London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202015446)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015446

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

30 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 complaints

1. The complaints are about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of repairs to the communal water supply pipe valves.
   2. Response to the resident’s reports of repair following an escape of water.
   3. Response to leaks within the resident’s block.

2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

3. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the 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.
4. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(l) of the Scheme, complaint 1c is outside of the Ombudsman jurisdiction. Paragraph 39(l) states that “the Ombudsman will not investigate complaint which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters raised by a complainant on behalf of another without their authority”.
5. In correspondence to the Ombudsman, the resident has raised concerns about some of the assurances that the landlord provided during the course of his complaint. The resident says that while the landlord had advised him that it would be managing leaks around the block – and responding on an emergency basis – communications with other residents demonstrate that this has not been the case. The resident has provided emails from other residents within his block in support of this.
6. Although the resident’s concerns are noted, the Ombudsman cannot investigate matters affecting other residents as part of this complaint. The resident’s comments that others are being affected as a result of the situation in relation to the pipe valves and associated leaks are acknowledged. However, the circumstances surrounding other leaks – and associated damage – would have to be considered by the landlord in the first instance. If those residents remain unhappy with the complaint responses they receive, they could refer their complaints to the Ombudsman for investigation. However, for the reasons detailed above, they cannot be considered as part of this investigation.

Background and summary of events

7. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord’s property. The property is a two-bedroom flat on the fourth floor of a block.
8. On 16 February 2020, the resident reported that there was a leak from the ceiling void outside of the property. The landlord’s out of hours emergency service attended and advised that a valve would need to be replaced to carry out a full repair. The resident has advised that he was initially informed that the works would take place during the week of 23 February; however, they were postponed owing to a shortage of the relevant valve.
9. On 27 February, the resident returned home to find that the leak had worsened. He reported the matter to the landlord, and it attended on the same day. However, it is not clear if any action to remedy the leak was taken on this day. The resident was unhappy with how the landlord had responded to his reports, and made a formal complaint on 5 March.
10. In his letter, the resident said that in 2018 he had received a text message from the landlord advising that owing to “leakages in plastic piping” all joints would be replaced. The message added that there would be an outage of heating and hot water while the works were being undertaken, and that residents would be informed if access was required to their properties. The resident said that he heard nothing further; however, he was aware that blocks on the estate had experienced “serial leak problems” from water supply pipe valves in ceiling voids along corridors.
11. The resident described the events leading up to his complaint, and asked the landlord a series of questions. He said he wished to know:
    1. Why the landlord had allowed the issue with the defective pipe valves to continue for many months.
    2. Why the landlord had not issued any formal, general communications to him, or others in his block regarding the defective water supply pipe valve problem.
    3. What the landlord and its contractors strategy was for replacing the valves in his block and others on the estate.
    4. If the landlord had only instructed a named contractor when their valves failed.
    5. If the landlord had worked with the named contractor – or others – to ensure the quality of the water supply value would minimise, or eliminate the risk of further leaks.
    6. What action would be taken to shorten the remedial works required in the corridor.
    7. If the landlord would compensate him, and other residents, for its “unsatisfactory management of the defective water supply valve issue” and the disruption they had experienced.
12. The resident did not receive a response to his letter and submitted a further complaint on 22 March. Within this, the resident complained that the landlord had allowed water from a defective pipe to come through the ceiling continually since he first reported the problem on 16 February. He added:
    1. Since 27 February, it had been impossible for him to enter his home without water from the leak dripping directly on to his head, face and clothes.
    2. Owing to the situation with Covid-19, it was imperative that he had the option to receive home deliveries while at work. However, this was not possible as water leaking from the ceiling would saturate any cardboard box over the course of the day and damage the goods being delivered to him.
    3. Since 16 March, he had been finding it increasingly difficult to open and close his front door. He believed elevated moisture from the leak was being absorbed into the fabric surrounding the door, resulting in it expanding. He added that he was having to use force to close the door – which he was concerned would damage it further. The resident said that he was also concerned about the matter from a security perspective.
    4. The landlord should ensure that repairs to the pipe outside his home were undertaken as a matter of urgency. He also asked that preparatory remedial works to remove water damaged fabric take place to accelerate the drying out process.
    5. Beyond the remedial works, he expected to be compensated for the landlord’s failure to respond to his first complaint, and for the disruption to his homeownership experience.
13. It is unclear what followed; however, the landlord subsequently arranged for the leak to be repaired and this was completed on 3 April 2020. During this time, the resident had been in communication with landlord staff about his complaint, and he had expressed dissatisfaction with how the complaint was being handled. The landlord subsequently informed him on 20 April that it would be escalating his complaint to stage two of its process – a Senior Management Review.
14. On 5 June, the landlord issued its Senior Management Review (stage two response). Within this, it said:
    1. It wished to apologise for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint, and it acknowledged that the resident’s situation had been challenging and frustrating.

Communal water supply pipe valves

2. It was aware of several leaks that had occurred across the block. These had caused “considerable damage” to the communal area outside individual properties. It was also aware the renewal of defective parts and subsequent remedial work had taken longer than it had initially anticipated.
3. The delays were attributable to several factors which included access to individual properties, coordination of resources and the availability of parts including valves and plastic access panels. It was glad to confirm that it had been working with various teams to see how it could reduce the time for similar jobs to be completed.
4. Its teams would continue to work together to ensure that it could complete repairs promptly.
5. It was not aware of any general communication that had been sent out to residents in the block; but it had requested for the Property Manager to write to all residents advising of the leaks from pipework in the ceiling void – and the programme it had in place to rectify it.
6. It had introduced a project to look at replacing all existing pipework and valves in the block – regardless of whether a fault had been detected. However, due to various constraints, the decision was made for it to be addressed on a reactive maintenance programme. Although several blocks across the estate had experienced similar faults, this only accounted for a “small proportion” of the valves and pipework on the scheme.
7. The relevant team was aware of the extent of the issues that had been experienced by residents on the estate, and it would continue to work with the local neighbourhood team to monitor the situation and keep records of all maintenance work raised for the renewal of pipework and valves.
8. All existing leaks were being addressed, or had been rectified – including the pipes in the resident’s home. It was able to confirm that no further leaks had occurred since the renewal of the defective parts. It had decided to place plastic access panels over the opening created in the ceiling – as opposed to reinstating it. The landlord said that this was to allow it to tackle any reoccurring issues quicker.
9. Remedial works remained outstanding, and it was very sorry for the delay. However, its ability to complete the repairs had been hindered by the situation with Covid-19. It had asked the resident’s property manager to enquire with its Direct Maintenance team on the issue and to provide the resident with more information once it was available.
10. It recognised that individuals had been inconvenienced and distressed as a result of the issues, and it was happy to investigate individual claims for compensation on a case by case basis.
11. It wished to reassure the resident of its commitment to working with him to address his concerns about the service it was providing. It had therefore appointed a single point of contact for the resident to liaise with; and was also looking to see how it provide a more “comprehensive communication service” to all of its residents.

Answers to the resident’s specific questions

12. An initial project was proposed to replace several of the valve sets associated with the pipework in question. However, not all of the valves were defective – only a proportion of the total number across the site. As such, the decision was made to carry out the replacement on a reactive basis. Remedial works were carried out once they could be scheduled; however, it could not guarantee specific dates.
13. The issue with the valves was not confirmed to be a side wide defect; and for that reason, there was no requirement to formally notify all residents.
14. The valve sets were being replaced on a reactive basis. Where it had been found that the valves were leaking, its contractor also had to replace the connection pipework to the dwellings. This work required having replacement valves readily available to react to works as quickly as possible.
15. It had only appointed once contractor for the heating repairs. However, it only carried out the works to the pipes. It used its direct maintenance team to cut the hole required to access the pipes.
16. The repairs would continue on a reactive basis. It was intended that its contractor would respond to reports of issues with the valves on an emergency call out basis – with works being completed within 24 hours.
17. Remedial works were carried out on confirmation of the valve works being complete. However, it acknowledged that the access panels cut by the contractors were unsightly. During the then current period of lockdown, minor building works were classified as “non-essential” and would be carried out at a later date.
18. It had a standard compensation policy to deal with issues such as loss of heat/service. Any claim would be awarded in line with the policy.

15. In closing, the landlord said that it hoped that it had addressed the resident’s concerns. It added that it had referred the complaint to one of its Assistant Directors so that the resident could discuss any compensatory offer requests. The landlord also explained that the resident could refer his complaint to this Service if he remained dissatisfied with the response he had received.

Events after the landlord’s final response

16. Following the stage two response, the landlord entered into further discussion with the resident in relation to his compensation request. On 30 July, the landlord advised that it wished to offer the resident £100 compensation comprised of – £50 for the delay in completing remedial works; £25 for inconvenience; £15 for poor communication; and £10 for the delay in issuing the stage two response. The resident subsequently rejected the landlord’s offer in November 2020.

17. Between August and November 2020, the resident and the landlord engaged in discussion around the remedial works that were required both within the resident’s property and the communal hallway. A survey of the areas took place on 30 November 2020 and the remedial works were completed on 12 January 2021.

The landlord’s obligations

18. Under the lease agreement, the leaseholder is required to carry out repairs within “the premises” as defined within the Schedule to the lease. Repairs within the common parts of the building are the landlord’s responsibility. The “common parts” include accessways, amenity areas, the door entry system and any other areas not included within “the premises”.

The landlord’s policies and procedures

19. The landlord’s compensation policy states – “where compensation claims are linked to complaints, they will be dealt with in line with our Complaints Policy and Procedure.”
20. The landlord’s Complaints policy (the policy) sets out the approach it will follow when responding to complaints about the service that has been provided. The policy states that where possible it aims to resolve the complaint at stage one of the process. Within 10 working days of receiving a complaint, the landlord will write to the resident to explain the outcome of the investigation and how it intends to resolve the situation. If the landlord cannot respond within that time, it will explain why and write to the resident within a further 10 working days.
21. If the resident is dissatisfied with the stage one response, or the resolution, they may escalate their complaint to stage two of the process. The policy states that on receipt of an escalation request, it will make contact with the resident so that they have the opportunity to explain their complaint. Following this, the landlord will write to the resident with the outcome of the complaint within 20 working days. If the landlord is unable to do so, it will write to the resident to explain why and write again within a further 10 working days.

Assessment and findings

The communal water pipe valves

22. Under the terms of the lease agreement, the landlord is obliged to carry out repairs within the common parts. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord explained that while it was aware of the situation with the particular valves in question, it had made the decision to change the valves on a reactive basis.
23. While it is acknowledged that the resident was dissatisfied with this response, the landlord was entitled to manage the replacement of the valves in such a manner. Furthermore, as detailed above, the landlord demonstrated that it had considered carrying out a wider investigation and replacement programme; however, the decision was made to deal with the situation reactively. This demonstrates that the landlord had fully considered the matter, and used its discretion when deciding how to respond to the situation.
24. As detailed above, the landlord’s obligation is to repair. It follows that if the valves in particular locations were not leaking or broken, there was no obligation on the landlord to carry out works to replace them. It is noted that dealing with the situation in a reactive manner would leave open the possibility of areas becoming damaged following an escape of water. However, the landlord explained that it was committed to carrying out the necessary cosmetic repairs when changing the valves. The landlord also explained that it would consider requests for compensation received from residents on a case by case basis. This was appropriate in the circumstances and would ensure that residents were proportionately compensated where repairs had taken longer to complete and they had been inconvenienced as a result.

The landlord’s response to the leak

25. On 16 February 2020, the resident first reported the leak outside his property. The Ombudsman has been provided with a copy of the repair logs relating to the property and the communal area; however, neither of these contain sufficient detail to establish what was found on inspection and what course of action was decided. It would be appropriate for the landlord to ensure that this information was recorded so that it had an accurate audit trail relating to the repair.
26. Nevertheless, from the other evidence that is available, it appears that the landlord attended on the same day, in line with its service standards. However, the repair could not be completed owing to a shortage of the required replacement valve. As detailed above, the works were initially scheduled for 23 February; however, they were postponed as the valve was still unavailable. The resident chased the matter on 22 March 2020 as the repair had yet to be completed, and water was dripping on to him as he entered and left his property.
27. It is not clear from the evidence when the replacement valve became available. However, internal correspondence at the landlord towards the end of March shows that there was discussion with one of its contractors about the repair. The contractor advised that it had been waiting from instruction from the landlord as its maintenance team would need to cut holes in the ceiling so that the pipes could be accessed. The landlord advised that it was only operating on an emergency call out basis owing to the then emerging situation with Covid-19; however, it confirmed that it was happy for the contractor to make the holes – and it would then arrange to make good the relevant areas once a normal service had resumed.
28. The resident agreed for the works to go ahead, with the knowledge that the holes would be left until the landlord was able to attend to make good. The leak was subsequently repaired on 3 April 2020. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak was inappropriate in the circumstances. As a result of the relevant valve being unavailable, the leak repair remained outstanding for 47 days. When the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint, it failed to acknowledge this delay. In the circumstances, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to explain why the repair was delayed, what steps it had taken to try to mitigate the delay, and for it to have offered the resident some compensation to reflect the inconvenience he had been caused.
29. In addition to repairing the leak, the landlord was also responsible for making good the areas that had been damaged by the water – and for repairing any damage that had been caused when undertaking the repair. The evidence provided to the Ombudsman shows that in March 2020, the landlord clearly informed the resident that any making good – after the leak had been repaired – would be delayed owing to the situation with Covid-19 at the time.
30. In correspondence to the Ombudsman, the resident confirmed that on 22 December 2020, the landlord completed the first stage of the hallway repair works both within his property and in the communal corridor. On 12 January 2021, the landlord completed the remedial decoration works within his property, in the communal corridor, around his front door and to the ceiling.
31. From the evidence that is available, it is not clear why the making good works were delayed until December 2020 and January 2021. Following the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic there was approximately a three-month period during which the landlord was only permitted to carry out emergency repairs. However, between June 2020 and November 2020, restrictions had been lifted and non-emergency repairs could take place. This was followed by local lockdowns from October 2020, and a further national lockdown from 5 November to 2 December 2020. However, during this period, Government guidance stated that repairs could be completed if public health advice was followed.
32. It is acknowledged that the landlord’s ability to complete the repairs from June 2020 was likely to have been impacted as a result of the pandemic – for example, with regards to the availability of staff, operatives and materials. However, it would have been reasonable, in the circumstances, for the landlord to provide the resident with a clearer explanation as to why Covid-19 had delayed the repairs, and why the relevant areas were made good approximately 11 months after the resident first reported the leak. That the landlord did not provide such an explanation was a failing in its communication.  
33. In July 2020, the landlord acknowledged that making good had been delayed and offered the resident compensation for the inconvenience he had been caused as a result. While this was appropriate at the time, the making good works were not completed for another five months. It follows that further compensation is warranted in the circumstances.

Complaint handling

34. From the evidence that has been provided to the Ombudsman, the landlord failed to follow the procedure detailed in its Complaints policy when responding to the resident’s complaint. The evidence does not show that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint of 5 March, or that it provided a response in line with its policy.
35. Given the lack of response, the resident submitted a further complaint on 22 March. Discussion subsequently took place between the resident and one of the landlord’s Regional Managers, and on 20 April the landlord confirmed that it had escalated the complaint to stage two of its process. The landlord then issued its final response to the complaint on 5 June. This was inappropriate and a departure from the landlord’s Complaints policy.
36. While it is acknowledged that the country entered its first lockdown in March 2020, and that this would have been the cause of some disruption to the services provided by the landlord, it failed to follow any of the stages – or adhere to the timescales – detailed in its policy when responding to the resident’s complaint. Furthermore, a stage one response to the complaint was not issued. As a result, the resident could not request the internal escalation of his complaint after receiving an initial response, and therefore did not have the opportunity to have his complaint considered afresh by a new member of staff.

37. In addition, after the landlord issued its final response to the complaint, staff entered into further discussion with the resident about his request for compensation. As detailed above, on 30 July the landlord offered the resident £100 compensation. This was broken down into four elements – including a delay in responding to the complaint, a delay in carrying out remedial works, poor communication and inconvenience caused to the resident. By offering compensation in such a manner, the landlord identified that there had been a failing in the services provided. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to clearly acknowledge and address these failings within the complaint response.
38. From the evidence that has been provided to the Ombudsman, it is not clear why the landlord departed from its policy and did not offer the compensation within its complaint response of 5 June. However, that it did, was a failing in the circumstances. While the landlord later acknowledged that the stage two response was delayed; the Ombudsman has identified further failings for which the landlord should apologise and compensate the resident for.
39. In his complaint correspondence, the resident expressed his opinion that a comprehensive compensation scheme should be made available to residents in given the nature of the issue with the valves. In response, the landlord advised that it would consider any request for compensation from individual residents on receipt.
40. The resident’s comments regarding such a compensation scheme are acknowledged. However, the landlord’s position that compensation would be considered on a case by case basis was appropriate and in line with its compensation policy. Where there has been a service failure, it is appropriate for a landlord to try to put things right. What this will entail will differ from one resident to another, and a landlord should ensure that any awards made are proportionate in the circumstances. On that basis, a comprehensive compensation plan for residents would not be appropriate as it would fail to ensure that any offers were made taking into full consideration the circumstances of each individual.

Determination (decision)

41. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was:
    1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal water supply pipe valves.
    2. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of an escape of water.
    3. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

42. The landlord’s decision to carry out repairs to the defective valves on a reactive basis was not inappropriate given its obligation to carry out responsive repairs. Furthermore, the landlord had agreed to consider whether compensation was warranted in cases where there had been a leak and consequent damage to surrounding areas.
43. The landlord delayed in repairing the leak outside the resident’s property. Furthermore, it failed to acknowledge this when responding to the resident’s complaint, and to offer him a proportionate sum of compensation. While the landlord had advised the resident that the making good works would be delayed, the landlord’s communication surrounding the delays could have been improved.
44. The landlord failed to handle the resident’s complaint in line with the procedure detailed in it Complaints policy. The landlord’s response was delayed, and the resident did not receive a stage one response to his complaint. In addition, the landlord offered the resident compensation outside of the complaints procedure for matters which should have been addressed within its stage two response.

Orders

45. Within five weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord should:
    1. Re-offer the resident the £100 compensation which was offered in July 2020.
    2. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified by this investigation.
    3. Pay the resident a total of £350 compensation comprised of:
       1. £200 for the inconvenience caused by the delay in repairing the leak.
       2. £50 for the inconvenience caused by the delay in making good the relevant areas.
       3. £100 for the complaint handling failures identified by this investigation.

Recommendation

46. Within five weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should provide a reminder to its staff about:
    1. the importance of keeping accurate records; and what information should reasonably be included within repair records.
    2. the procedure for dealing with complaints, as detailed in its complaints policy.