London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202100123)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202100123

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

18 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. response to the resident’s reports of a leak at his property and the amount of compensation subsequently offered;
    2. complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 28 January 2017. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing.
  2. The property was a new build at the time the resident moved in. The property is a flat, with another flat located above.
  3. The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy. A stage one response will be provided within 10 working days of a complaint, and a stage two within 20 working days of an escalation.
  4. The landlord operates a compensation policy. Prior to April 2020, the compensation policy noted compensation may be considered where the landlord failed to follow its policies and procedures. It may also have offered discretionary compensation where residents suffered undue distress. Compensation may also have been paid for loss of amenities e.g. where a resident was unable to use a room. The policy noted it would offer £10 per day up to £100 for a leak that was not repaired within the first 24 hours. The policy also noted it could offer up to £320 for a ‘high’ impact service failure (for time/trouble, distress, and inconvenience). Following April 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the landlord published a new policy that notes that no discretionary compensation will be offered until further notice. It notes, however, that all cases will still be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
  5. The landlord operates a responsive repairs policy. The policy notes the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure, walls, and roof. The policy notes where a building developer is responsible for repairs, the landlord will arrange these repairs directly with the building developer. The landlord will aim to carry out routine repairs at the earliest mutually convenient time, and emergency repairs within 24 hours. This may include initial ‘make safe’ works prior to further works.

Summary of events

  1. Since moving into the property, the resident has reported a number of repair issues throughout 2017-2019 which the landlord has attended to. In or around October 2018, the resident reported a leak which appeared to be coming from the balcony area of the property above. The landlord has provided this service with its internal communications from this period, which note that it was unclear if this issue was for the building developer or itself to investigate. It is not evident that any subsequent works were arranged. No further leaks were reported during this period.
  2. It is not disputed that in or around April 2020, the resident reported to his property manager that there was mould on the ceiling of his living room. The landlord has noted in its formal responses that this report was not raised correctly as a repair at the time. This service has not been provided with any written communication from this time and it is not evident there ever was any.
  3. On 27 August 2020, the resident reported a ceiling leak at his property. He advised it appeared to be getting worse and that it was in danger of interacting with the electrical fittings. On 28 August 2020, the landlord contacted the resident to check if he was available for its plumber to attend that day, however, the resident advised the leak was likely from the terrace above his property, and not a plumbing issue. An operative of the landlord subsequently attended, however no repair records have been provided to this service.
  4. On 1 September 2020, the resident reiterated the ceiling leak was ongoing. The resident noted an operative of the landlord had attended, but that no action was taken. The landlord’s internal communications note that on 3 September 2020 it was arranging an inspection of the property above the resident’s to inspect for the source of the leak, however, it is not evident if this was carried out.
  5. On 4 October 2020, the resident again reiterated the leak was ongoing and getting worse, and there was increased mould, which he noted he had initially reported in April 2020. The resident reiterated his concerns on 5 October 2020 and again on 8 October 2020. He advised he was using dehumidifiers to address the damp caused by the leak, but that he considered the mould to be a health hazard. He requested he be decanted, and repairs be urgently undertaken.
  6. The landlord’s internal communications between 9-16 October 2020 demonstrate it attempted to arrange repairs but had difficulty doing so due to its contractor not operating during COVID-19 restrictions. On or around 16 October 2020, the landlord agreed to decant the resident while repairs were carried out. On 21 October 2020, the landlord advised the now decanted resident that the repairs to the ceiling had been completed, and it was waiting for the area to dry to carry out redecoration works. On 11 November 2020, the landlord advised that all works had been completed and the resident was able to return to the property.
  7. On the same date, the resident queried when he could discuss compensation with the landlord. On 20 November 2020, the landlord advised it would not provide compensation in relation to the leak. It noted that the resident had initially reported leaks in October 2018, but that having determined the issue was the responsibility of the building developer, no further action had been taken. It also noted that following the resident’s reports of leaks in August 2020, it had carried out temporary repair works prior to the decant and further works in October 2020. It also advised that it had no records of the resident’s reports in April 2020. It apologised for the inconvenience caused to the resident and further advised that while “the service you received fell short of acceptable standards” and the repairs could have been “completed more swiftly,” it was “operating an interim policy whereby goodwill compensation is unable to be provided from March 2020 onwards.” It advised it therefore would not be able to provide any compensation.
  8. The resident subsequently reiterated that no action had been taken following his reports of mould in April 2020, which he considered to have been a health risk as he had to work from home in mouldy conditions. He also disputed temporary works had been carried out by the landlord in August 2020, and advised that its operative had only taken photos, but not carried out any works.
  9. On 25 November 2020, the landlord accepted there had been a communication failure within its organisation in relation to the resident’s initial reports. In recognition of this and its delayed works, it offered £375 compensation. On the same date, the resident advised he was dissatisfied with the offer and that he considered an appropriate amount to be a portion of his rent from April 2020 to the completion of the works. The landlord subsequently advised it would be unable to make an offer on this basis as the room had remained in useable condition.
  10. The resident reiterated the ongoing mould had caused him distress, and on 27 November 2020, the landlord increased its offer of compensation to £450 which it advised took into account the length of time the works remained outstanding. The resident subsequently accepted the offer of compensation, but advised he still wished to progress his complaint.
  11. The complaint was referred to this service, following which the landlord issued its stage one response on 3 December 2020. This response echoed its timeline of events as set out in its communication of 20 November 2020 and reiterated its offer of compensation. The response also continued to note the landlord considered its operative had carried out temporary repairs on 28 August 2020.
  12. On 9 December 2020, the resident reiterated that no temporary repair works were carried out on 28 August 2020 and requested a stage two response be provided with this corrected. On 14 December 2020, the landlord advised it had now updated its system to note that no temporary works were carried out on this date and that a stage two response would be provided.
  13. On 2 February 2021, the landlord provided its stage two response. It replicated the contents of its stage one response, including the comments that temporary works had been carried out on 28 August 2020. It advised it would not increase its offer of compensation but did make a further offer of £15 for its delayed stage two response. On the same date, the resident expressed his frustration that the response again incorrectly noted temporary works had been carried out.

Assessment and findings

Leak

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy, along with the resident’s tenancy agreement, notes that it is responsible for maintaining the structure of the building, which would include any external leaks. When a landlord receives a report of a leak, it has an obligation to carry out a reasonable investigation to determine the cause of the leak. The landlord’s repair policy notes that, in some instances, a building defect and the subsequent repair may be the responsibility of the building developer. This is for the landlord and building developer to decide, and a resident should not be affected by this division of responsibility.
  2. It is not disputed that the resident reported a leak in October 2018 which he considered to be coming from the balcony area of the property above. Following this report, the landlord’s internal communications show that there was some discussion around whether it or the building developer was responsible for this repair. It is not evident, however, that this query was resolved, and no repair was booked, nor was there any update provided to the resident.
  3. Because no investigation was carried out and given the time that passed between this leak and the further leak in 2020, it cannot be conclusively determined that the leaks are the same issue, or that the 2020 leak would not have occurred had repair works been carried out in 2018. The landlord nevertheless failed to carry out its responsibilities as per the tenancy agreement or its policies, which would have left the resident distressed and unsure as to how this issue would be resolved. While there is some onus on a resident to follow up a report or repair, the landlord’s failure to take action represents a service failure in this instance.
  4. It is also not disputed that in or around April 2020, the resident reported mould occurring at his property. An important part of a landlord’s service delivery is to keep detailed repair notes to assist it with its future repairs and for it to provide transparency as to its actions for residents and the Ombudsman. The landlord has acknowledged, however, that following the resident’s report, no notes were taken, and no further action was taken.
  5. Again, given that no investigation was carried out, while the resident is of the opinion that the mould and the leaks were connected, it cannot be conclusively determined that they were. The Ombudsman would nevertheless expect a landlord to carry out a reasonable investigation to determine this at the time and considers it best practice to provide advice relating to mould should there not have been a leak. The landlord did not do this and so once again, this would have caused distress for the resident and represents service failure by the landlord.
  6. Following his further reports in August 2020, the resident has expressed his concern that he was left in a property with mould since April 2020, which he considered to have been a health risk. As noted above, however, there is some onus on a resident to follow up their reports, which it is not evident the resident did until August 2020. While the Ombudsman appreciates it was unpleasant for the resident to reside in a property with mould for this period, no evidence has been presented that concludes there were negative health impacts due to the mould. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord not to specifically offer compensation for the health impacts of the mould in its formal responses.
  7. Additionally, the mould in the resident’s property did not make the rooms unusable, as he continued to use them throughout the period of the complaint. The landlord’s compensation policy notes that it may offer specific compensation when a room becomes unusable, however, given this was not the case, it was also reasonable for the landlord not to calculate its offer of compensation on this basis.
  8. Following the resident’s reports that a further leak had occurred in August 2020, the landlord appropriately attended the next day. The resident has advised, however, that the landlord did not carry out any temporary repair works. While the landlord initially advised it had carried out works, it later accepted it had not. As noted above, the Ombudsman expects a landlord to keep detailed repair notes so it can demonstrate accurately what actions it has taken. Additionally, the landlord’s repairs policy notes that such ‘make safe’ initial works precede further works, however, no such communication was made with the resident to advise the outcome of its initial investigation or a timeline of further works. This would have caused concern and distress for the resident and led him to expend further time and effort in chasing up the issue twice more.
  9. Following his further concerns, the landlord appropriately made timely arrangements for the resident to be decanted and for repair works and redecoration works to be carried out, during which it kept the resident reasonably updated. The Ombudsman also notes the landlord appropriately reimbursed the resident for a number of expenses during this period. It is not disputed that the works carried out were effective at resolving the leak.
  10. At the time of the complaint, the landlord operated a revised compensation policy which suspended the payment of discretionary compensation. In its communication to the resident on 20 November 2020, the landlord accepted its service had fallen short, but declined to offer any compensation on the basis of its revised policy. Such a policy does not affect the ability of the Ombudsman to assess whether reasonable redress has been offered, and at this point, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident had not been redressed.
  11. The Ombudsman has previously commented on this policy in a separate investigation about a complaint from a different resident (Complaint 202004146). The Ombudsman recognises that the pandemic has had a major impact on a range of services provided by social landlords and would not expect landlords to offer compensation for any delays in service that were solely due to the Covid-19 restrictions over which they had no control. However, the Ombudsman’s guidance note issued in July 2020 confirms that the Ombudsman expects remedies to continue to be applied appropriately to situations where any delays are due to the actions or omissions of a landlord.
  12. There is no evidence to show that the landlord’s failure to take action following the resident’s reports was solely due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord used its discretion and reconsidered its position and made an offer of £375 compensation, which it increased to £450 following the resident’s reiteration of concerns regarding the length of time he had lived with the mould. The landlord repeated this offer in its formal responses and appropriately advised it had taken into account the length of time the issues remained outstanding.
  13. In conclusion, there were multiple service failures by the landlord, namely its failure to carry out an inspection following the resident’s reports of a leak in 2018, its failure to carry out an investigation following the resident’s reports of mould in April 2020, and its failure to provide timely updates following its inspection of the leak in August 2020. Based on what the Ombudsman considers reasonable, an amount of £100 is appropriate for the landlord’s failure to investigate the 2018 leak, given that there were no ongoing issues following the initial report. As the landlord also failed to investigate the report of mould in April 2020, a further amount of £100 is reasonable, with an additional £150 to represent the ongoing inconvenience of living with the mould, which should have been addressed by the landlord. An amount of £100 is also appropriate to reflect its failure to provide an update regarding further works following its initial inspection of the leak reported in August 2020. The landlord’s offer of £450 is therefore in line with what the Ombudsman would expect and amounts to an offer of reasonable redress in the circumstances.

Complaints handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy notes it will endeavour to provide a stage two response within 20 working days of an escalation request. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to provide an updated timeframe should it be unable to meet this target.
  2. Following the resident’s request for an escalation in December 2020, the landlord did not provide its stage two response until February 2021. It did not provide any update to the resident in the interim. It was therefore appropriate that it acknowledged its delay and offered £15 compensation, which was a reasonable amount in the circumstances.
  3. In its stage one response, the landlord noted it had carried out temporary works in August 2020, which the resident had subsequently disputed. The landlord subsequently accepted no works were carried out and advised the resident its system had been updated accordingly. In its later stage two response, the landlord again noted it had carried out temporary works, in what appeared to be a copied timeline from its earlier response. The purpose of a stage two response is for a further investigation to be carried out by the landlord to give it the opportunity to resolve the complaint itself. It is not simply a ‘stepping stone’ to refer a complaint to this service. Its repeated reference to the temporary works demonstrates that no further investigation was carried out, which would have caused frustration and concern for the resident, having previously identified this error.
  4. This failure to accurately investigate the complaint based on the records it advised the resident it had updated represents a further service failure by the landlord, and an amount of compensation is appropriate. In the circumstances, given the frustration this would have caused, an additional amount of £50 is ordered.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure in respect of the complaints regarding the leak at the resident’s property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling.

Reasons

Leak

  1. There was service failure by the landlord on a number of occasions throughout the course of this complaint. The landlord initially failed to raise repairs in 2018 following the resident’s reports of a leak. It further failed to carry out any investigation or record the reports of the resident regarding mould in April 2020. Additionally, after further reports of a leak in August 2020, the landlord failed to carry out any temporary works, or provide updates to the resident about any further works.
  2. The landlord appropriately accepted its service failure, and while it initially failed to offer any redress due to its revised compensation policy, it subsequently offered compensation which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, amounted to reasonable redress in the circumstances.

Complaints handling

  1. While the landlord offered compensation for its delayed stage two response, it failed to demonstrate it had carried out a further investigation at stage two and repeated an error which the resident had specifically identified and that the landlord had advised it had rectified in its system.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £65 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its ineffective complaints handling.
  2. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £15. This amount (or if applicable, the balance of this amount) must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to take measures to improve its repairs records keeping to ensure accuracy and detail are improved.
  2. The landlord to write to the resident within four weeks of the date of this determination and reiterate its offer of £450 compensation if this has not yet been paid.
  3. If the interim compensation policy is still in place, then it is recommended that the landlord reviews the policy and makes changes to reflect the Ombudsman’s guidance on best practice for landlords during Covid-19. It should also consider when it will be appropriate to reinstate its full compensation policy.