London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202107922)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202107922

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

22 Decemeber 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 is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s subject access request (SAR).
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of an electrical fault in his property.
3. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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 paragraph 39(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s SAR.
Paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s SAR falls properly within the remit of the Information Commissioner’s Office (www.ico.org.uk) and he may wish to contact them directly about his concerns with its handling of his SAR. Therefore, a determination will not be made on this aspect of the complaint.

Background and summary of events

The Ombudsman would expect that a resident raises their dissatisfaction with the actions or lack of action by a landlord within a reasonable period after the matters arose. This is because, with the passage of time, it is not possible to reliably determine historical events. While it is noted that the resident has been engaged in a historical dispute with the landlord over the electrics in the property, this investigation will focus on events from November 2020 onwards, as this was approximately six months before the resident raised his formal complaint with the landlord and there was no evidence of his reporting issues with his electrics for 11 months prior to this.
The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
On 24 November 2020, the resident was scheduled to have remedial works to his kitchen carried out by the landlord. Its repair logs recorded that this job was cancelled. Later that day, the landlord raised a job to carry out electrical testing at the resident’s property.
On 15 December 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to state that he did not wish it to carry out any further works to the kitchen, which included painting, plastering and electrical work, until the electrical safety test had been completed.
The resident contacted the landlord on 17 December 2020 to cancel the appointment for the following day for it to carry out the electrical test.
On 22 March 2021, the resident called the landlord to request a copy of the electrical report which he had been informed was provided to the landlord by its contractor ten weeks ago. He said that he was aware of a difference of opinion between the landlord and its contractor and, due to experiencing issues at his property previously, he wanted to pursue the matter.
The landlord completed work to the resident’s kitchen on 4 May 2021 and its records noted that its worker discovered an issue with the electrics. The resident has advised this Service that this was a nail going through a wire.
The resident raised a stage one complaint with the landlord on 13 May 2021 about the discovery of the electrical fault in his kitchen. He was unhappy that he had reported problems for “many years” but had been told that there was no problem with the electrics. The resident said that his partner had previously received an electric shock and this had not been acknowledged by the landlord. He said he was still awaiting an electrical report and a response to his SAR. The resident informed the landlord that his electrics were being tripped up to five times a day and wanted this complaint to be linked to his previous complaints.
The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 17 May 2021 in which it directed him to its insurance team should he wish to make a claim for personal injury. It provided a copy of the electrical test report (not provided to this Service) and confirmed that his SAR had been passed to its data protection team. Regarding his electrics tripping, the landlord advised the resident to carry out a self-test by disconnecting his appliances and reconnecting them individually. If he continued to have a fault after this, it asked him to contact its contact centre to arrange a repair appointment.
The resident emailed the landlord later on 17 May 2021 to escalate his complaint to the final stage. He voiced his doubt that its insurers would consider his claim for personal injury and asserted that the issue did not lie with his electrical appliances. The resident relayed that he had been given this same advice by the landlord on a number of occasions in the past, and contended that the problem lay with the electrics in the property.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation later on 17 May 2021 and informed him that it had arranged an appointment for 19 May 2021 to check his electrics. It cautioned that its final complaint responses were currently delayed due to demand.
On 19 May 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to cancel the appointment for that day.
On 3 June 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to ask that it was considered in his complaint that he had been through three washing machines, three dishwashers and numerous irons in the last five years which he attributed to issues with the property. He confirmed that he had arranged an appointment directly with the landlord’s subcontractor for them to attend his property on 9 June 2021 as it informed him that its inhouse contractor did not have availability.
The landlord’s records noted that it had attended on 9 June 2021 but the female occupant said that they she had no knowledge of the appointment which was rescheduled to 25 June 2021.
The resident informed the landlord on 25 June 2021 that its subcontractor had attended briefly but did not carry out any work as they said that the landlord’s inhouse contractor should be carrying out the work as they installed the electrical board.
The resident and the landlord corresponded on 1 July 2021 when he reported that the electrics were constantly tripping at the property, highlighting that, two days ago, this happened thirteen times in one day. It advised him that he would be contacted soon about his complaint and relayed that the notes from its subcontractor stated that no faults were found on their attendance. The resident disputed the landlord’s information, highlighting that the subcontractor had not carried out an inspection. In reply, it arranged for an inspection of his electrical switches. The resident responded the next day to convey his concerns that this would yield “no tangible results” based on his historical experience with the landlord.
The landlord contacted the resident to request further information about his complaint on 2 July 2021 and apologise for the delay in progressing his complaint. He responded the following day to outline his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s historical response to him about his reports of issues with the electrical system in the property over the last six years. He contended that several of his electrical appliances had failed prematurely which he attributed to the electrics in the property.
The resident informed the landlord on 6 July 2021 that no one had attended his property for the appointment that morning. Its records stated that it had attended but had not been able to gain access.
On 13 July 2021, the resident reported his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s attendance the previous day to address the electrics. He said that the worker arrived late despite his request for a morning appointment, was not allocated sufficient time to complete the work, and arrived with no knowledge of the existing issues. This resulting in a further booking being made for 27 August 2021 to complete the work.
The landlord informed the resident on 15 July 2020 that the appointment on 12 July had been booked as an all-day appointment and relayed that the worker could not find any faults, nor observed the electrics tripping in the property. It confirmed that it would visit again on 27 August 2021.
The landlord provided its final stage complaint response to the resident on 16 July 2021 in which it acknowledged his dissatisfaction with its handling of repairs to his electrics. It noted that his desired resolutions were for the electrics in his kitchen to be resolved, compensation and the resolution of his SAR.
The landlord said that it could only consider events from a year prior to the stage one complaint being raised and recounted the events from October 2019 onwards, noting that its visits had identified no electrical faults. To resolve the electrical issues reported by the resident, it offered to carry out a joint visit with its electrician and electrical supervisor to investigate whether a fault lay elsewhere other than the kitchen.
The landlord provided its insurance details for the resident to make a public liability claim if he considered that it was at fault for damage to his appliances. It offered compensation of £190 to the resident, comprised of £100 for his time and effort in pursuing the complaint, £50 for service failure in the handling of his complaint and £40 for the delay in providing the final stage complaint response.
On 29 July 2021, the resident confirmed that he wished for the joint visit to go ahead but expressed his dissatisfaction with the level of compensation offered and that it would not consider events dating back further than a year in its complaint.
On 6 August 2021, the landlord confirmed that an appointment had been arranged for 27 August 2021 for its supervisor to attend the property alongside its operative. In an email to the landlord on 10 September 2021, the resident said that it appeared that its most recent attendance had resolved the issue.
The resident reported to the landlord on 14 September 2021 that the problem with the electrics tripping had reoccurred and it contacted him on 28 September 2021 to advise that it had instructed its electrical contractor to make an appointment with him to resolve the issue.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s tenancy agreement with the resident confirms that it is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the installations in the property for the provision of electricity, such as “electric wiring including sockets and switches”.
The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that it will complete repairs “to a good standard in a reasonable timeframe”. For routine repairs, this states that it will complete these at the earliest mutually convenient appointment. For emergency repairs, those which pose an immediate danger to the resident or the public, this policy confirms that it will attend within 24 hours. If an emergency repair is reported out of hours, the landlord’s policy states that it will attend within four hours to make safe the repair.
The landlord’s complaints policy provides for a two-stage complaints procedure, where it will respond to complaints at stage one of this procedure within ten working days of receipt of the complaint. At the final stage of this procedure, this policy states that it will respond within 20 working days of the escalation of the complaint. At either stage, if the landlord is unable to provide its response within the stated timeframe, it is to explain why to the resident and write again within a further ten working days. This policy also confirms that insurance claims are not dealt with through its complaints process and that it will not consider issues which were over six months old except in exceptional circumstances.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will compensate a resident when it fails to follow its policies and procedures or when undue stress or upset has been caused to the resident by a delayed or inadequate response to a complaint. This policy confirms that it will not pay compensation when a delay has been caused by the resident. This also confirms that compensation is not intended to replace the resident’s own home contents insurance. Residents are responsible for obtaining insurance to cover accidental damage to possessions which are not the landlord’s responsibility.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of an electrical fault in his property

As confirmed by the tenancy agreement above, the landlord has an obligation to repair and maintain the installations in the property for the provision of electricity. When the landlord receives a report of a fault, its first action should be to inspect the issue. It is noted that it arranged for an electrical test, the report from which was provided to the resident and attended on 25 June, 12 July and 27 August 2021, in line with its offer in its final stage complaint response. These were reasonable actions by the landlord, in accordance with its obligations.
While it is noted that the resident disputed the effectiveness of the visits on 25 June and 12 July 2021, it is reasonable for the landlord to rely on the opinions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors. Nevertheless, in light of the difference of accounts between the resident and its contractors, it was reasonable for it to then arrange a joint visit with its supervisor and contractor to address the issue. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord continued to engage with the resident after the conclusion of the complaint to address his further reports. Therefore, there was no evidence of any failures on its part to respond in accordance with its obligations.
However, it is noted that the resident exhibited a lack of confidence in the landlord to address the situation to his satisfaction. Given that there was no evidence has been provided to this Service of the electrical test carried out sometime after December 2020, the resident reported further issues after the complaint, and in the interest of rebuilding the landlord-tenant relationship, the Ombudsman recommends that the landlord instruct an independent electrical contractor to carry out an electrical inspection. This may enable the matter to be brought to a conclusion.
It was appropriate for the landlord to refer the resident to its insurers about his claims of damage and personal injury; it would not be appropriate to deal with such matters through its complaints procedure, as specified in its complaints policy above.
The purpose of compensation is to ‘put right’ any failings exhibited by the landlord. While there was no evidence of a failure by the landlord, it offered £100 compensation to the resident to recognise his time and trouble in pursuing the matter. Given that there was no evidence of a failure by the landlord, this was a reasonable offer of redress, made in excess of its obligations.
It is noted that the resident was dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered, due to the historical issues he had with the electrics. As will be explained in further detail below, it was reasonable and in accordance with its complaints policy above for it to only consider issues arising within the six months prior to the complaint and therefore the level of compensation offered was appropriate.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

It is noted that the resident feels that historical concerns about his electrics should have been considered in his complaint. The landlord’s complaints policy above confirms that it will not consider issues older than six months in its complaints procedure. Therefore, it acted in accordance with its policy by only considering recent events in its complaint response.
As noted at the beginning of this report, there was a significant period of approximately 11 months before concerns were raised about the electrics in the property on 24 November 2021. It was therefore reasonable for it consider events from this date onwards in its complaint responses as this did not indicate an ongoing issue.
The landlord’s stage one complaint response was provided within the ten working day timeframe specified in its complaints policy above. However, the final stage complaint response was provided 43 working days after the resident’s escalation of the complaint on 17 May 2021 and it did not address the delay in its handling of the complaint until 2 July 2021, 33 working days after his escalation. The landlord therefore failed to provide its final response in accordance with its policy.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance above, provides for awards of between £50 to £250 for “service failure which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant”. This may include “failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact”.
The was no indication that the delayed complaint led to any significant detriment to the resident, and the delay was not overly excessive. Therefore the £90 in total offered by the landlord for its failures in the handling of the complaint was reasonable, was broadly in accordance with this Service remedies guidance and represented a reasonable offer of redress for its delayed response.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 39(m) the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s SAR falls outside of the Ombudsman jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the opinion of the Ombudsman, resolves the complaints satisfactorily concerning:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of an electrical fault in his property.
2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s reports of electrical issues by arranging visits to address these and made a reasonable offer
The landlord acknowledged its failures in the handling of the complaint and made a reasonable offer of compensation for this.

Recommendations

The landlord should:
1. Pay the resident the amount of £190 compensation it offered him in its final response.
2. Consider instructing an independent electrical contractor to carry out an electrical inspection of the property.