Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202208063)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208063

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

20 December 2022


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:
    1. response to the resident’s request for aerial spikes;
    2. complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a provider of social housing.
  2. Prior to mid-2021, the resident reported to the landlord that the plastic spikes installed on the communal TV aerial had disintegrated, and that pigeons now perched on the aerial. This had resulted in pigeon excrement on her shed, outdoor seating area, and car.
  3. In mid-2021, the landlord arranged for a pest control contractor to assess photographs of the affected areas. The contractor advised that they could place new spikes on the aerial, but the works could only be guaranteed for a year. The contractor also advised that the works would be expensive and recommended for the landlord to consider alternative options.
  4. The resident raised a formal complaint on 9 July 2021. She advised that the issues with the pigeons were continuing and that she considered this to be a health issue. In her complaint escalation, the resident also raised concerns that the landlord had not considered the impact on her and requested it explain why the works to renew the spikes only had limited guarantees.
  5. In the landlord’s final response, it advised that due to the limited guarantees made regarding the works to install new spikes, it had rejected the quote to complete the works. It noted it had advised the resident to move her car, but acknowledged that this had not been possible and would not have resolved the whole issue. It advised that an appointment had been arranged for the aerial to be moved on 12 May 2022. It apologised for the inconvenience and distress caused due to the resident chasing the issue. It advised it had learned from the outcome of the complaint and had provided it as a case study to the relevant teams. It offered £100 compensation due to the delayed stage two response and £50 compensation for the time, effort, inconvenience, and distress caused to the resident.
  6. In the resident’s complaint to this service, she advised she remained dissatisfied as the issue was still ongoing, despite the works that had been completed. She raised concerns about the health implications of having to clean up pigeon excrement. She stated that there was no requirement for the aerial to have been initially installed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has reported to this service that the repair works to move the aerial, as outlined in the landlord’s stage two response, subsequently made the issue with pigeon excrement worse. The Ombudsman’s investigation, however, has been limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this service. Any new issues or events that have not been subject to a formal complaint investigation by the landlord should be addressed directly with the landlord in the first instance.
  2. In her complaint to this service, the resident raised concerns regarding the initial installation of the aerial in 2011. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues while they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical, it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues. As a result, this report will not investigate the landlord’s handling of the installation of the aerial, due to the length of time that has elapsed.
  3. The resident has also raised concerns regarding the health implications of cleaning the pigeon excrement. Whilst this service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. This concern has nevertheless been taken into consideration as part of the context of the complaint.

Aerial spikes

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for maintaining existing bird netting and spikes. As the resident had reported that the spikes had disintegrated, which had led to an issue with pigeon excrement, the landlord was responsible for investigating the issue and completing any required repairs or works. 
  2. It is unclear when the resident initially raised the issue of the pigeon spikes disintegrating. The Ombudsman expects landlords to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If the Ombudsman investigates a complaint, this service will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, the Ombudsman may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. In this case, there is no evidence to suggest that the resident has raised concerns regarding a delay in the landlord responding to her initial report of the repair issue, so the record keeping has not impacted the outcome of the complaint. However, the landlord should review its record keeping and ensure that it records the date when repair issues are initially raised.
  3. The landlord initially responded appropriately to the resident’s report as it obtained a contractor’s opinion and a quote regarding the required works. The contractor advised that the work could not be guaranteed to last for more than a year, due to the impact of UV rays on plastic spikes, and the inability to install metal spikes, as it would interfere with the TV signal. It also advised that replacing the spikes would be expensive, due to requiring use of a cherry picker for the installation. 
  4. It is important to note that social landlords have limited resources and are expected to manage their budgets responsibly, to the benefit of all their residents. The contractor’s report showed that the work requested by the resident to replace the bird spikes would be expensive and unsustainable, when considering the length of time the work would be expected to last. The landlord is entitled to rely on the opinions of its appropriately qualified contractors. Therefore, in the interest of managing its resources appropriately, it was reasonable that the landlord informed the resident it would not replace the spikes in their current form.
  5. However, despite the resident asking for clarification on why the works would have limited guarantees, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord provided additional information. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to provide the reasoning why the installation of spikes would have limited guarantees, to appropriately manage her expectations.  
  6. Although budget concerns are an important consideration, they should not prevent the landlord from completing required repairs that it is obliged to complete in accordance with its repairs policy. The landlord is therefore required to demonstrate that it has considered alternatives to resolve the issue reported by the resident. In the report on 7 June 2021, the contractor recommended the landlord to consider alternative measures, such as moving the aerial. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord assessed other repair options until March 2022. The landlord suggested the resident moved her car, to mitigate the impact of having to clean the pigeon excrement from her car. When it determined that the recommendation was not practical, and would not resolve the issue in full, the landlord arranged an appointment for the aerial to be moved on 5 April 2022.
  7. There was a ten-month delay from the contractor advising the landlord to consider alternative repairs and the landlord arranging an appointment to re-position the aerial. As a result, the landlord failed to take appropriate steps to fulfil its obligations in line with its repairs policy. There is also no evidence to suggest that the landlord managed the resident’s expectations regarding the timeframe for completing repairs or provided any reasons for the delay.
  8. In line with this service’s remedies guidance, awards from £100 are appropriate in cases where the landlord has now attempted to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified within this investigation. In its final response, the landlord offered £50 compensation for the time, effort and distress caused to the resident. Due to the significant delay in the landlord adhering with its repairs policy, and the inconvenience caused to the resident, the landlord should award the resident an additional £100 compensation (being £150 in total for the delayed works).
  9. Although this service is unable to comment on the suitability of the repairs following the completion of the complaint procedure, as the landlord has not been given an opportunity to respond, it is noted that the resident has reported the issue has continued. It is therefore recommended that the landlord contacts the resident, confirms its position regarding her reports that the issue is ongoing and confirms whether any additional works are required.

 

 

Complaints handling

  1. In accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy, it should respond to stage one complaints within ten working days and stage two complaints within 20 working days.
  2. The landlord appropriately handled the resident’s stage one complaint as she raised a complaint on 9 July 2021, and the landlord issued its response on 12 July 2021. This was within the landlord’s complaint response timeframe.
  3. The resident escalated her complaint on 12 July 2021, which the landlord acknowledged the same day. The resident subsequently chased the complaint on 10 November 2021, as she had not received a response or any further correspondence from the landlord. The landlord apologised for the delay, and explained there was a backlog of complaints of at least 60 days, due to a change in the complaints process. While it was appropriate that the landlord provided a new estimated timeframe for the response in order to manage the resident’s expectations, it should have done this at the time of acknowledging the complaint to avoid causing the resident to chase the response.
  4. The landlord issued its response on 11 May 2022, so it took ten months to resolve the complaint, which was a significant delay. The landlord’s failure to manage the complaint in line with its timeframes, also impacted the substantive issue of the complaint as the landlord failed to take any steps to manage the issue or confirm its position in the interim.
  5. The landlord offered £100 compensation for the delayed stage two response, however this was not proportionate to the level of failing. Given the significant delays, however, this amount does not reflect the total impact caused to the resident. As such, an order has been made for an additional £100 compensation for her time and trouble in pursuing the complaint (being £200 in total for complaints handling).

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in the way it handled the resident’s request for aerial spikes due to an issue with pigeon excrement.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in the way it handled the complaint.

 

 

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £350, comprising:
    1. £150 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its delay in completing works relating to the aerial spikes;
    2. £200 for its ineffective complaints handling.
  2. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £150. This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to discuss her concerns regarding the works completed following the stage two response.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its record handling practices, to ensure it keeps clear repair records, including the dates repairs are initially reported.