London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202008929)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008929

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

10 June 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:
   1. The landlord’s decision not to install double glazed windows at the property.
   2. The associated complaints handing.

Background

2. The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord, at the property, from 29 July 1985.
3. On 19 November 2020, the resident complained to the landlord about its decision not to install double glazed windows at the property, with her concern including the level of heat-loss through the currently installed windows.
4. In its final response on 11 May 2021, the landlord did not uphold the complaint.  It explained that renewal services were not being carried out at that time, only emergency/critical repairs, and that planned works to the property were not due until 2032, 11 years later.
5. The landlord made an offer for a surveyor to attend and carry out an inspection and arrange for any critical repairs to be completed and asked the resident to let it know if she would like this to take place. The landlord also offered the resident a total of £100 compensation, comprised of £75 in recognition of the delay at stage two of the complaints process and £25 to acknowledge the resident’s time and trouble in pursuing the complaint, it noting that the resident had chased it for an update in respect of the complaint.
6. The resident remains dissatisfied that the landlord has not replaced the windows with double glazing and is also dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered.

Assessment and findings

Scope

7. The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in its opinion, “were brought to its attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaints procedure” in accordance with paragraph 39(d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.  Whilst the Ombudsman has discretion to consider matters that were delayed in being brought where it is pragmatic to do so, in this case the resident has been bringing the same issue to the landlord for around 10 years, with 8 of these being prior to bringing it to this Service.
8. With the passage of time, evidence is often unavailable, documentation has been destroyed and personnel involved have left, which makes it difficult, if not impossible, for a thorough investigation to be carried out.  Moreover, organisations will have changed, as will have done policies and procedures and historical actions taken or not taken by the landlord a number of years prior, may not be the actions it may take today.  Determining appropriateness and reasonableness in these circumstances is futile.
9. Furthermore, there is a reasonable expectation that a complainant brings their complaint to the Ombudsman within a reasonable period of time, as articulated in paragraph 39(d) of the Scheme, for reasons pertaining to those already described. The resident was clearly dissatisfied for a significant period of time about the landlord’s decision not to upgrade her windows to double glazing, yet did not take an opportunity to escalate this to the Ombudsman. Neither the issue or the landlord’s response was one that was evolving or complex, but instead, the same question was being asked and the same response being provided at intervals across time, yet at no time was this escalated to this Service.
10. Taking into account all of the circumstances described above, whilst this investigation is situated within the wider context of historical dissatisfaction, it focuses not on matters dating back to 2012 or 2013 but instead, will focus on the complaint responded to by the landlord in November 2020 (stage one response) and May 2021 (stage two, final response). Whilst the investigation report will reference events that predate the formal complaint submitted, any findings made will be limited to issues that can reasonably be attributed to the complaint under investigation.

Decision not to install double glazing at the property

11. The resident requested double glazing be installed at the property over a protracted period of time spanning many years, dating back to at least 2013, as described above.  Reasons for the resident’s request included draft and heat loss, as well as the associated cost of this and environmental factors. She also stated that other properties had had double glazing installed and she believed that the windows should therefore also be upgraded at her property. 
12. In response, the landlord informed the resident that planned works for the windows were not yet due for renewal, with an expected potential renewal time of 2032. Windows in flats have an expected lifespan of around 30 years, in accordance with the Government’s ‘Decent Home’ standards although renewal time is subject to change where unforeseen circumstances or inspections render this to be appropriate.
13. Consequently, anticipated renewal date should not be taken at face value.  When a report is made that windows are exceptionally drafty, as was part of the reasoning reported in this case, the appropriate response in this situation is to offer an inspection to ascertain whether repair or replacement is required, which was how the landlord responded to the resident’s historical reports, though it did not offer to carry out another inspection at the time of her complaint.
14. Specifically, the landlord’s notes of 2 April 2020 – which is the same date of contact from the resident asking for replacement double glazed windows – state that the windows do not need replacing with double glazing and that it could be sure of this because three inspections had been carried out to assess this, over the course of two years.  It therefore did not deem another inspection necessary.
15. The landlord is entitled to rely on the opinion of an expert contractor and the resident did not accept the landlord’s previous decision not to replace the windows with double glazing, although it is unclear why.  It is not known whether this was due to the quality of the inspections that were carried out, the specialism and subsequent appropriateness of the inspector or something else, such as the reasoning provided for its decisions previously. 
16. An added factor at the time the resident re-raised the issue in April 2020, was the national lockdown due to Covid-19, which meant that only emergency works were permitted to be carried out.  Indeed, the landlord appropriately communicated this to the resident quickly, responding on the same day and advising her that any planned works would be on hold due to the pandemic and letting her know how to report non-urgent repairs once normal service had resumed.
17. The landlord missed an opportunity at this point to convey the full reasoning behind its decision not to replace the windows with double glazing however – namely, that it had previously inspected a number of times because of the resident’s requests that this be done and that on each occasion, it had determined that they did not require replacing.  Had the landlord been more thorough in its reasoning at that time it may have prevented the same question being asked three months later in July. 
18. The landlord’s response left an opportunity open for continued questioning as to the window issue and had it been more robust, the situation may have concluded at this point, with the resident being sure of the position, or it could have been escalated into a complaint at this stage; a formal complaint at this point would have expedited the matter to a conclusion, rather than develop into repeated contact about the same issue.
19. The resident’s complaints form submission of 27 July 2020 was actually a question, namely, a request to have double glazing installed at the property and a timeframe for these works to take place, which again, the landlord appropriately responded to, although again, it missed an opportunity to explain its position in full and cited only the restrictions imposed due to the pandemic.  In July 2020, routine works were in fact legally able to go ahead, however and the landlord – notwithstanding the previous inspections it had referred to – did not take this chance to schedule an up-to-date inspection to ascertain whether there were any repairs required, or to explore the resident’s reasons for her request. The landlord conveyed in its correspondence to the resident the following month that it was not yet offering its full service, although it is unclear whether this was in respect of routine repairs or planned/upgrade works, which is what the resident was asking for.
20. Irrespective, the landlord was not obliged to agree to upgrade the windows to double glazing at the request of the resident, irrespective of how many times she had asked, how old the windows were or whether other properties had had double glazing installed.  The landlord was responsible for repair and it had previously carried out three inspections and found no repair issues.  It could have arranged a fourth, although did not initially do so because of the restrictions of the pandemic, which was reasonable. 
21. Whilst the landlord had previously been satisfied that no issues were present that required an upgrade of the windows to double glazing, it had perhaps not communicated this clearly or robustly and with the passage of time also, it would be good practice to carry out an updated inspection and assess the current situation, which is discussed below as part of the complaints resolution. This inspection should also consider the resident’s reports of heat loss at the property.
22. Notwithstanding this, double glazing the property would be considered an improvement, rather than a repair and the landlord is not obliged to carry out improvements at the property; only repairs, which are in accordance with the terms of the tenancy and in law. Upgrade works are due at a point of time in future and until that time the windows should be assessed and repaired as appropriate and that is what the landlord sought to do.

Complaints handling

23. When the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint in August 2020, it said would not do this due to it advising her in April 2020 that any planned works were on hold due to the pandemic however it’s reasoning here was flawed – it was flawed because it could have escalated the complaint irrespective of previous assertions around works being on hold, as this was not the nature of the complaint and this response could potentially be seen as obstructing the complaints process. However, it is also pertinent to note that the resident requested escalation three months after her previous contact with the landlord about the issue.  Whilst the landlord’s ‘Complaints Policy’ does not specify a timeframe within which a request for escalation should be made, this would ordinarily be with a matter of days, rather than weeks or months, from previous contact and dissatisfaction and there is a reasonable expectation that a complainant acts promptly in requesting escalation.
24. The new complaint made three months after that, on 18 November 2020, was responded to quickly – two days later and well within the 10-working day timeframe for responding, as set out in the landlord’s ‘Complaints Policy’.  The stage one complaint response was unsatisfactory in a number of ways however.  Procedurally, it incorrectly stated that the complaint was “upheld” when it was not and provided details of the Housing Ombudsman at the end, rather than advice on how to escalate the matter to stage two of the complaints process if the resident remained dissatisfied.  Not only did this not convey professionalism on its part, but the complaint response was inappropriate in these ways because it did not follow due process, as is the expectation of members of the Scheme. 
25. The complaints response also repeated its previous assertion of planned works being on hold, which was unhelpful.  It was unhelpful because this is what the resident had already heard and it did not indicate any investigation had been undertaken in respect of complaint; such as the landlord looking at the requests made, why she had made them and what its response had been and why, over time. Nor did it provide a way forward. In fact, the landlord referenced an entirely different matter, of the resident requesting that she install French doors herself, some considerable time ago, which was not the subject of the complaint or her dissatisfaction. Responding to a complaint provides an opportunity for a landlord to demonstrate it has heard and understood the concerns and it did not do this.
26. The approximate two-week delay that followed in escalating the complaint to stage two of the complaints procedure was not the fault of the landlord, who had appropriately asked the resident to provide reasons for her escalation request in accordance with its ‘Complaints Policy’, which she did on 9 December 2020. 
27. In the intervening period between escalation and final response at stage two of the complaints procedure, the resident chased the matter on several occasions, citing cold in the property, which was not responded to by the landlord by way of investigation, or even acknowledged, including during the phone call made to her on the 17 February 2021, which merely stated that its stage one response was correct.  Its offer to carry out an inspection as to the condition of the windows at this time was appropriate, however, the landlord’s records indicate that the resident refused this, demanded new windows instead and terminated the call.
28. The landlord did not manage expectations with regards to timeframe within which the resident could expect a formal response to her complaint, with its email to her on 26 February 2021 stating that a response would be with her in three days, when in actual fact it did not arrive until three months after this point.
29. Following confirmation of the escalation by the landlord on 14 December 2020, the stage two complaint response was not provided until 11 May 2021, five months later and following no less than six chasing emails from the resident throughout the months that followed, as well as an email from the Ombudsman on 13 February 2021, requesting that the landlord provide a response within 10 days, which it did not provide. The length of delay was inappropriate and unacceptable by any reasonable standard and with the landlord excessively breaching its own articulated timeframes in which to respond at stage two of its process.  The landlord sets out in its own ‘Complaints Policy’ that 20 working days is its target response time, with a further 10 working days being added where more time is needed, which it will convey to the complainant, although did not here.
30. In its complaint response, the landlord did not explain its reasons for the delay, although it appropriately recognised that it was excessively delayed and offered £75 in recognition of this, as well as £25 for the resident’s time and trouble.  Resolving a complaint is not only about apologising for something that has gone wrong or offering a compensation; often an explanation of what went wrong and why is equally, if not more, important and the landlord did not do this.  Records provided to this Service indicate staff absence at a latter point in the process, but there is no indication of why the substantial delay occurred prior to this time, despite the landlord having communicated to the resident that it was finalising a response. 
31. Turning to the level of compensation offered, the £75 is insufficient to reflect the extensive delay of around four months beyond target timeframes and the £25 compensation does not reflect the six occasions the resident chased the complaint over a five-month period and the time and trouble this took. The landlord’s ‘Compensation Policy’ states that it may offer compensation as a gesture of good will and also where there is recognition of service failure on its part, with ‘fixed rewards’ of £10 being set for not responding to a query within 10 working days and for failure to respond to a complaint within articulated timescales.
32. The landlord’s offer of compensation does not reflect this, nor does its compensation policy allow for different circumstances, for example, a complaint that is delayed by one month and a complaint which is delayed by four months, which is vastly different in impact.
33. The repeated offer of an inspection was appropriate although again, the landlord failed to recognise the problems with cold that the resident had repeatedly raised with it and any attempt to investigate the root cause of this.  Whilst the resident stated she wanted new windows, she was not in the position of an expert and able to assess the problem in the way a specialist contractor could.  The landlord took on face value that the issue was with the windows when in fact, this may not have been the case – there may have been other areas of the property rendering it drafty and cold.
34. A specialist inspection would identify the root cause or causes of the problem and it was appropriate that it offered an inspection by a surveyor, although following the complaint, the landlord changed this to a carpenter, which the resident was not satisfied with due to what was perceived as a lack of specialism. The landlord’s records evidence the resident requesting that the inspection appointment for 16 July 2021, 11 August 2021, 7 September 2021 and 30 September 2021 all be rebooked and that she cancelled the inspection appointment on 26 October 2021, which is indicative of her dissatisfaction with the complaint resolution of an inspection being changed from a surveyor to an operative. It would be a reasonable for her to cancel the works completely if she did not want them to go ahead, however, rather than to continually request they are rebooked over a three-month period.  In order to resolve issues such as this, it requires the cooperation of both parties and this will be paramount in moving forwards.
35. Given the landlord offered a surveyor’s appointment, there was a reasonable expectation by the resident, however, that a surveyor would attend. The history of this case and the requirement to inspect both the windows and the resident’s reports of the property being excessively cold also point to the need for a surveyor’s inspection.  The landlord’s amendment of the inspection to be attended by a carpenter thereafter did not honour this aspect of complaint resolution as it should have done.

Determination

36. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint about its decision not to install double glazed windows at the property.
37. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling.

Orders and Recommendations

Order

38. Within 28 days of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £250 compensation, to reflect the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident on account of the service failures identified with its complaints handling.
39. This amount to include any compensation already paid as part of the complaint process under investigation.
40. The landlord to evidence compliance with this order to this service within 28 days of this report.

Recommendation

41. The landlord to offer an inspection with a surveyor, as it agreed as part of its resolution to the complaint. Following the inspection, the landlord is to communicate to the resident, clearly, the findings from the inspection and reasons for any decision it makes as to repair, replacement or no further action, as appropriate.