service and communication failures the resident experienced and acknowledged that there had been long delays in communication and that it had missed opportunities to resolve the matter. In view of the complaint handling failures it offered the resident £660 for stress, inconvenience and delays from the initial complaint in September 2020 to date.
2. It acknowledged that the property was advertised and rent charged accordingly for a dwelling served by a functional lift when this was not the case. It increased the compensation amount to £100.00 per month. The duration was approximately 27 months, however, because a payment of £300.00 had already been issued, a payment of £2,400.00 was offered.
3. It acknowledged the resident’s dissatisfaction with the payment offered for the intercom outage and increased the compensation amount to £100.00 per month for the three-month duration the entry system was inoperable for a total of £300 compensation.
4. It provided evidence that the resident had vacated the property with rent arrears of £5,611.53. It advised that it would use the £3,360 payment offered above and the deposit of £1,500.00 to reduce the rent arrears left when the resident vacated. It stated that the resident’s account would remain £751.53 in arrears however in order to bring this matter to a close it would clear the remaining rent arrears balance.
5. It accepted the service provided was poor and below the standard it expected its residents to receive. It advised it would invest in additional training and improve its complaint handling and general service delivery. It stated that it would use its complaints review group to ensure lessons were learned to prevent future poor service and improve the services provided to residents.
On 8 March 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s final response and the amount of compensation offered. The landlord responded and advised that the compensation offered was considered fair, proportionate and not open to further review. It advised that resident could refer the complaint to the Housing Ombudsman Service as the next step for further review. The resident made an application to this Service on 9 March 2021.

Assessment and findings

Broken lift and intercom at the property and the amount of compensation offered.

It is accepted by all parties that there had been ongoing issues with the functionality of the lift at the property. When the resident first moved into the property in 2017 the lift was not operational for a 102-day period for which the landlord subsequently paid the resident £300 compensation for its failure to repair the lift and for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This issue has already been resolved by the landlord’s internal complaints procedure however will assist in forming the basis for future compensation in conjunction with the landlord’s compensation policy.
The resident raised issues with the lift at the property on 1 June 2018 and the issue had not been resolved by the landlord when the resident vacated the property on 31 August 2020. The landlord accepted responsibility for the delay in repairs being performed at the property within a reasonable timescale as there was a significant two-year delay from when the issue was first reported which was not appropriate or in line with its repairs policy.
The landlord advised that the cause of the delay was that it was not the managing agent or owner of the freehold at the property and therefore not its responsibility to perform the repair. The landlord is able to pursue the repairs at the property through the appropriate individual or body however the landlord should have taken a resolution focused approach and chased repairs and sought updates from the Managing Agent. The delay in fixing the lift caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience including lost/stolen packages and missed deliveries. The resident also reported the issue on a number of separate occasions and the landlord failed to adequately keep the resident informed and updated about the repair’s timescales and any delays.
When taking all the information into account it is clear that the impact of not having use of the lift caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience and strained the relationship between resident and landlord. In the landlord’s final response it appropriately offered the resident a ‘full and unreserved apology’ and acknowledged that there had been long delays in communication and accepted the service provided was poor and below the standard it expected its residents to receive. It appropriately offered the resident £100 per month compensation for the period that the lift was inoperable and for the distress and inconvenience caused. The £2,400 financial compensation offered was fair and sufficient to compensate for the acknowledged failures in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and what would be expected based on similar cases. This amount can be deducted from the rent arrears in line with the landlord’s compensation policy.

The intercom.

The resident reported to the landlord that the intercom at the property was not working on 13 July 2020. The landlord had an obligation to repair the intercom system at the property within a reasonable time period. The landlord failed to complete the repair within a reasonable time frame with the repair not being complete until 3 months after it was reported by the resident. The impact of not having use of the intercom at the property in conjunction with a broken lift would have caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience. The landlord failed to provide the resident with an update in relation to the repair’s timescales or any delay with the repair works.
The landlord made an initial offer of compensation of £30 per month for the delay, distress and inconvenience to the resident however this was increased at stage two of its complaints process to £100 per month. The £300 financial compensation offered by the landlord was fair and appropriate considering the circumstances to compensate for the acknowledged failures in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and what would be expected base on similar cases. This amount can be deducted from the rent arrears in line with the landlord’s compensation policy.

Handling of rent arrears.

The resident raised that the landlord issued her with a ‘threatening letter’ in relation to rent arrears in July 2021 soon after she made a complaint about a broken intercom at the property. Under the tenancy agreement the resident is responsible for paying rent and other charges on the first day of every month in advance. The landlord is able to write to the resident and to outline the actions available if the resident is in rent arrears. The landlord highlighted in its stage two response that it was not seeking possession but the payment of the arrears.
There is no evidence that the rent arrears letter was issued as a form of retaliation or to harass the resident. The landlord provided evidence that the resident was in rent arrears at the time of issuing the letter to the resident and the letter came from a separate department. It also appropriately highlights that eviction proceedings could not take place due to covid legislation however action could be taken at a future date if the arrears were not paid. In the landlord’s final response it used its discretion and agreed to waive the remaining £751.53 rent arrears balance which was resolution focussed and appropriate to bring this issue to a close.

Adding her husband as an occupant to the lease agreement.

On 24 December 2019 the resident asked for her husband to be added to the tenancy agreement at the property. The landlord confirmed that adding a new tenant required a mid-tenancy term adjustment in line with its policies and procedures. Subsequently on 14 April 2020, the resident asked again to have her husband added as an occupant at the property. The landlord advised that was possible and stated her husband would need to pass its referencing stage.
Under the landlord’s adding and removing occupant’s standard the resident needs to complete the required paperwork (which may include credit check, new references, mid-term assessments) and may require a face-to-face interview to verify the evidence. From the evidence provided it appears that the resident failed to provide the appropriate documentation for her husband to be added as an occupant. Accordingly, the landlord was entitled under its adding and removing occupant’s standard to not add the resident’s husband as an additional occupant.

The landlord’s complaint handling

There were acknowledged failures by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s complaint. The resident made her stage one complaint on 1 September 2020 and the landlord provided a stage one response on 16 September 2020, this represents a small two working day delay but given the length and complexity of the complaint the delay was not significant.
The resident asked for a review of the decision on 22 September 2020 and the landlord failed to progress the complaint in line with its complaints policy. Upon receiving a complaint from the resident on 23 January 2021 this service contacted the landlord and asked it to provide the resident with an update in relation to her complaint. The landlord Issued its final stage two review on 5 March 2021, this represents a six-month delay from when the resident asked for the matter to be escalated.
The landlord appropriately accepted that the service it provided was poor and below the standard it expected. It advised it would invest in additional training and improve its complaint handling and general service delivery. It stated that it would use its complaints review group to ensure lessons were learned to prevent future poor service and improve the services provided to residents. The landlord offered the resident £660 for stress, inconvenience and delays from the initial complaint in September 2020. This amount was sufficient to adequately compensate for the delays at both stages of the complaints process and for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily with respect to its handling of:
1. Broken lift and intercom at the property and the amount of compensation offered.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of:
1. Handling of rent arrears.
2. Adding her husband as an occupant to the lease agreement.

Reasons

The landlord failed to take appropriate steps to perform repairs to the lift and intercom system inline with appropriate repairs timescales. The landlord however offered an apology in relation to the delay, distress and inconvenience experienced and £2700 compensation which was appropriate to remedy its failure.
The complaints handling by the landlord was not in line with its internal policies. The landlord failed to complete stage one and two of the complaint’s procedure within the correct time frame and failed to adequately communicate with the resident about the delay. The landlord however offered an amount of compensation which this Service has assessed as having adequately redressed its complaint handling failures.
The landlord was entitled to issue the resident with an informal notice in relation to rent arrears at the property. The resident had an obligation to pay rent at the property and there was no evidence provided that the letter was issued in retaliation to the resident’s complaints. The landlord agreed to waive the remaining £751.53 rent arrears balance which was above and beyond its compensation procedure to bring this issue to a close.
The landlord was entitled under its adding and removing occupant’s standard to not add the resident’s husband as an additional occupant as she failed to provide the appropriate documentation.

Recommendations

The landlord confirms to the resident and this Service that the agreed credits have been applied to the residents rent account so that the account is clear.