London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202017187)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202017187

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

14 February 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs at the property, specifically, repairs to the intercom. roof and bath taps and bathroom sink.
2. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.
3. The landlord’s handling of a transfer request.
4. The level of rent and rent increase.

Jurisdiction

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.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraphs 39(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the level of rent and rent increase, is outside of the jurisdiction of this Service.
The resident has expressed her dissatisfaction with the level of rent and rent increases, given the condition of the property, with outstanding repairs and over the years she has challenged the level of rent unsuccessfully.
Disputes about the level of rent and rent increases are not something that the Ombudsman has jurisdiction to investigate in accordance with paragraph 39(g) of the Scheme, which states “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in its opinion, concern the level of rent or service charge, or the amount of the rent or service charge increase”.
The First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) is the appropriate body to pursue a dispute about the level of rent or rent increase and this option is open to the resident, should she wish to do this.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, at the property, from 19 November 1984. The property is documented in the landlord’s records as being a studio flat and situated on the second/top floor of the property, meaning that there are stairs to climb up and down, in the absence of the intercom system working.

Summary of events

On 13 May 2019, following a failed gas engineer appointment due to what the landlord referred to as the resident not providing access, she contacted it to advise that this was incorrect – she was indeed at home but due to the intercom system which had not worked for years, she had not heard the engineer ring. The resident said that the same issue happened every year, with the matter going on for four or five years, with the intercom remaining broken.
The landlord responded the following day, advising it would credit her with £10 for the missed appointment and asked her to re-book and three days later, on 16 May 2019, the landlord’s records note that the communal entry system is not working.
On 21 May 2019, the resident wrote to the landlord, complaining that the entry system had not been working for over four years, despite various reports. The resident explained that a number of contractors had attended over time – which she had stayed at home for – but they had been unable to repair it, most recently advising her that the whole system needed replacing. She described the inconvenience the broke intercom had caused her over a significant period of time, including missing post and landlord operative appointments and added that she had been on the transfer list for a number of years but had not been made aware of any properties.
There is no evidence of any action being taken, although two months later, on 22 July 2019, the landlord’s records note that the resident had “complained” about the communal entry system not working, although this is also noted as being “cancelled”.
Again, there is no evidence of action being taken, although the resident has said that an appointment in November 2019 to replace the handsets had not worked, due to the whole system needing replacing. On 20 December 2019, the landlord’s records note again that the communal intercom is not working, and this is noted as “complete” on 23 December 2019, although it remained broken.
On 19 March 2020, the landlord responded to the resident’s correspondence of 2 March 2020, regarding a property transfer and her medical priority status. The landlord advised that the resident had an active transfer but its records showed she had not bid on any property since 2015. It explained it had a choice-based lettings system and that following bids made, it would invite individuals to view the property based on priority banding and waiting time. It had few properties to advertise, however, as it was obliged to give a proportion to the local authority and due to low supply of social housing.
The landlord explained that it now had a ‘mobility team’ who may be able to assist with options for moving and asked the resident to let it know if she would like to speak to a mobility officer. It added that there was the option of mutual exchange and applying to the local authorities.
Five months later, on 17 May 2020, the resident again contacted the landlord regarding the intercom not working for five years and the difficulties this had caused her.
The following month, on 17 June 2020, the resident telephoned the landlord about the intercom system still not working, later emailing it. She explained that the intercom had not worked for five years, despite the issue being reported many times and that she had been advised by the landlord over the telephone earlier that day that the system had been repaired and must have broken again, which was not the case. The resident said that someone had come to repair it but was unable to, so it was left broken and no further action had been taken. She reiterated that previous engineers had advised the landlord that the whole system required rewiring but no action had been taken in respect of this and added that she had been on the transfer list for a number of years.
The following day, the landlord responded, advising it would be in touch regarding the repair to the intercom within the next five working days. On the same day, it recommended that resident might wish to pursue a mutual exchange, if she wished to move property.
On 19 June 2020, the resident emailed the landlord, explaining that following her contact with it two days earlier, on 17 June 2020, a repairs contractor had contacted her about the broken intercom. She explained that there was misunderstanding, with the contractor believing that the system had been fixed in November 2019, when the resident explained that it in fact had not been working for about five or six years and the November 2019 appointment was just to replace the handsets but the system still did not work. The resident advised that she did not know if she would be available for a further visit the following Monday, because she had already wasted so much time making herself available for appointments, which had not resolved issues.
The landlord’s records show that on 19 and 23 June 2020, works were cancelled because “tenant refused appointment”.
On 3 October 2020, the resident reported a leak in her bathroom ceiling, coming from the roof directly above. There is no evidence of the landlord taking steps to address this.
On 8 December 2020, the resident again emailed the landlord about the intercom not working “for about five years”. She also reported repair works required to the bath taps which were leaking “blue liquid”, which she said she had previously reported and had been ignored, in addition to the ceiling/roof which remained unrepaired. The resident added that the landlord had “refused to upgrade” the property and regarding her request to transfer, she believed the landlord was concealing properties that were available, making it impossible for her to bid and that she was told she was next in the list in 2015.
On 22 December 2020, the landlord responded, apologising that she had not heard about repairs at the property and said the issues had been passed to a colleague and it would be in touch in due course.
On 17 February 2021, the landlord’s records show a “critical” job in respect of roof guttering repair at the property, which was leaking into the resident’s bathroom.
On a date in March 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident with a choice-based lettings closure letter, inviting her to complete a new medical assessment in accordance with its new policy.
Two months later, on 9 April 2021, the resident contacted the landlord advising she would not be able to provide access for the gas safety appointment on 12 April 2021, due to her arthritis and said that she had tied to convey this numerous times prior.
On 19 April 2021, the resident emailed the landlord again, reiterating that she would not be available for the gas appointment the following day due to medical appointments. She said she had been told that her notification of cancellation would be recorded as “no access”, which she did not think was right, as she had given notice. In her correspondence, she also mentioned again, that the entry system was not working and the inconvenience this had caused her for a protracted period of time.
On 6 May 2021, following contact from this Service, the landlord issued an acknowledgement of the resident’s complaint and asked her to provide further information in respect of her complaint about as it said it had insufficient information to investigate.
On 19 May 2021, the landlord issued its stage one response to the complaint, as follows:
1. In respect of the intercom, it acknowledged that there had been a number of repair reports and said that the system had received a major overhaul. It noted that the resident declined access to a specialist engineer on one occasion in June 2020, so the works were cancelled but confirmed it had made a new referral and engineers would be visiting the property to check the entire system in the next few days.
2. Regarding leaking bath taps and a blocked bathroom sink, which had also been mentioned, the landlord explained that its records back to 2019 did not find any reports of either issue.
3. In terms of the roof leak, the landlord acknowledged that there was no record of a contractor attending and said that the matter had been escalated, for a contractor to attend in the next few days.
On 19 and 20 May 2021, the resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the complaint response. She disputed the landlord’s assertion that she had refused access, stating instead, that she had been asked to be available regarding a communal lock issue, which she said she could not be and that she was the only one who reported communal issues and then was told to be available.
The resident said that she had reported issues with the bath taps three or four years ago and an operative had attended and replaced the rubber in one of the taps and said they would return to carry out further works but hadn’t and when she contacted the landlord about this, she was advised that the job was complete.
In terms of the roof leak above the bathroom, the resident said she informed the landlord of this on 3 October 2020 but no action had been taken, despite the landlord advising it had raised repairs five months later in February 2021. She added that she had asked the landlord about upgrade works in 2017.
On 28 May 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord again, stating her dissatisfaction that she had been on the housing waiting list for eight years but was unable to bid on any properties as none were advertised.
On 3 June 2021, the landlord emailed the resident, advising that it would not ordinarily investigate matters older than six months, but that it had looked at matters dating back to a year. It stated that it did recognise that the issues had been outstanding for a long time, however, so it would carry out a full review and investigation into the issues. It confirmed that the complaint had been escalated to stage two of its complaints procedure. The landlord added that its roofing contractor had twice tried to call the resident to arrange works and had been unable to reach her and asked that she make contact.
On 5 June 2021, the resident emailed the landlord stating that she had not received any phone calls about roofing repairs and that she would like the roof to be repaired first and the inside of the property to be looked at after. She added that the leak can be seen from the video she previously sent to the landlord on 3 October 2020.
On 7 June 2021, the landlord telephoned the resident and left a voicemail regarding works in respect of the bathroom taps and sink and that an appointment had been made for 14 June 2021.
On 9 June 2021, the resident emailed the landlord, advising that she would not be available for the appointment “for reasons already stated” and also that she had lived with faulty bath tabs for four or five years and a blocked sink for about three years and the whole bathroom required replacing.
The landlord’s records note on 11 June 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to cancel plumbing works scheduled for 14 June 2021.
On 14 June 2021, the landlord’s records note that it was also due to carry out an inspection of the roof, but despite leaving three messages to arrange access, it had received no reply. The resident states she did not receive messages about an inspection to the roof.
On or around 23 June 2021, the landlord attended the building to investigate the intercom system and discovered the wires had been cut and disconnected and having reconnected them, only one flat would ring. The recommendation was that a new digital system be installed, as to rewire the existing system would be time consuming, expensive and come with the risk of interfering with other systems, such as phone lines.
On 7 July 2021, the resident chased her complaint.
On 9 July 2021, documentation provided by the landlord refers to it attending on that date and there being “no access”. A further appointment on 15 July 2021 also notes there was no access, with the contractor telephoning the resident and being unable to get through to her.
On 13 July 2021, the resident emailed the landlord about the roof leaking into her property, following heavy rainfall.
On 15 July 2021, the landlord emailed the resident, advising that the intercom system for the block would be replaced.
On 22 July 2021, the landlord issued its stage two response to the complaint. It explained that it had extended the scope of its complaints policy, to consider matters dating back to older than six months as a gesture of goodwill but that it would not review matters from 2014-2019, as the resident wanted, as this was clearly well outside the timeframe. It addressed the other aspects of the complaint as follows:
1. In terms of the broken intercom, the landlord upheld its stage one response but recognised inconvenience caused by a loss of service. It explained that it had received a quotation on replacing the whole system, which it would be doing, although the timescale for this was dependent on access being granted to each flat.
2. Regarding the leaking roof, it advised that it had made several attempts to contact the resident about this to arrange an inspection but had been unable to reach her and asked her to get in touch.
3. In respect of the bathroom, including a blocked bathroom sink and leaking bath taps, it said that its surveyor would visit and carry out an inspection. It confirmed there were no planned upgrade works but that should repair of the components of the resident’s bathroom or kitchen be no longer viable or economical, replacement may be prioritised. It explained that the surveyor would also assess this at the visit.
4. Regarding the property transfer, the landlord noted that the resident was asked to complete a new medical assessment form, in accordance with its policy, in March 2021 and she had not done this and refused to engage with the landlord over the matter. It explained that transfers were resident–driven and it needed her cooperation in order to move things forward and provided contact details for her to reengage with this.
In conclusion, the landlord acknowledged there had been a compromised level of service and delays in respect of a number of issues, for which it apologised. The landlord offered £551 compensation, comprised of £100 for the delayed stage two complaint response and £451 for the loss of service in respect of the intercom.
The landlord also arranged the line costs for 2018-2019 to be refunded, as well as her contribution to the partial renewal of the entry system for the service charge year of 2019-2020. It reassured the resident too, that it would learn from the complaint and take appropriate action to ensure its service improves.

Post complaint

Between 4 and 16 November 2021, there was email correspondence between the landlord and resident with regards to the leaking roof; the landlord was trying to establish where the leak was coming from by requesting its contractor contact her to discuss and attend the property and with the resident stating that attendance at her property was not needed because the leak was coming from the roof and only evident in her property when it rained.

Assessment and findings

Repairs

Once on notice, the landlord is required to carry out the repairs it is responsible for, in accordance with its obligations under the tenancy and in law, within a reasonable period of time. The law does not specify what a reasonable period of time this; this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.
In this case, the landlord’s repairs policy states that it will carry out routine repairs within “a reasonable time” and does not specify further. The resident reported both routine and more urgent repairs, specifically more urgent in respect of the leaking roof, none of which were attended to and inspected, repaired or resolved, within a reasonable period of time. Moreover, there was very little contact or action on the part of the landlord, with no attempt to communicate effectively, preserve the landlord-tenant relationship or to manage expectations. The inaction on the part of the landlord did not demonstrate that it had taken matters seriously, undermining the resident’s trust in it.
Starting with the communal intercom, this was clearly out of service for a protracted period of time and although the landlord did not investigate back to the full extent of time the resident requested, there is no doubt there were problems with it that went unresolved for an inappropriately lengthy period. These issues went unresolved despite the resident reporting the issue repeatedly and explaining the impact of it not working.
The landlord did not take sufficient steps to investigate and take action following this and its findings. There is no explanation as to why the intercom was left not working for such a lengthy period – there is evidence that it was at least twice reported by specialist contractors as needing to be completely re-wired or replaced but no steps were taken to do this; instead, some replacement handsets were arranged some time in November 2019 which did not remedy the problem and then the works were closed when they were unresolved, rather than progressed further.
The landlord’s inaction was exacerbated by it booking gas safety works – and making other appointments – which were then deemed ‘missed’ as unbeknownst to the resident, the broken intercom would be rung and she would not answer it, as she was not aware anyone was ringing. There was a lack of communication and a joined-up approach internally, as well as a lack of communication with the resident, leaving her feeling understandably unheard and frustrated.
Turning to the leaking roof, due to the nature of the issue, it constituted an urgent, rather than routine, repair, yet this repair job was not actioned appropriately either. Again, there is no information or explanation as to this. Following the resident reporting the issue on 3 October 2020, it was not until February 2021 that the works were raised, which is well beyond the timescale it should have taken and even then, no works to remedy this were carried out.
Whilst it appeared to be the roof leaking into the ceiling of the property, the landlord was entitled to check the leak or leak damage, inside the property. The landlord is entitled to rely on the expert opinion of an independent contractor and an internal inspection was deemed to be required. Although the resident had sent a video of the leak in October 2020, which she wanted a contractor to refer to and to only work on the leak outside, a current and physical inspection was needed and the area required assessment; an assessment would inform repair works, whether or not it was raining and the leak was or was not active at the time of inspection.
It was not for the resident to decide what areas the landlord would inspect and the landlord’s attempts to inspect where the leak had happened inside the property was entirely reasonable and any refusal of this would be considered obstruction of the landlord in carrying out its repair duties. While the resident’s frustration is understandable, the landlord required access inside and this was not granted – this is separate to the issue of the intercom not working and the resident stating that she did not receive phone calls or voicemail messages about the works.
In the absence of the intercom working, phone calls and email contact are appropriate alternatives to plan a visit and to notify a resident of arrival at the property. The landlord has said that it tried to contact the resident and leave voicemail messages but could not get hold of her and did not hear back. Unfortunately, the landlord has not provided records of these calls and the resident has said that she did not receive them. It is not for this Service to determine whether or not those calls happened. However, the resident has an obligation in accordance with the tenancy agreement, to engage with the landlord in respect of repairs required at the property. Communication should be properly made and documented, to support any engagement or disengagement with repair works and it was not. It is often helpful for phone call communication to be followed up in writing, by email, to remove room for uncertainty or misunderstanding and this also was not done, leaving uncertainty and confusion.
The landlord has made an offer to the resident of £451 in compensation for the intercom issues but failed to acknowledge the delays to beginning to consider the leak to the roof. Its complaint made no reference to the timescales but discussed the matter of lack of access by the resident. Thus, although the resident’s refusal to grant access for the roof inspection, as detailed above, is a mitigating factor to this Service’s consideration of the landlord’s later action, an award of compensation is warranted for the landlord’s delays in arranging an inspection for the leaking roof.
Finally, in respect of the bathroom taps and blocked sink and the resident’s belief that the bathroom should be upgraded, the landlord has confirmed its position that no upgrade works are due, however, it will attend and inspect and should it deem otherwise, then works will take place, as appropriate. The landlord’s stance is an appropriate and reasonable one; it is not obliged to upgrade the bathroom (or kitchen) until scheduled and it is not scheduled at this time. A bathroom (or kitchen) must be in a reasonable condition, however and the landlord has explained that it will assess this and take matters from there. Access therefore needs to be provided in order for this to take place and that access should be communicated and arranged in advance by telephone and/or by email to prevent miscommunication and wasted time. For completeness, a blocked sink is ordinarily the responsibility of the resident, unless there is a communal pipework issue, however, this is something that can be assessed at an assessment of the bath taps and overall bathroom condition.
The resident refers to notifying the landlord of issues with the bathroom in 2017 and there are two points to make in this regard; firstly, there is no obligation for the landlord to investigate historic issues dating back more than six months, which is in accordance with its complaints policy and in line with the expectations of this Service. Paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, states that “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in its opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising”. The resident did not do this, but brought her complaint instead, four years later in 2021.
Secondly, there is an obligation not only on a tenant to bring notice of a repair and a complaint, to the landlord’s attention, but a reasonable expectation on a tenant to report a matter as not having been attended or unresolved. The resident refers to attendance to the bath taps in 2017 with the operative advising that he would come back and never did. There is no evidence that this was ever pursued by the resident until four years later via a complaint and so it would be unreasonable to have expected the landlord to know that there remained an issue, when this was not reported.

Property Transfer

The landlord’s transfer policy states at section 4.4 that applicants to the choice-based lettings scheme will “where necessary, complete a medical assessment form”.
The landlord has said that the resident was registered on the landlord’s internal transfer list, with medical priority, on 31 March 2010. The resident has said this is incorrect and she was registered on the transfer list in 2014, with no medical priority and was first on the list for transfer in her borough.
The resident has repeatedly expressed to the landlord that she has been awaiting a property transfer for many years and her dissatisfaction that this has not yet been possible. She has questioned why the landlord has not been advertising properties for her to bid on and why, having said that she was told a number of years ago that she was next in the list to move, which has not happened.
The landlord, in response, has been transparent and explained the reasons for its limited advertising of suitable properties for the resident and suggested alternatives to her by way of mutual exchange and registering with local housing authorities. It has also suggested she speak with its dedicated mobility officer and provided her with contact details to discuss her options, none of which have been taken up by the resident.
Additionally, and importantly, the landlord has invited the resident to complete a new medical assessment, given that the previous one was 12 years ago, in 2010 and her application was closed in 2021. In doing so, it was seeking to assess current need, upon which, any housing priority or transfer can be based and acted in accordance with its transfer policy which states that a medical assessment may be required in applying to its choice-based lettings scheme. The resident would need to reapply to the scheme and so a medical assessment is a necessary part of the process, given the history of medical need.
The landlord’s actions in response to the resident’s continued dissatisfaction that she has not yet been able to move property have been appropriate. This is because in seeking a property transfer, there are a number of options available for the resident to pursue, but this needs her engagement to take them forward – this extends to agreeing to a medical assessment to reassess priority, in accordance with its policy.
Despite the resident stating that she was on the transfer list later in time than 2010, for reasons unrelated to medical need, the landlord has a record of medical need dating back to 2010 and it is entitled therefore, to ask for this to be reassessed and indeed, has a duty to do so, so it can best help her with her search.
It is clearly and understandably a frustrating experience for the resident to have believed a number of years ago that she would soon be moved and this having not come to fruition. The resident has not engaged with the medical assessment request, however, or any other options or offer of discussion and support. She is not obliged to do so, although in the absence of engagement, there is little more the landlord can do to support her in this.

Communication and complaints handling

The landlord has a two-stage complaints policy, whereby it aims to investigate and respond to a complaint within 10 days at stage one. Where a complainant is dissatisfied with the outcome of their complaint, they may request escalation to stage two, whereby the landlord aims to review the matter within 20 days thereafter.
The landlord acknowledged that its response to the complaint at stage two was late, however it did not acknowledge that there had been a much earlier complaint on the issues, noted in its system and then ignored. While acknowledging and offering compensation for the late stage two complaint it missed the opportunity to consider and offer redress for the length of time for which this protracted complaint had not been dealt with. This Service would ordinarily expect a resident to chase a landlord for a response to a formal complaint, but in this case she was chasing it for several repairs consistently over a considerable period and it was not clear whether at any point the landlord had clarified its formal complaints process to her.
The landlord acted reasonably in agreeing to investigate matters dating back to 2019, which went far beyond the scope of its complaints policy. Its decision to do this was reasonable because it was not obliged to look further back in time than six months.
Following the resident’s request for it to look back to matters from 2014 instead of 2019, it agreed it would “review and investigate” everything back in time, when in fact it did not, stating in its stage two complaints response that this would be way beyond the scope of the complaints policy. The landlord was not obliged to investigate seven years of issues for reasons already described around its own policy and the expectations of it as a member of the Housing Ombudsman. Historic investigations can be problematic in that personnel have often left, records no longer exist and the issues that had occurred are no longer relevant or where they are, the landlord has not had the opportunity to put them right at the time.
However, the fact that the landlord said it would investigate historic matters dating further back than 2019 gave rise to a reasonable expectation by the resident that this would be done – an expectation which it did not or could not then meet. Thus, its offer of £100 in compensation was not adequate redress for delayed complaints process and its failure to address the matters for the period it had agreed to do.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the complaint about repairs at the property, specifically in respect of the intercom and roof.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint about a property transfer.
In accordance with paragraph 39(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the level of rent and rent increase is outside of the jurisdiction of this Service.

Reasons

The landlord took too long to investigate the issues, in particular, the intercom for which it made a reasonable offer of redress. However, it made no offer in respect of the roof, did not acknowledge its failings in that regard, failed to communicate effectively internally and with the resident, and failed to manage her expectations.
The landlord acted appropriately and in accordance with its transfer policy, in requesting a medical assessment, in order to reassess need and support her in moving forwards for this, with which the resident has not engaged. The landlord has also offered suggestions and other support with rehousing, which has similarly not been taken up.
The landlord’s responses were delayed at both stages of the complaints procedure, and it was not made clear by the landlord what period of time it was looking at, failing to adequately manage the resident’s expectations.
The complaint about the level of rent and rent increase is outside of the jurisdiction of this Service to consider.

Orders

The landlord to pay the resident £800 compensation in recognition of the maladministration found in respect of its handling of repairs at the property and delay in complaints handling, comprised of:
1. £600 for the inconvenience to resident and associated time and trouble in respect of its handling of repairs, specifically, the intercom and the roof.
2. £200 in recognition of delay in its complaints handling.
This is a total amount which includes the original offer of compensation.
The landlord to contact the resident to arrange an appointment for an inspection and any associated repairs as a matter or priority, given the passage of time that has already occurred. In arranging the appointment/s, the landlord to be clear with the resident around the appointment day, time and access requirements and reasons for the visit/s.
The landlord to confirm compliance with the above orders within four weeks of the date of this determination.