London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202012533)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012533

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

19 November 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

This complaint is about the level of redress the landlord offered in respect of its acknowledged delays and failures whilst handling repairs and the resident’s subsequent complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant, and the tenancy began in May 2011. The property is a two-bedroom house.
The landlord has a repairs policy which details its response times. It shows the landlord will attend emergency repairs, which present an imminent danger to either residents or the public, within 24 hours. For all non-emergency repairs, it will arrange a mutually convenient appointment.
The landlord has a two stage complaints procedure. It confirms that, at stage two of its process, contact will be made with a complainant within two working days of a complaint being escalated. This is to allow the complainant to set out any outstanding issues from stage one.
The landlord has a separate compensation policy. It says it will not pay compensation for loss of earnings due to service failure. However, it may offer a goodwill payment in recognition of the time and trouble the customer may have taken to get the issue resolved. It shows compensation will not be paid where the landlord was denied access to complete repairs.

Summary of events

On 21 August 2019 the landlord identified the resident’s bathroom was in poor condition. Its internal notes confirm it needed a new bath and replacement vinyl flooring along with tiling and sealing works. The landlord arranged to revisit the property in October 2019 with a view to completing the required repairs.
The notes show it attended the property on 14 October 2019, but the resident declined the works. They said she was unaware a further appointment had been scheduled for the following day to replace the flooring, and she didn’t want to be left without it.
They confirm the resident chased the outstanding repairs on 30 December 2019, but she declined works again on 3 January 2020. Its stage two response to the resident shows the landlord later accepted the tiling had not been scheduled at this stage and other repairs may also have been beneficial.
In December 2019, following an earlier inspection by the landlord’s surveyor, recommended bathroom tiling and resealing works were completed. Around the same time a repair order was raised to replace the kitchen light and install an extractor fan in the bathroom. These works were not completed before Covid-19 restrictions began in March 2020 and were delayed further as a result. The notes show the order was eventually cancelled as the landlord was unable to gain access in October, November and December 2020.
On 3 September 2020 the resident reported water was leaking from her bathroom through her kitchen ceiling. The landlord attended the same day and isolated the kitchen light to make it safe. It identified missing grout on several bathroom tiles as the cause of the leak and power could not be restored until they were repaired. At the time, the resident attributed the problem to the condition of the vinyl flooring.
On 1 November 2020 the resident raised a formal complaint. She said repairs to her kitchen and bathroom were incomplete and the landlord had been aware of the situation since December 2019. Her kitchen light had been disabled since 3 September 2020 and she was using a plug-in lamp. She was unhappy the repairs had been categorised as non-urgent and wanted the problem resolved quicky due to safety concerns for her family.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 3 November 2020 and issued a stage one complaint response on 5 November 2020. It said:
1. A tiler would attend on 1 December 2020 to grout her bathroom tiles which were causing the leak.
2. An appointment had been made for an electrician to attend on 14 December 2020 to repair the kitchen lighting.
3. Repairs to the bathroom floor would be discussed with a senior colleague to establish a way forward.
The landlord attended the property on 1 December 2020 to address the missing grout. Its repair notes show the works were not completed as scheduled because more time was needed to complete the works.
On 8 December 2020 a survey found asbestos in decorative coatings in the kitchen and bathroom. This required removal before other repairs could be undertaken.
On 11 December 2020 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to the second stage of its complaints process.
On 16 December 2020 the resident’s family was moved to temporary accommodation in a hotel. The landlord’s correspondence, from
12 January 2021, shows this was because the property lacked toilet facilities due to the extensive repair works. It is noted there is disagreement as to whether the family returned on 21 or 22 of December 2020. Both parties agree that the hotel stay was initially arranged for two nights but had to be extended because works were incomplete.
The resident chased a response to her escalation request on 12 January 2021.The landlord’s internal notes show it called the resident the same day and the issue of compensation was discussed. The notes did not include details of the discussion. Afterwards, the landlord issued a written acknowledgement that the complaint had been escalated.
On 25 January 2021 the landlord issued its stage two complaint response. It addressed the management of and delays to repairs along with its customer service and the resident’s request for compensation. The main points were:
1. The landlord had delayed scheduling repairs to the kitchen light and extractor fan, recommended in December 2019, before lockdown restrictions began in March 2020.
2. Insufficient time was allocated on 1 December 2020 for the scheduled grouting works to be completed and this was unacceptable.
3. The resident’s stay in temporary accommodation had been extended because works were incomplete.
4. Because the resident had highlighted issues with the quality of repairs, the landlord had carried out additional inspections and arranged further works. It would ensure repairs were completed to the resident’s satisfaction.
5. Repairs should have managed more effectively and completed sooner, as a result the level of service had been unacceptable.
6. Staff training had been provided based on the resident’s experience.
7. The landlord’s compensation process aimed to put things right by restoring the resident to her original position. Its review of compensation had considered whether the resident had experienced any adversity because of its actions.
8. £460 compensation had been awarded to recognise that repairs were delayed, its stage two complaint acknowledgement was delayed, a bath had been left in the resident’s garden and the resident had spent time and effort while pursuing her concerns.
Following additional contact from the resident, on 27 January 2021 the landlord advised her it was unable to consider compensation for loss of earnings or annual leave. Further, the level of compensation offered was not open to an additional review and would not be increased. The resident was advised to contact this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
The resident later told the Ombudsman she is seeking additional compensation to address the distress and inconvenience the situation caused. Further, she had taken time off work to facilitate repairs and her rent should be reimbursed for the time spent in temporary accommodation.

Assessment and findings

In relation to the failures identified the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the complainant’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
Based on the resident’s formal complaint and the landlord’s stage two response, both parties agree that delays occurred from around January 2020. Further, the landlord has accepted responsibility for delays from this point due to issues with scheduling the required repairs. Whilst it is noted that the landlord’s repairs policy doesn’t specify a timescale for completing non urgent repairs, it is reasonable to conclude they could have been completed in the three-month period prior to Covid-19 restrictions being imposed in March 2020. As a result, this assessment identified an unreasonable delay of around two months at the beginning of the timeline.
The timeline confirms the leak was reported on 3 September 2020 and the repair notes indicate missing grout was identified at around the same time. However, a repair was not attempted until 1 December 2020 and could not take place due to an acknowledged issue with the landlord’s scheduling. This assessment therefore identified that a further unreasonable delay of around two months had occurred at this point. It its recognised an additional delay of around a week, between 8 and 16 December 2020, was unavoidable due to the identification and subsequent removal of asbestos in the property.
Although the timeline shows repairs of sufficient quality to allow the resident to return home were completed around 22 December 2020, its stage two response confirms the landlord was still addressing quality issues when its stage two complaint response was issued on 25 January 2021. Since it is reasonable to conclude these issues could have been avoided, the above represents a further delay of around one month.
The landlord has accepted there was also a delay in escalating the resident’s complaint, and a comparison of its complaints policy with the above timeline confirms this was around four weeks. It has also recognised a delay of around four days due to the resident’s stay in temporary accommodation being extended. Given the above this assessment has identified unreasonable delays occurred of around six months in total.
The landlord has not broken down its offer of compensation into segments, so we cannot be sure of its exact calculation. However, the wording of its stage two response shows it has considered any adversity the resident experienced which is attributable to its actions. In this case, the offer of compensation is based on adversity resulting from its delays and failures whilst handling repairs along with the resident’s complaint. This includes any distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident. Confirmation can be further inferred because the landlord specifically referenced the impact of leaving a bath in the garden, as well as the time and effort (inconvenience) she endured whilst the situation was ongoing.
When considering this Service’s internal remedies guidance, in conjunction with the amount of compensation offered, it is noted that the landlord’s award of £460 is in line with our expectations for instances where a “failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs…” has taken place. On that basis, the landlord’s offer was appropriate given the circumstances of the case, and no information has been seen to show it has overlooked any associated impacts experienced by the resident.
The landlord’s compensation policy confirms the resident’s claim for lost earnings cannot be considered, so she should consider a legal remedy if she wants to pursue this matter. Further, because it was responsible for meeting the cost of her temporary accommodation, the landlord cannot reasonably be expected to reimburse the resident’s rent for the time the family spent in a hotel.
The landlord has demonstrated it strives to learn from outcomes by providing additional staff training on the back of the resident’s experience.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress in respect of its acknowledged delays and failures whilst handling repairs and the resident’s subsequent complaint.

Reasons

The landlord’s offer of compensation is in line with our expectations for instances where a “failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs…” has taken place.
The wording of the landlord’s stage two response confirms it has appropriately considered any adversity experienced by the resident. This includes distress and inconvenience which has been reflected in its offer of compensation. The offer therefore represents reasonable redress in respect of both the delayed repairs and the delay in escalating the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord takes the following action:
1. To consider breaking down its compensation offers to ensure its calculations are clear and can be easily understood by complainants.

To confirm its intentions regarding this recommendation to this service within four weeks of the date of this report.