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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202008983)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008983

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

25 May 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 handling of repairs to the residents’ window.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The residents are leaseholders of the landlord.
  2. In early 2020 the residents reported water ingress from their living room window. The landlord inspected but postponed further work due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The residents chased for an update in August 2020.
  3. The residents raised a complaint in August 2020 due to the delay, and a lack of response from the landlord. The landlord did not formally respond to this complaint. The residents raised another complaint in November 2020. They said they were still experiencing water ingress despite contractors attending, and were concerned with the landlord’s communication. The landlord replaced the windows in March 2021. Unfortunately the water ingress continued.
  4. In the landlord’s final complaint response (dated September 2021), it explained its actions since January 2020, and offered £400 compensation for its delays in communication and poor complaint handling. It said it would consider further compensation once the repair was complete.
  5. In the residents’ complaint to this Service, they advised that they were dissatisfied with the landlord’s offer of compensation, and its overall handling of the repairs. They said the water ingress was ongoing. The landlord advised this Service in April 2022 that it was awaiting a surveyor’s report. It said it would offer the residents further compensation once the repair had been rectified.
  6. The resident has reported to the Ombudsman in May 2022 that the water ingress has continued, and the poor communication and missed appointments have also continued.

Assessment and findings

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out that it will issue its stage one complaint response within ten working days, and confirm its decision in writing. It will issue its stage two response within 20 working days. Its compensation policy explains that it may refund an insurance excess as a goodwill gesture if it has been negligent in handling the repair. If it does not accept a complaint, the landlord will provide a detailed explanation.
  2. The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance (found on our website) suggests awards of £250 to £750 are suitable when there has been considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant. Examples include failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs, or respond to complaints.
  3. The residents raised a formal complaint in August 2020. The landlord promptly acknowledged it, however, it failed to provide a formal written response, despite the residents chasing it. The landlord advised the residents in early November 2020 that it had closed their complaint. There is nothing in the landlord’s complaints policy to explain on what grounds it can close a complaint. It was unreasonable to close the complaint without first advising the residents, or explaining why because they were not given an opportunity to have their concerns dealt with formally.
  4. The evidence shows the residents chased the landlord on numerous occasions to respond to their complaint. This Service also made contact and asked it to respond. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 9 July 2021, 11 months after the initial complaint. The residents escalated their complaint on 11 July 2021, and the landlord issued its stage two response on 29 September 2021. These were significant, and unreasonable delays which prolonged the landlord’s complaints procedure and subsequently delayed the residents being able to bring their complaint to this Service for a formal investigation. More importantly they also delayed the investigation into the substantive issue, which proved to be required given the ongoing delays and water ingress.
  5. The landlord has acknowledged there were failures in its communication and complaint handling. It has offered £400 and promised to offer more when the repair is completed. It is not clear whether the acknowledged poor communication (and associated compensation) relates to just the complaint communication, or the communication about the repairs too.
  6. Regardless, the compensation offered is considered a reasonable offer of redress in response to the complaint handling and communication failures, based on the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Handling of the repair

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it aims to complete non emergency repairs (ones when there is not an immediate danger) at the earliest mutually convenient time. The compensation policy explains that it will not offer compensation until all issues have been resolved. The resident’s lease sets out that the landlord is responsible for the maintenance and repair the main structure of the building, including the foundations, and walls bounding window frames.
  2. The landlord’s records show it initially attended to inspect the window in February 2020. It is understood that it then recommended a surveyor attend and assess the surrounding brickwork. However, the landlord suspended further work due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and restrictions in place. The residents chased an update in July and throughout August 2020 when landlords were able to resume repairs, and a surveyor attended in September 2020.
  3. The initial delay from early 2020 until August 2020 was not entirely unreasonable given the unprecedented circumstances. This is because most landlords were only carrying out emergency repairs during this period. Also, the evidence shows that the landlord had advised the residents that there would be a delay due to the pandemic, and its limited service. It therefore managed their expectations. However, when the residents chased for an update in July and August 2020, the landlord does not appear to have provided details of its plan. This poor communication has been addressed in the section and compensation offer assessed above.
  4. It is understood that the surveyor recommended the renewal of the sealant around the window. This was carried out on 26 October 2020, but did not resolve the issue. The landlord did not reattend until January 2021. There is also no evidence to show it updating the residents on the status of the repair during this period. In January 2021 it resealed the window, but this also failed to stop the water ingress. It then replaced the window in March 2021. The replacement did not resolve the issue either. The landlord then raised a work order in May 2021 to inspect the windows, and find the source of the water entry.
  5. It is clear that the landlord did take steps to attempt to resolve the water ingress. It is reasonable for landlords to follow the advice of appropriately qualified contractors. This covers both recommended works, and any feedback saying that a repair is considered complete. It is also reasonable for landlords to attempt a repair before replacement where it has been advised this is possible.
  6. Nonetheless, it is also clear that the landlord’s actions were not prompt and that there were numerous delays. It was unreasonable for it not to keep the residents regularly updated on the status of their repair, especially given that they were chasing it. The landlord should have reassured the residents that it was being proactive, and explained each delay.
  7. In the landlord’s stage two complaint response it said it would refer the repair to another contractor. This was a reasonable response as it demonstrated that it was aware that its attempts were being unsuccessful. It also advised the residents that it would reimburse the costs for an electrician to come out, and for a mould treatment (the residents had raised reported damp and mould, and issues with their electrics). This was an appropriate response given the resident had stated these issues had emerged from the time taken to resolve the window leak issue.
  8. In the landlord’s stage two complaint response it also said that it would offer the residents compensation once it had completed the repair. This was unreasonable as the landlord was aware that it could not give a timeframe for when the work would be completed, and it knew the issue had already been ongoing for 21 months (and 11 months since it had restarted work on the window following the covid-19 lockdown). It should have offered compensation for the inconvenience and delay experienced up until September 2021 (the final response), and then offered more once the work was completed.
  9. Although the landlord has attempted on multiple occasions to stop the water ingress, given the length of time the repair has been ongoing, and given the level of inconvenience and frustration this has caused the residents, the landlord should have paid compensation to acknowledge the delayed repair (as well as the poor communication).

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation for its complaint handling which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of repairs to the residents’ window.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks:
    1. Pay the resident £250 for the inconvenience and delay experienced as a result of the failings identified in its handling of the repairs to the residents’ window.
    2. Contact the resident to get an up to date understanding of the repair issue from the resident.
    3. Agree a date for any repairs / replacement works recommended in the most recent surveyor’s repair to be completed.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pays the residents the £400 previously offered for its complaint handling, and poor communication as this was the basis of our finding of reasonable redress for its complaint handling.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord offer further compensation when the repair is completed, considering the time taken between the final response in this case (September 2021) and the completion date. If the landlord does not offer compensation, or the resident is unhappy with any offer, they will then be able to raised this through the landlord’s complaint procedure and, if needed, with the Ombudsman.