London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202014001)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014001

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

27 January 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 compensation offered for the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the balcony.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction: how the landlord handled repairs to the balcony between 2016 and September 2019 including the compensation it offered for the handling of the matter during this period.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord in August 2017 about the handling of the balcony repair. The landlord upheld the complaint and offered compensation in its final response to the resident, dated 13 September 2019.
  4. Under paragraph 39(d), the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which are brought to the Ombudsman’s attention more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaints procedure. This complaint was brought to the Ombudsman’s attention in February 2021, 16 months after the date of the final response.
  5. In accordance with the above mentioned paragraph of the scheme, this investigation does not include an assessment of how the landlord handled the repair or, its offer of compensation relative to this, that was considered in the complaint it provided its final response to in September 2019. The scope of this investigation will include the handling of the repair from September 2019 up to when the balcony repair was completed around March 2021 and the compensation the landlord offered relative to this period. 
  6. The events that took place from 2016 have however, been reviewed as part of this investigation as it provides contextual background to the complaint that is part of this investigation.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is leaseholder of the property, purchased in 2014. The property is one-bedroom flat on the second floor.
  2. The lease agreement obliges the landlord to maintain, repair, decorate and where it considers necessary, improve the main structure of the building and all external parts.
  3. The leaseholder, under the terms of the lease is obligated to “keep the interior of the Premises…and the interior faces (including the plaster and other internal covering or lining…) of the walls ceilings and floors of the Premises… clean and in good and substantial repair and condition”.
  4. The landlord has a compensation policy that explains that goodwill can be offered where there has been a service failure that has caused a customer inconvenience, distress or, time and effort to resolve matters. Its guidance has suggested figures of compensation, however, advises that there is no specific rule about what amount of compensation is appropriate, as this is dependent on the circumstances of a case.
  5. In 2016, the resident reported that water was pooling on their balcony. The landlord attended and carried a number of repairs to the balcony from 2016 until September 2019. In August 2017, the resident raised a formal complaint about the handling of the repairs. The landlord provided a final response to the complaint on 13 September 2019. It upheld the complaint and offered the resident compensation. At the time of its response, it agreed to complete a post inspection of the repairs it had recently completed to the balcony the same month.

Summary of events

  1. The repairs the landlord completed to the balcony in September 2019 were to relevel the balcony floor and renew the former wooden decking with tiles. On 28 October 2019, the resident reported that the tiles were not level and there was water coming through them when they were stepped on. They also said that water was pooling in areas of the balcony and guttering was hanging off the balcony.
  2. The landlord completed a post inspection on 26 November 2019. The resident contacted the landlord for an update on 16 December 2019, as they had not heard anything following the inspection.
  3. The landlord responded the same day and advised that it was awaiting the specification for the “Waterproofing Systems” for the balcony. It said that it expected the works to take two weeks to complete, depending on the system and scope of work but said that it would start works mid-January 2020 and complete this by February 2020. It agreed to update the resident when it had further information.
  4. On 6 January 2020 the resident emailed the landlord asking for confirmation of a start date. It responded the same day and said it would confirm shortly. On 9 January 2020, the resident contacted the landlord again as they heard nothing further. The landlord responded the same day and said that it was in the procurement phase trying to establish a contractor who could carry out the waterproofing work to the balcony. It apologised for the delay and said that once a contractor had been chosen to carry out the works, a start date could be confirmed.
  5. The resident emailed the landlord on 27 January 2020 and said that they had received no further updates about the works, despite being advised previously that the works would be completed by February 2020. The resident asked the landlord to confirm when the repairs would start. The landlord responded that it was awaiting feedback and would update the resident shortly. The resident chased the landlord again on 13 February 2020, as the works had not started, and they had not received the update the landlord had agreed to provide.
  6. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email on 17 February 2020 and agreed to provide update within a few days. It confirmed to the resident on 18 February 2020, that it initially intended to replace the coverings of their balcony and the balcony of the property below however, it expanded this to include all the balconies in the block. The landlord advised that it requested costs for the amended scope of works from 3-5 contractors and said that it aimed to commence works within four weeks. It asked the resident for permission to pass their contact details so that its contractors could arrange a date to attend and inspect to quote for the work.
  7. The resident contacted the landlord on 2 March 2020 and said that they had not been contacted by the contractors. Between March and May 2020, due to the national lockdown because of the coronavirus pandemic the landlord put the repairs on hold.
  8. On 7 May 2021, the landlord was in receipt of three quotations for the work and said that it would look to plan for the works. Around 25 May 2021, the resident queried the status of the repair and it responded on 1 June 2020, confirming that a contractor had been selected to do the works.
  9. The landlord made internal enquires about the progress of the repairs on 28 July 2020, and received confirmation on 30 July 2020, that the works were in progress.
  10. The resident emailed the landlord on 25 January 2021 and explained that they had emailed it on 15 and 19 January 2021, for an update on when the repairs to the balcony and the repairs to the internal damp in their property, caused by the water pooling on the balcony, would take place but they received no response. The resident expressed their frustration with the landlord’s communication in respect of the works and asked the landlord to confirm what works it had carried out and when it intended to complete the works. The landlord responded and apologised for the lack of response and said that the surveyor overseeing the works would contact the resident.
  11. On 4 February 2021, the resident contacted the landlord advising that the repairs to the balcony had been ongoing for five years and that they were previously offered compensation in 2019, as it was thought that the balcony repairs had been completed at that time. They explained that the repairs were only now nearing completion. The landlord understood from this that the resident was seeking additional compensation.
  12. It responded to the resident on 11 February 2021, acknowledged the previous complaint and offer of £2300 compensation made in 2019. It confirmed that there had been further delays in completing the repair since then and offered the resident £3000, inclusive of the offer it made in 2019. The landlord informed the resident that they could approach the Ombudsman if they were not happy with the response. The resident declined the offer and asked the landlord to provide a breakdown of how it calculated the offer.
  13. The landlord responded to the resident’s email, on 24 February 2021. It made a revised offer of £3150 compensation comprising of the following:
    1. “£50 x 21 months of the time taken to complete the repair”.
    2. “£50 x 21 months of inconvenience”.
    3. “£50 x 21 months of distress”.
  14. The resident responded and asked the landlord to clarify how it calculated that it took 21 months to complete the works. They said that they first reported damp in their property, that was the result of the water pooling on the balcony, more than 21 months ago. They asserted that the ongoing presence of the damp in their property, was due to the landlord’s “negligence” with the balcony repairs. On receipt of this, the landlord said that it would review the complaint again.
  15. It responded on 15 March 2021 and:
    1. Acknowledged that the resident initially raised a formal complaint in August 2017.
    1. Said that it considered the offer of £3150 compensation was fair, as it took the time, effort, inconvenience and distress the delays in completing the repairs caused.
    2. Confirmed that the repairs it carried out had addressed the issues raised.
    3. Advised that it would absorb the costs of the works, which would usually be charged to the leaseholders, in recognition of its service delivery.
    4. Said that it was aware that the resident had an open insurance claim for damages and personal injury as result of the repair, but it would not comment on this.
    5. Apologised for the delay in dealing with the issue.
  16. After the referral of the complaint to this Service, we discussed the complaint with the resident. They confirmed that the balcony repair had been completed but they remained dissatisfied with the level of compensation the landlord offered. The resident mentioned that they paid for the internal damp in their property to be rectified and was not aware of any insurance claim having been made in relation to this.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord has a responsibility, in accordance with the lease, to repair and maintain the external main structure of the building, which includes the balcony. By the time the landlord issued its response in September 2019, it had attended the property a number of times, carried out various repair works and competed post inspections. Despite this, the repairs did not resolve the issue.  
  2. When it responded to the complaint in September 2019, it confirmed that it wanted to carry out a post inspection of the works completed in September 2019. Once the inspection was completed on 26 November 2019, the resident had to chase the landlord for an update on 16 December 2019, before it informed what the repairs it would be carrying out and when it expected to start and complete these repairs.
  3. The works did not start in January 2020 and the landlord did not inform the resident at the time that there would be a delay. This meant that the resident had to chase the landlord for updates on four occasions before it confirmed the works it would be completing and a revised estimated start date.
  4. In line with Government Covid-19 guidelines issued at the time the landlord, was required to pause all non-emergency repairs and that such repairs did not resume until May 2020. Any delay between March and May 2020, therefore, is not due to a service failure of the part of the landlord.
  5. The landlord received the quotes while the works were on hold. A month later, after the resident asked, it confirmed that it had chosen a contractor to complete the work. It internally confirmed that works were underway in July 2020, but the works were not completed until around March 2021, which is a significant delay.
  6. When the resident requested an update on the works in January 2021, they indicated an expectancy for the landlord to also complete repairs to the internal areas of the property, which resulted from the balcony repair. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to this. This is not appropriate as the landlord did not manage their expectations. According to the lease agreement, the resident not the landlord, is responsible for internal repairs to the property.
  7. There was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the repair. There was a significant delay in completing the works, the landlord did not proactively keep the resident informed of delays and progress of the repairs which resulted in the resident having to chase it on several occasions.  When the resident raised questions about the delay initially, it did not effectively manage their expectations about when the works could realistically happen, despite the fact that it was aware there was a delay in it obtaining quotes. In addition to this, the landlord did not clarify its responsibilities to the resident, when they asked it about completing repairs that it was not responsible for.
  8. In response to the resident’s contact in February 2021 about the compensation offer, the landlord took into consideration the offer it made in September 2019. It acknowledged that its service failures contributed to the delay in the completion of the works, and this was appropriate.
  9. Its compensation guidance sets out that discretionary compensation payments should be considered for service failures, which have a high impact as follows:
    1. £60 for inconvenience
    2. £60 for distress
    3. £200 for time and effort
  10. The landlord’s offer of compensation to the resident exceeds that set out in its guidance. The amount it offered, is in line with the range recommended by the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance as appropriate in recognition of maladministration that has had a long term impact on the complainant. During the period between September 2019 and March 2021, the resident was subletting the property. Nevertheless, the resident experienced distress and inconvenience of having to coordinate appointments and chase the landlord and the level of compensation offered reflects this.
  11. The landlord reviewed and increased its offer of compensation when the resident raised concerns about its calculations. In addition, the landlord’s agreement to absorb the costs of the repair works, as well as offering compensation, was proportionate in putting things right for the resident. Doing so means that the resident would not bear the costs of the repair works in the form of service charges, which according to the lease would be chargeable to them as a leaseholder.
  12. The landlord referred to an open insurance claim for personal injury and damages at the final stage of its complaint response, there is no indication the resident challenged this statement at the time, despite later advising the Ombudsman they are not aware of an insurance claim for the internal damage to their property. To address this the Ombudsman has made a recommendation below.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

  1. The landlord recognised that it did not deliver the service in line with its standard and complete the repair within a reasonable time. The level of compensation it offered reflected the failure and the impact on the resident. In addition to the compensation, its agreement to absorb the costs of the repairs was fair as a form of redress in recognising its poor handling of the repair. It had no obligation to do so but, as a way of addressing the failures in the service, this in conjunction with the compensation offered, is appropriate.

Recommendations

  1. The above determination is dependent on the landlord completing the actions it has agreed to do to resolve the complaint. Therefore:
    1. If the landlord has not already paid the £3150 to the resident. It is to do so, within three weeks of the date of this report and let this Service know. If the payment has already been made, it should inform this Service.
    2. The landlord is to write to the resident within three weeks, with details of the specific repairs carried out that it will be absorbing the costs of.
  2. The landlord is to advise the resident if and how they can make a claim against its liability insurance in respect of the damp in their property if an insurance claim has not already been considered.