London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202100892)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202100892

London & Quadrant H T

16 June 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

The complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of:
1. repairs to resolve a leak in the roof of the building, and;
2. the resident’s request to receive a copy of a surveyor’s report following an inspection of the building.

Jurisdiction

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. After carefully considering all the evidence, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

The resident’s request to receive a copy of a surveyor’s report following an inspection of the building

Paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme states that “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”.
In requesting an escalation of the complaint on 9 November 2020, the resident had asked to receive a copy of the surveyor’s report following an inspection of the building on 27 October 2020. This request was declined by the landlord in its stage two complaint response.
The Housing Ombudsman is unable to consider complaints about landlords’ responses to requests for information under the Data Protection and Freedom of Information acts. Matters relating to requests for information under the Data Protection and Freedom of Information acts fall properly within the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and it is recommended the resident contact the ICO if he wishes to pursue this aspect of his complaint further.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a flat in a communal building.
The landlord’s routine repair responsibilities policy sets out what repairs it and its residents are responsible for undertaking. As it relates to leaseholders, the landlord states, in part, that it is responsible for “Brickwork and concrete external walls and rendering. Roofing and rainwater goods. Balconies, excluding unblocking drains”.
During the period of the complaint, the landlord was operating a restricted service due to the Covid-19 pandemic. This resulted in repairs that were deemed non-urgent being postponed.
The landlord continued to respond to repairs deemed critical during this period. It defined a critical repair as “an emergency or very urgent works that should be completed ‘in days’ and that cannot be safely left for any longer than that”. One of the examples given as a critical repair by the landlord was “uncontainable water leaks or blocked drainage or gutters leaking into communal areas”.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy. When a complaint is raised, the landlord will provide a complaint response within ten working days. If the complainant remains dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation to the next stage. The landlord will then send a stage two response to the complainant within 20 working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.
The landlord’s policy also states that if it is unable to provide the stage two response within 20 working days, that it will contact the complainant and extended the timeframe by an additional ten working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider compensation when it has failed to follow its policies, procedures or guidelines; for loss of facilities or amenities in the home; failure to respond to a complaint within its target time; or failure to complete repairs within its agreed response time.
The policy notes that compensation should not be seen as a replacement for home contents insurance and advises residents to arrange their own insurance for accidental damage.
The policy states that the landlord will consider discretionary payments that recognise individual household circumstances. It also states that while the landlord does not pay compensation for loss of earnings, it may offer a goodwill payment in recognition of the time and trouble an issue may have taken to be resolved.
From 1 April 2020 onwards, the landlord has operated under an interim compensation policy in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. This policy suspended non-statutory compensation payments under almost all circumstances other than for rehousing or to reimburse a resident’s out-of-pocket expenses due to its service failure.
However, the policy also states that it would consider compensation for complaints made after 1 April 2020 on a case-by-case basis.

Summary of Events

On 3 October 2020 the resident contacted the landlord to report water leaking through the ceiling in his property, he said he had to turn off the electricity because of the leak. The landlord’s records state that the contractor visited the property, isolated the lights and stopped the leak. The contactor also advised arranging an inspection to locate the source of the leak.
The landlord raised a work order on 5 October 2020 to check and unblock the roof guttering and downpipe and to be dealt as a critical repair. The landlord’s repair logs describe the status of this job as ‘cancelled’. The logs do not provide a date as to when the work was cancelled or provide a reason.
On 13 October 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord to inform it that rainwater had been leaking into the property for the previous two days and had caused damage to both the property and his personal items. The resident also informed the landlord that he had to turn off his electrics again and as the property is a studio flat, he had no other rooms to go into to avoid the leak.
The resident noted that the landlord, as freeholder of the building, was responsible for repairs to the fabric of the building and requested it resolve the issue. The resident also provided video footage and photographs of the leak.
The landlords repair logs state that a work order was raised on 14 October 2020 to address rainwater leaking into the resident’s property from the balcony in the property above. This was marked as a critical repair. Similar to the work raised on 5 October 2020, the status of the job was marked as ‘cancelled’ with no date given for when it was cancelled and no reason for the cancellation provided.
On 20 October 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord and requested to raise a formal complaint into the matter. The resident highlighted the poor customer service he had experienced from the landlord and that he had not been kept updated on the progress of repairs to resolve the leak.
The landlord replied to the resident on 21 October 2020, confirmed that it had opened a formal complaint and that it aimed to provide a response within ten working days. The resident replied and noted that a surveyor had attended that day, inspected the property and informed him that repair work would now be arranged.
A further surveyor’s inspection of the building occurred on 27 October 2020 and a stage one complaint response was sent to the resident on 6 November 2020. The landlord informed the resident that it expected to receive the surveyor’s report within the next five working days and that it would then arrange for any further work and/or inspections which the report recommended.
The landlord also acknowledged the poor service the resident had received and that there had been a delay in providing information to him. The landlord apologised and stated that it would ensure that the resident would be kept updated until the issue was resolved.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 9 November 2020 and requested an escalation of the complaint on the grounds that:
1. There was still water leaking into the property.
2. He had not received any feedback from the 21 October 2020 inspection of his property, despite sending two emails to the landlord on 30 October 2020 and 2 November 2020.
3. The five working days had passed since the stage 27 October 2020 inspection of the building, and he had yet to be provided with an update on any recommended work.
4. He was still experiencing poor customer from the landlord.
The landlord replied on 9 November 2020, confirmed that it had escalated the complaint and that it aimed to send a response within ten working days once a review had been undertaken.
The resident wrote to the landlord again on 10 November 220 an enquired who he should contact regarding the ongoing leak. The landlord replied on 11 November 2020 and provided the information to the resident.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 15 November 2020 and provided it with an update to his living conditions. He informed it that the leak would return whenever it rained and that repairs to the balcony of the property above his remained outstanding. He expressed his dissatisfaction with the delays and ongoing poor communication form the landlord.
The resident wrote again on 23 November 2020 and noted that it had been ten working days since the complaint had been escalated and he had not received a response. The resident also noted that the leak was still returning when it rained and requested a copy of the surveyor’s report from the 27 October 2020 inspection.
The landlord replied on 25 November 2020. It apologised for the delays and noted that in line with its complaints policy, it could extend a response time by a further ten working days in order to complete an investigation. The resident replied to the landlord on 25 November 2020 and stated his unhappiness with the delays and poor communication.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 30 November 2020 to inform him that the complaint response time had been extended by a further ten working days. The landlord then called the resident to discuss the outstanding issues of the complaint. The landlord’s notes of the call state:
1. The resident informed it that when it leaks, it is located over his bed and as the property is a studio flat there is nowhere else to move the bed to.
2. The ongoing leak and the damage it had caused had been very disruptive to the resident’s lifestyle and wellbeing.
3. The resident was very unhappy with the communication and customer service he had received.
4. The resident had enquired on the possibility of being moved to an alternative property temporarily until the leak was resolved.
An internal landlord email sent on 3 December 2020 stated that a property had been identified to move the resident to and that it would check the suitability of this property before contacting the resident.
The landlord sent its stage two complaint response to the resident on 4 December 2020. It informed the resident that:
1. Following the 27 October 2020 inspection by its contractor, it received a report on 27 November 2020 where it was determined that the roof of the building needed to be replaced. Due to the costs involved, it would be necessary for it to issue tenders and gain costs from different contractors. As such, it was unable to provide the resident with a timeframe to when the roof would be replaced.
2. It was also unable to provide the resident with a copy of the 27 October 2020 inspection report as it had been advised that these reports were not released externally.
3. Due to the current living conditions of the resident, the landlord had agreed to provide alternative temporary accommodation until the work had been completed. The landlord would be in touch shortly to arrange a viewing of a suitable property.
4. It accepted that its communication had been poor, specially prior to the formal complaint being raised by the resident. The landlord also noted that there was a delay in it receiving the inspection report from its contractor. The landlord apologised to the resident and informed it of the action it had taken in order to improve its customer service going forward.
5. In relation to compensation, the landlord informed the resident that it did not compensate for loss of earnings and that if he believed the landlord was at fault for the damage to his personal items he would need to make a claim against its insurance provider. It awarded the resident £780 in recognition of the delays in the repairs and complaint process, as well as the time and effort the resident had put in to progress the matter.
The resident replied on 8 December 2020. He stated his unhappiness that the landlord was unable to provide timescales for the outstanding repairs and enquired if he could request the inspection report via the Freedom of Information Act.
The landlord replied on 11 December 2020. It advised the resident that it would be in touch when timescales were available for the repairs. It also explained that it could not provide the inspection report for the reasons it gave in the stage two response.

Assessment and findings

Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (an acknowledgment of its failings, an apology, providing additional training to its staff to improve its customer service, and a compensation payment of £780) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging the delays in both the process to replace the roof and the complaint process. It also acknowledged its communication with the resident had been poor. it apologised to the resident and took reasonable steps to put things right by interviewing and providing further training to staff members involved in the case to improve its customer service in the future.
The landlord assigned a staff member to be the resident’s point-of-contact during the complaint. The internal correspondence provided by the landlord showed that when the resident emailed the landlord, the point-of-contact chased up his questions with the appropriate landlord departments and with the contractor. The point-of-contact also provided regular updates to the resident. However, there was clearly still poor communication between the resident and landlord during the complaint process; particularly relating to scheduled repair work and complaint response times.
The two repairs raised following the resident’s reports were both marked as ‘cancelled’. However, no date or reason for the cancellation was given. It would be reasonable to assume that the work was cancelled as it was no longer required as the landlord had made the decision to replace the roof. However, there is no evidence that this was in fact the case or any that reason for the cancellations were provided to the resident. It is also unclear if any make-safe or make-good work was done prior to the work being cancelled.
When the complaint was escalated to stage two of the landlord’s process, the resident was mistakenly informed that he would receive a response within ten working days. The landlord’s complaints policy states that the stage two response will be supplied within 20 working days and the complaint-handler can request a further ten working day extension if required. This caused confusion as well as inconvenience to the resident as when the original ten working day deadline expired, he emailed the landlord and requested an update on the status of the response.
While it was appropriate for the landlord to recognise and apologise for this poor customer service, it would have been good practice for it to have explained the reasons for the confusion in providing the stage two response and why the repair work was cancelled.
The compensation awarded by the landlord is in line with the upper level of the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance, published on our website. This reflects the significant inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of living in the property while the leak was ongoing, taking into account the fact that the property is a studio flat meaning that he could not use other rooms, which would have added to his inconvenience.
The landlord declined to compensate the resident for loss of earnings. This is in line with its compensation policy and a reasonable position for the landlord to take as a resident would be expected to attend repair appointments. Landlords would only be expected to consider compensation for the added inconvenience caused by unnecessary appointments and appointments cancelled by the landlord without reasonable notice. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence in this case of any appointments cancelled by the landlord without notice and there is insufficient evidence that the repair issues could have been resolved sooner, with less appointments. Therefore, the landlord offered compensation that the Ombudsman considers was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the landlord’s failings regarding the repairs.
This award of compensation is separate from any claim which the resident may make for damage to his personal possessions. The landlord was entitled to refer any claims for damage to possessions to its insurer. The Housing Ombudsman cannot consider complaints about insurance companies and therefore we cannot comment on the insurer’s handling of any claims or any settlement it may offer.
For the reasons set out above, the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.
While the frustration of the resident is wholly understandable, in some circumstances it can be difficult to locate the source of a leak. Moreover, when capital works are required, delays can be possible as the landlord will have legal obligations it has to first consider (such as Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985) and ensure that it is compliance with prior to any work commencing.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident in respect it’s handling repairs to resolve a leak in the roof of the building, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion satisfactorily resolves the complaint.