London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202112196)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202112196

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

19 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.     This complaint is about:

1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the garden patio paving at the rear of the resident’s house.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

2.     The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.

3.     The repair records show that operatives arrived at the resident’s property on 27 May 2021 to carry out groundworks to resolve uneven paving slabs in the resident’s back garden posing a trip hazard. They advised the resident that they could only lift and replace what was there. They could not fit the extra slabs the resident believed were necessary to make the area safe. While on site, the operatives called their supervisor and the supervisor informed them that only like for like works were to be carried out”. The resident refused this work and expressed her disappointment. She said she saw no point in having only half the job done. In her view, to make the place safe would require additional paving slabs around the drain area so as not to be a trip hazard.

4.     The resident made her dissatisfaction known to the landlord over the telephone on 27 May 2021 and this was recorded as a formal complaint at stage one of the landlord’s complaint process. The landlord emailed the resident later the same day to provide its complaint response. It confirmed that, it would only be lifting and replacing the slabs which were already in place. The complaint was closed, and the resident was informed that she could escalate the complaint to the next stage, or speak to the Housing Ombudsman Service to discuss the complaint.

5.     In an email on 28 May 2021 the resident responded to the stage one response. She said that this job had been raised, cancelled and rescheduled three times, and that she understood the scope of the proposed work. She emphasised that what she was asking for was for health and safety reasons, not cosmetic ones, and that the trip hazard the slabs posed would not be resolved by the landlord’s plans. She also complained about the behaviour of one of the contractors, who had made reference to her complaint while on site. The resident did not think that this was appropriate conduct and that her complaint should be treated as sensitive and protected under data protection, and not leave the confines of the relevant department to which it had been sent.

6.     On 1 June 2021 the landlord acknowledged the escalation request.

7.     On 5 July 2021 the landlord responded to the stage two complaint essentially repeating what had been said at stage one and confirming that it provided a repair service only and would not be adding new slabs to the resident’s patio.

8.     The resident responded having received the stage two response, which she commented was outside the timeframe expected. She commented that she had only requested a few additional slabs within reason. In the event any accidents or injuries she said she would hold the landlord responsible. 

9.     On 7 July 2021, the landlord repeated that its policy is one of ‘repair only’. If the resident wished, she may report the repair again and the operatives would then attend but no new slabs would be added. It concluded by referring the resident to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.

 Assessment and findings

Policies and Procedures

10. The assured tenancy agreement sets out the responsibilities of the landlord which include making sure that the structure and exterior of the home are kept repaired.

11. The repair policy 2021 provides that the landlord is responsible for repairs to:  Gardens, trip hazards in paths, paving and driveways that provide access to the home. It is not in dispute that it is the landlord’s responsibility to repair the patio area that provides access to the property.

12. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will respond within 20 working days of a request to escalate. There is also a provision that if the landlord is likely to be unable to respond within the timeframe, that it should update the complainant accordingly.

Repairs to the garden patio paving

13. On the 27 May 2021 the resident refused the works being carried out because the proposed works would not, in her view, remedy the risk that the uneven paving slabs posed to her and her family. The landlord’s contractor’s view was that the proposed work would resolve the problem the resident had reported.

14. A resident’s views and opinions should, wherever possible, always be taken into consideration when a landlord is planning any repairs. However, landlords have the final discretion to decide how they will resolve a repair issue, taking into account all the relevant factors and circumstances. It is not apparent from the evidence if the landlord clearly discussed its plans with the resident prior to attending her home to do the work on 27 May 2021, but the work involved was not so major that such pre-discussion was necessary. What is clear is that the resident made her views known at that time of the visit, and the contractors on site sought confirmation of the scope of the work in light of her concerns. She then raised her concerns directly with the landlord as a complaint. It considered her views and photos but maintained its original decision. 

15. There is no doubt from the evidence that the solution preferred by the resident was motivated by her fears around the potential trip hazard. Nonetheless, it involved work that the landlord did not believe was necessary to achieve the desired outcome. In this particular case, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on its contractors’ professional opinions. It explained its position clearly to the resident and left open the option to continue the work as planned. Overall, its position and decision were reasonable.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

16. The landlord’s response to the stage one response was given on the same day the complaint was made. It did not provide any detailed explanations, and the speed of the response is unlikely to have provided any reassurance to the resident that her complaint had been thoroughly considered. Conversely, given the brevity and focus of the complaint, there appears to have been nothing more substantive the landlord could reasonably have said than what it did i.e. that it agreed with the contractor’s work plan.

17. The conduct of one of the landlord’s contractors referred to in the resident’s escalation request was not addressed by the landlord. It is standard good practice (and in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code) to ensure that a complaint response addresses every issue raised in a complaint. Accordingly, this omission was a failing. The landlord should have investigated the issue, and provided its conclusions in its final complaint response.  

18. The landlord’s complaints policy sets a 20 working day target for an escalated complaint. The landlord exceeded that by around six days, and there is no evidence that it updated the resident in the interim. That was not a significant delay in and of itself, and had not clear impact. However, good practice would have been to at least acknowledge and apologise for the delay in the final response. The landlord did not do so. On its own and in these circumstances that would not usually warrant a service failure finding. However, when coupled with the failure to address all the resident’s complaint points, it adds up to overall poor complaint handling.  

Determination (decision)

19. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

20. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the garden patio paving at the rear of the resident’s house.

Reasons

21. The landlord failed to address the resident’s complaint about the conduct of one of its contractors, or acknowledge its delayed final complaint response. Its actions and decisions in regard to the patio repairs were in line with its contractors’ professional views, and taken after consideration of the resident’s own views.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

22. In light of the poor complaint handling found in this investigation, and the inconvenience and frustration that will have been caused, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100.

23. This payment must be made within four weeks of this report. The landlord should update this Service when payment has been made.

Recommendations

24. Given the complaint handling findings in this investigation, the landlord is recommended to consider how it ensures it complies with its complaint policy, the Housing Ombudsman Code and other guidelines, and general good practice.