London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202103839)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202103839

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

28 September 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 concerns how the landlord dealt with:
   1. The resident’s reports of a water leak into her bathroom.
   2. Reports of disturbed asbestos in the roof tiles and pipework serving her property.
   3. The formal complaint into these matters.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a house.
3. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours and that it will arrange a mutually convenient appointment to attend all other repairs.
4. Emergency repairs are defined as a repair where there is ‘an immediate danger to the occupant or members of the public.
5. 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.

Summary of events

6. The landlord’s repair logs show a report made by the resident via social media on 17 August 2020 of issues with the external pipework at the property and a leak in the upstairs bathroom ceiling. These repairs were marked as ‘critical’ in the landlord’s logs and shown as being completed on 11 September 2020. Follow-up work was raised on 25 August 2020 to clear the guttering and this was marked as being completed on 23 September 2020.
7. On 15 September 2020, the repairs logs show that a repair order was raised for an inspection as a vent tile on the roof was believed to contain asbestos. This was marked as finished on 29 September 2020.
8. On 3 October 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord and requested to raise a formal complaint into how it had handled the repairs. She described the elements of the complaint as:
   1. The contractors had visited the property on numerous occasions to address the issues with the pipework and the leak since she first reported the issues in June 2020 but had yet to complete repairs.
   2. There was a delay to work starting to repair the leak due to the requirement of an asbestos survey to the bathroom. However, as the bathroom ceiling was not the source of the leak, the work should not have been delayed.
   3. Her dissatisfaction with the quality of work from the contractor and poor communication from the landlord.
9. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 5 October 2020 and confirmed that a formal complaint had been opened. The landlord wrote again to the resident on 16 October 2020 and informed her that its records indicated all work at the property had now been complete. It asked her to confirm than this was correct and enquired if any internal damage to the property had occurred from the leak.
10. On 31 October 2020 the resident forwarded her 3 October 2020 complaint to the landlord and noted that she had yet to receive a response. On 18 November 2020, the landlord recorded that it had received a request from the resident via social media asking it to respond to her complaint. The resident then wrote to the landlord on 30 November 2020 requesting an escalation of the complaint to stage two of the landlord’s process on the grounds that she had received no response from the landlord since she had first raised the complaint on 3 October 2020.
11. The resident wrote on 8 December 2020 and again on 11 December 2020 to enquire on the status of her escalation request. The landlord replied on 11 December 2020. It apologised for the delay in responding and confirmed that it had escalated the complaint to stage 2 of its internal process.
12. The resident wrote a further email on 31 December 2020 to enquire on the status of the complaint and to inform the landlord that the leak in the bathroom ceiling remained outstanding. The landlord responded on the same day. It apologised that she had not been contacted and that the matter had been escalated internally to a manager.
13. The landlord wrote to the resident on 15 January 2020 and said that following a telephone call with the resident it could confirm that an appointment had been booked for 20 January 2020 to remove a flue pipe that was the cause of the leak and to repair the roof. It also confirmed that it would be escalating the complaint to the next stage
14. The resident replied and noted that she had not received a telephone call from the landlord, but she would welcome the chance to discuss the issues. The landlord explained that the mistaken reference to a telephone call was due to the type of email template it had used and arranged to call the resident on 18 January 2021.
15. On 21 January 2021, the resident wrote to landlord to express her dissatisfaction with the appointment on the previous day. She explained that no work went ahead as it was not safe for the operative to stand in the loft space to remove the flue pipe. Scaffolding was needed, which was not available on the day of the appointment. She noted that the contractor should have been already aware of the situation due to their previous visits and the asbestos survey that was undertaken.
16. The resident then asked the landlord how she could progress her complaint due to both the length of time it was taking the landlord to complete the work and provide a complaint response.
17. The resident wrote again on 26 January 2021 and requested an update. The landlord replied on 12 February 2021. It confirmed that the complaint had been escalated and that it would provide a formal response by 12 March 2021.
18. The landlord and resident discussed the complaint during a telephone conversation on 17 February 2021. The landlord then sent a stage two complaint response on 10 March 2021. The landlord informed the resident that:
    1. It had reviewed its response to the resident’s reports from when she had first reported the leak from the bathroom ceiling on 17 August 2020. It accepted that she had received a poor service from its contractor. The landlord apologised to the resident and informed her that it had been in contact with the contractor regarding the issues she had raised.
    2. It also accepted that she had received poor service from the landlord during stage one of the complaint process. The landlord apologised for the lack of assistance and poor service she received and explained that it had escalated the matter internally to senior management.
    3. It confirmed that repair orders had been raised to refit the panel in the loft space on 12 March 2021 and to address the electrical problems in the upstairs bathroom on 1 April 2021.
    4. It explained that the asbestos survey previously undertaken was a ‘management survey’ which inspected the whole property to identify locations where asbestos could be found. A ‘refurbishment survey’, which is taken to areas where intrusive works are required for signs of asbestos, was undertaken to the bathroom pipe. However, the refurbishment survey did not include the bathroom ceiling or walls. Therefore, a further refurbishment survey of these areas would be required before intrusive work in the bathroom could commence. The landlord then explained it had raised a repair order for the survey and the resident would be contacted to arrange an appointment.
    5. In recognition of the service failures it had identified, the landlord offered the resident £565 compensation. It broke this award down as:
       1. £240 for the inconvenience and delays in completing work (£40 per month for six months).
       2. £150 for the distress caused to the resident.
       3. £150 for the resident’s time and effort in pursing the matter.
       4. £25 for the delay in progressing the complaint to stage two of the landlord’s internal process.
19. The resident contacted this Service on 11 May 2021. In an email sent on 9 July 2021, the resident confirmed that all repair work had now been completed and described the outstanding issues of her complaint as:
    1. The length of time it took for all repairs to be completed (over a year from when she first reported a leak).
    2. The poor level of service and poor quality of work she experienced from the landlord’s contractors.
    3. The landlord’s failure to take into account the resident’s and her family’s safety in relation to potential exposure to asbestos.
    4. She asked that the compensation award should properly reflect the difficulties she had experienced during the time it took for the work to be completed, the asbestos to be removed, and in her attempts to progress the formal complaint.

How the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports of a leak into her bathroom

20. The landlord’s repair logs show it first received a report of issues with drainage at the property on 24 March 2020 and it first received a report of a leak from the bathroom ceiling on 17 August 2020. The bathroom leak was marked as ‘critical’ on the landlord;’ records.
21. According to the landlord’s website, due to restrictions placed on its service due to the Covid-19 pandemic at this time, it was only responding to critical repairs. The list of repairs it deemed critical included situations where ‘harm to you or damage to your home is likely, such as an uncontainable water leak’.
22. Overall, the landlord followed its repair policy in responding to the resident’s reports. It was appropriate for the initial repair to be categorised as “critical” as the leak would have posed a significant safety risk. Once the leak itself had been contained, it was reasonable for the landlord not to regard the follow–on repairs as critical and for these repairs to be put on hold initially due to the effect of Covid-19 restrictions. However, there were continued delays after the restrictions were eased which would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. Taking into account the unavoidable delays caused by Covid-19 restrictions, there were unreasonable delays overall in the landlord’s completion of the repairs.
23.  In its stage two complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that the resident had received poor service and communication. This resulted in delays in arranging follow-on work and a lack of updates provided to the resident. The landlord apologised to the resident and explained that it had raised the issues she had experienced both internally and with its contractor. It provided a detailed account of the work it had taken up to that point and the work it planned to undertake. It also offered £540 compensation for its service failures.
24. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord 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.
25. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistakes and apologising to the resident. It put things right by raising the issues internally and with its contractor, and in awarding appropriate compensation.
26. The compensation award made is in line with this Service’s own remedies guidance (which is available on our website).  This suggests a payment of £250 to £750 in cases where considerable service failure or maladministration had been found, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant.
27. As examples for when this level of payment should be considered, the guidance suggests ‘a complainant repeatedly having to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes, necessitating unreasonable level of involvement by that complainant’ and also ‘a complainant being repeatedly passed between staff and or teams, with no one officer or department taking overall responsibility, or a landlord not taking responsibility for sub-contracted services’
28. Therefore, for the reasons set out above, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves this aspect of 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.

How the landlord dealt with reports of disturbed asbestos in the roof tiles and pipework.

29. On 15 September 2020 the landlord was informed by its contractor that during an inspection of the flue pipe, they had examined a roof tile vent which could contain asbestos. The contractor recommended the tile be tested for asbestos.
30. The landlord arranged an asbestos survey which was undertaken on 29 September 2020. This is line with the landlord’s asbestos policy, which states that it will:
    1. Ensure that all workplaces constructed prior to 2000 will have received an appropriate type of asbestos survey relevant to the activities undertaken there within prior to works commencing. (the resident’s roof would be considered a workplace as the contractor was working in that area)
    2. All identified asbestos containing material (ACM) will be either managed, remediated to reduce the risk or removed as appropriate.
31. The policy goes on to describe the two types of surveys which the landlord will undertake. It states that management surveys are used to determine the presence of ACM in a building which could be disturbed during normal occupancy, and that a refurbishment and demolition survey is used to locate ACM where work is due to place.
32. The survey undertaken on 29 September 2020 identified ACM in the flue pipe cement and recommended repairs. The surveyors also noted that they were unable to access the roof due to height restrictions and recommended that this area was inspected prior to any work commencing.
33. A second survey was arranged for 22 March 2021. Samples from the upstairs bathroom walls and ceiling were taken and the survey recommended removal of an insulating board as it was contaminated with ACM. In May 2021, the landlord arranged to decant the resident (temporarily move her to another property) and completed the work in her property.
34. The landlord followed its asbestos policy when it was informed by its contractor of a potential issue. However, as the upstairs bathroom was not properly surveyed, a further survey was required which caused a delay in completing the work. These delays were acknowledged by the landlord and were taken into account as part of its overall compensation award.
35. The resident also raised concerns relating to her health and safety due to the asbestos. The resident’s concerns are wholly understandable in the circumstances of this complaint. However, it is outside the authority of this Service to establish a causal link between reports of health issues – or potential health issues – experienced by residents and the actions or inactions of landlords. However, consideration has been given to any general inconvenience and distress the resident experienced as a result of the situation involving his property as well as the landlord’s response to her concerns about hers and her family’s health. If the resident feels that her health has been adversely affected as a result of errors by the landlord, she may be able to pursue this as a personal injury claim. This is a legal process and the resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue this option.

The landlord’s complaint handling

36. The landlord awarded the resident £25 for delays in not progressing the complaint to stage two of its internal process. However, the landlord has not followed its complaints policy at both stages of this process.
37. The landlord sent an acknowledgement on 5 October 2020 to the resident’s complaint sent on 3 October 2020. It then sent an email on 16 October 2020 which it later described as a stage one response. The email is not titled as a formal complaint response, it did not address the issues raised by the resident in her complaint, nor did it explain what options were available to the resident if she was dissatisfied with the response. Moreover, when the resident resent her complaint on 31 October 2020, the landlord did not inform her that it had already provided a stage one response.
38. The resident first requested to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process on 18 November 2020. The resident then contacted the landlord on numerous occasions requesting an update on the status of her complaint and her escalation request. Although these contacts were acknowledged by the landlord and discussed internally, the landlord did not provide any detail to the resident as to the status of the complaint or whether it had been escalated.
39. Following a telephone conversation on 18 January 2021, the complaint was then escalated, and a timescale given to resident as to when she would receive the stage two response.
40. The resident experienced a significant delay in receiving a stage two response and the elements of the complaint were not fully addressed at stage one of the process. If the landlord had provided a full response at stage one, the resident would have then been able to inform the landlord of which issues remained outstanding. This would have then enabled the landlord to undertake a more effective review of the case at stage two.
41. As previously stated, the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests a payment of £250 to £750 in cases of considerable service failure or maladministration where there may be no permanent impact on the complainant. As an example of what should be considered for this level of redress, the guidance suggests ‘significant failures to follow complaint procedure, escalate the matter or signpost the complainant’.
42. It would therefore be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident an additional £225 compensation for its failures to address the elements of the complaint at stage one of its process, the significant delay in providing the stage two response, and not undertaking a proper review of the complaint at stage two. Taking into account the £25 already offered by the landlord, the total compensation for complaint handling would be £250.

Determination (decision)

43. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident which in the Ombudsman’s opinion resolves these aspects of the complaint satisfactorily, in respect of how it dealt with:
    1. The resident’s reports of a leak into her bathroom.
    2. Reports of disturbed asbestos in the roof tiles and pipework.
44. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

45. The landlord recognised the inconvenience caused to the resident by in the length of time it took to investigate and complete all repairs at the property.
46. The landlord apologised and awarded compensation proportionate to the service failures it identified.
47. The landlord did not follow its complaint policy as it did not provide a stage one response to the complaint and the stage two response did not represent a comprehensive review of how the complaint was handled.
48. The £25 compensation awarded by the landlord for its poor complaint handling to the resident did not adequately compensate the resident for the distress and inconvenience she experienced as a result of poor communication and significant delays in the landlord’s responses to the complaint.

Orders

49. The landlord is ordered to pay to the resident a further £225 compensation for its service failure in how it handled the complaint. This is in addition to the £50 compensation already offered in its complaints process, brining the total compensation to £250 for complaint handling.