The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202105179)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202105179

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

15 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 is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. repairs to the resident’s rear door and stairway handrail.
    2. the resident’s request to be reimbursed for additional heating costs associated with the rear door repair.

Background and summary of events

  1. On 29 August 2020 the landlord raised a repair for the resident’s rear garden door, which had been vandalised and was not secure. The landlord’s repair records say it was cancelled, but the resident and landlord later confirmed that the landlord attended to make safe the door by boarding it up. Follow-on works were raised on 1 September 2020, and the landlord noted that the resident said her door had only been boarded up to stop glass falling. She said she had trouble locking it. The landlord attended on 28 September 2020 and raised works to completely replace the door.
  2. The landlord attended on 6 November 2020. On 11 November 2020, it raised works to complete an asbestos test around the door frame and ceiling.
  3. On 7 January 2021 the landlord raised a repair for the stairway handrail, which had partially come off. It attended on the same day and raised an asbestos test for the stairway hall and ceiling on the following day. According to the repair records, the asbestos test raised on 8 January 2021 was completed on 13 January 2021.
  4. Another repair was raised for the door on 21 January 2021, but it was cancelled, with no reason recorded.
  5. On 12 February 2021 the resident raised a complaint regarding the landlord’s handling of the door repairs. She said it was supposed to replace the door on 21 January 2021 but called her to say that asbestos was identified. The resident said she had recently called to enquire about the next steps, but the operative was unhelpful. The resident also said that she spoke to her neighbour, whose back door had also been vandalised, but the landlord did not do an asbestos test and the door was replaced quickly.
  6. On 15 February 2021 the landlord called the resident to acknowledge and further discuss her complaint. It noted that the resident did not understand why it had taken so long to complete the repair, and that the repair to the handrail was also outstanding. The handrail repair was booked for 29 March 2021. The landlord internally enquired about whether the repair could be expedited.
  7. The landlord sent its stage one complaint response on 15 February 2021. It confirmed that it raised an emergency four-hour repair on 29 August 2020 to make safe the back door, and further works were arranged for 28 September 2020.  An operative attended and advised that the back door frame and glass required replacement. Materials were ordered which could take up to four weeks to arrive. The landlord raised an appointment for works to commence on 6 November 2020; however, upon arrival, the operatives advised that an asbestos test was required prior to the works starting. The landlord arranged for this, however the test only confirmed part of the results. On 21 January 2021 operatives attended again and confirmed that they could not start works until they received the full results. The landlord raised a new repair on 28 January 2021 to assist operatives in removing the asbestos around the back door and frame. The landlord explained that there were delays with obtaining the full asbestos results, as the asbestos contractors were struggling to gain access to the timber frame. It said that it was arranging the next steps and once it had an update it would contact the resident.
  8. The landlord confirmed it raised a repair on 4 January 2021 for the stairway handrail, and an operative attended on 7 January 2021, and confirmed that an asbestos test was required, which was then completed. The landlord confirmed that no asbestos was detected on the wall surrounding the handrail, and it had arranged for an operative to attend to repair it on 16 February 2021.
  9. The landlord apologised for the delays in completing the repairs and said that they should have been managed more effectively.
  10. On 16 February 2021 the landlord completed the repair to the handrail and wrote to the resident to confirm that it would attend to carry out a “targeted survey” to the concealed timber door frame to check for asbestos. On 22 February 2021 it advised the resident it would attend alongside its contractor on 2 March 2021 to gain access to the timber frame.
  11. The landlord attended on 2 March 2021 for the asbestos survey to the door frame. The survey report, dated 3 March 2021, confirmed no asbestos was detected.
  12. The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 March 2021 to confirm the results of the asbestos test, and to say it had ordered a new door and frame. It explained that they could take up to four weeks to arrive, therefore it had scheduled the further works for 28 April 2021. The landlord reiterated its apology for the delays in it completing the repairs to the door and the stairwell handrail. In recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays, the landlord offered the resident £280.00 compensation.
  13. The resident wrote to the landlord on19 March 2021. She asked it to arrange for an independent report to clarify the result of the asbestos test because she believed a test in October 2020 detected asbestos. The resident also reiterated her concerns that her neighbour’s door was replaced a lot sooner than hers.
  14. The landlord replied on 22 March 2021. It explained that the asbestos contractor was its only provider; therefore, it was unable to arrange an independent survey. It explained that the first asbestos report recorded ‘asbestos presumed’ because the contractor was unable to access the door frame, and no tests were carried out. When the contractor was able to access the door frame in March 2021, the asbestos test was carried out and it confirmed that no asbestos is present.
  15. The landlord also acknowledged that the resident’s neighbour may have had a similar repair which was resolved sooner, but said that, for the safety of its operatives and tenants, it recently implemented a new asbestos process whereby it would not disturb any area until it could prove that asbestos had not been detected. The landlord asked the resident to confirm whether she wished to accept the offer of £280.00 compensation.
  16. Between 31 March and 6 April 2021, the landlord and resident corresponded. The resident explained that she did not feel £280 was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused to her and her son, who was vulnerable. She also said she had incurred extra costs due to the delays in the door repair: she called an emergency carpenter to put a locked door in the kitchen to ensure her and her son’s safety, and her gas and electricity bill increased because of a draught from the damaged door. The landlord amended its offer to £330, which the resident again refused, and the landlord informed the resident she could escalate her complaint.
  17. On 8 April 2021 the resident asked to escalate her complaint, and the landlord acknowledged her request. It said that somebody would contact her to discuss the complaint further.
  18. On 3 May 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to confirm the door had been fixed, but explained that she had not heard anything regarding her complaint for almost a month. The landlord called the resident on 6 May 2020 to further discuss the complaint. It wrote to her to confirm it would respond to the complaint by 3 June 2021.
  19. The landlord sent its stage two complaint response on 11 May 2021. It explained that the revised compensation offered was in accordance with policy and procedure. However, in recognition of the inconvenience and stress the resident and her family experienced, the multiple appointments and delays in relation to the repair, it offered the resident a final revised compensation offer of £380.  It advised the resident that she may contact this Service, if she remained unhappy with its response.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. In line with the landlord’s repairs policy, it is responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior of the property, including walls, roofs, windows, external doors, drains, gutters, external pipes and boundary fences and gates. The landlord is also responsible for staircases and handrails; and making safe, boarding up and re-glazing cracked or smashed windows where a police dispatch or crime reference is provided.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will complete routine day-to-day repairs at the earliest mutually convenient appointment. For emergency works, where there is an immediate danger to the occupant or members of the public, the landlord will attend within 24 hours. For emergency works that occur out of hours, it will attend within four hours. The out of hours service ‘makes safe’ the repair and lowers the immediate risk. Follow-on repairs will be arranged for the earliest mutually convenient appointment.
  3. In line with the landlord’s compensation policy, it will consider an offer of compensation when an apology alone is not sufficient. It recognises the impact the service loss or failure has had on the resident. Service failures and losses include failure to follow the landlord’s policies, procedures or guidelines. The landlord will not pay compensation if the delay was outside of its control. Compensation will be offered in a manner that is fair and proportionate.
  4. Discretionary payments can be made to recognise individual household circumstances, for example, larger sized households, or specific vulnerabilities. Staff will decide the compensation based on internal guidance. Where the resident can show with evidence that they have incurred reasonable extra costs because of the landlord’s service failure, this amount should be reimbursed.
  5. The compensation policy allows a fixed payment amount of £10 for failure to respond to a formal complaint within the timescales published in the landlord’s complaints policy.
  6. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will contact the resident, at stage one, by the end of the next working day and write within ten working days to explain the outcome of its investigation. If the resident escalates their complaint, the landlord will contact them within two working days to give them the opportunity to explain their side of things. It will then write to the resident with an outcome within 20 working days.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s rear door and stairway handrail.

  1. Based on the repair records and the resident’s communication the landlord made safe the rear door, in line with its repairs policy, by boarding it up promptly. However, it took eight months to complete the follow-on repairs. By any measure, that was an exceedingly long. Nonetheless, the interim repair to the door had made it safe and secure, according to the records.
  2. The landlord inspected the handrail on the same day that the repair was reported. There is no evidence to suggest that the repair should have been considered an emergency, and the landlord took just over one month to complete it.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the impact the resident reported the repairs delays had on her and her family. It also provided an explanation for the time taken (the need for, and delays in obtaining full asbestos results), and offered compensation of £380 for the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced
  4. The compensation offer of £380 for the delays in repairs was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy, and also with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, for instances of considerable service failure but no permanent or long term impact on a resident, such as in this case.
  5. There was also a lack of communication from the landlord to the resident regarding her stage two complaint, between her escalation request of 8 April 2021 and 6 May 2021. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have acknowledged and apologised for this but, ultimately, this did not have an significant impact on the time taken by the landlord to complete its stage two response, three days outside of its complaints timeframe.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be reimbursed for additional heating costs associated with the rear door repair.

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code advises that landlords should address all points raised in a complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate.
  2. As part of the resident’s complaint to the landlord and this Service, the resident has explained that she believed she incurred extra costs in heating her home due to draughts from the interim door. Although the resident has not provided evidence by way of energy bills or similar, there is no evidence of the landlord following the matter up with the resident, and it did not address this aspect of the complaint in either of its responses.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its handling of repairs to the resident’s rear door and stairway handrail satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint about the resident’s request to be reimbursed for additional heating costs associated with the rear door repair.

Reasons

  1. The landlord has provided the resident with a proportionate amount of compensation, in line with this Service’s remedies guidance, for any distress and inconvenience caused by its repair delays. However, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s request to be reimbursed for additional heating costs associated with the rear door repair.

Orders and recommendations

  1. In light of the findings of the investigation, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £50 for the inconvenience caused to her by not addressing her full complaint. This is in addition to the £380 already offered in its final complaint response which it should now also pay, if this has not already done so. This payment must be made within four weeks of the date of this report. Evidence of payment by that deadline must be provided to this Service.
    2. Consider any meaningful evidence provided by the resident of increased heating costs during the period the door took to be repaired/replaced, with a view to reimbursing the resident appropriately if the evidence supports such action. This order is contingent on the resident providing relevant evidence within two months of the date of this report. Any reimbursement decision must be clearly explained and provided to the resident and this Service within one month of the resident providing the evidence to the landlord.