London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202109101)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109101

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

3 April 2024

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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about:
1. Accusations made against her by a neighbour.
2. Outstanding repairs.
3. The landlord showing bias.
4. The conduct and unprofessional behaviour of staff.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

The resident has said the landlord used accusations made against her, including false statements by the neighbour, to pursue an injunction against her. The landlord’s Letter Before Legal Claim focused on 2 key issues: rubbish being left in the resident’s garden and the need to repair the pathway at the property. The resident’s Defence document shows that she had the opportunity to refute the landlord’s claim and the allegations made against her, and to make the court aware of her arguments before a decision was made.
While no copy of the court’s decision has been provided, the resident has confirmed that the court ordered her to remove rubbish and pay £500 for the landlord’s costs. The resident submits that the landlord was unsuccessful on other points mentioned in its Letter Before Legal Claim, particularly inciting others, threatening or harassing neighbours or staff or causing a nuisance.
Paragraph 42(e) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the resident had such opportunity in relation to the accusations made against her by a neighbour (point 1(a) above) and it would therefore be inappropriate for this Service to investigate this issue, which the courts have already ruled on. As a result, this part of the complaint is outside this Service’s jurisdiction and is not considered further in this report.
However, the Ombudsman has considered the resident’s claim that the landlord has shown bias toward her neighbour, sometimes based upon accusations made, and that issue is addressed separately below.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder and has occupied the property, a one bedroom ground floor flat, since 1998.
The resident instigated a disrepair claim against the landlord, but in 2023 the landlord confirmed she had dropped that case and no further action was taken.
Having lived in the property for a long time, the resident has raised a number of issues over that time. However, it is the practice of the Ombudsman to limit the scope of our investigations to a reasonable period prior to the formal complaint being made (reflected at paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme). In this case, the resident’s formal complaint was made in 2020 and this investigation is focused on the specific events that prompted that complaint. only

Summary of events

In June 2020 the resident made the landlord aware she was in dispute with her neighbour over the removal of a tree and a boundary line being moved in the garden. Having liaised with the landlord, she acknowledged it could not get involved in boundary disputes, but noted its offer to put the matter to its legal team for its opinion.
On 17 June 2020 the landlord advised the resident that its legal department had considered the boundary line issue. It explained the boundary line appeared to be in the middle but it could not be sure, so the leaseholders from both properties would need to instruct a boundary expert surveyor to draw/determine the boundary. It was not the landlord’s responsibility to do that.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 29 June and 1 July 2020 and said it had been told she was doing major alteration works at the property. She was asked to suspend any works and to send pictures of the current condition of the property, a scope of works and evidence it had been notified prior to any works starting. The resident responded on 5 July 2020 and said she was decorating as a result of a leak from the neighbouring property and she wanted to know why it thought major alteration works were being undertaken. She said she was aware of her responsibilities, and it was her neighbour that was doing major alterations.
The landlord wrote to the resident and her neighbour on 16 July 2020 about the boundary dispute. It explained a boundary expert would need to be instructed at their cost. It reminded the neighbour of section 16 of the lease which said they could not be a nuisance or “commit or permit any form of harassment on the grounds or race colour religion sex sexual orientation or disability”. They also could not obstruct any access ways used in common with other properties and if not adhered to, it may need to take freeholder action.
Between June and August 2020, the resident’s neighbour complained to the landlord about the resident’s behaviour and leaving rubbish in her garden.
The resident wrote to her neighbour on 25 August 2020 about the fence she said they had erected on her property, claiming they had trespassed. In addition, that they had called the police about her on 2 occasions claiming she had committed criminal damage and that a “black woman was burgling the property”. She asked them to remove the fence or she would remove it herself.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 10 September 2020 and said it had received complaints that she had rubbish dumped at the rear of the property, a boundary dispute regarding a rear fence and allegations of trespass and threatening behaviour. She was referred to section 16 of the lease and was asked to clear the items from the garden by 25 September 2020. It also said on 15 September 2020 someone would attend with a surveyor to look at the boundary issue. She was asked not to move other people’s property and warned it may take action if there were further reports of threatening behaviour.
The resident complained to the landlord on 14 September 2020 about issues with its staff including: allegations of corruption, fraud and collusion based on racial bias; staff attempting to build a case for eviction; emails and letters being sent quoting terms from lease; covid-19 guidelines being broken; and threatening letters being sent. She also complained about issues with the property including: log burner fumes coming from the neighbour’s property; leaking pipes; sloping floors; illegal removal of an apple tree; a hole in the ceiling between the resident’s and neighbour’s properties caused by a leaky bath; and the boundary dispute.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 28 September 2020. It did not uphold the complaint, and said:
1. It aimed to be impartial and approach issues in a professional way, with no preconceived judgements. It was satisfied staff had followed advice from the legal team and the intention was not to evict either household.
2. The resident and the neighbour both had long leases with similar covenants and both had been reminded of their obligations under the lease in relation to a fence/boundary and threatening behaviour. The letter sent to the resident was a standard letter it would send to someone to remind them of their obligations under the lease.
3. It was adhering to Covid-19 guidelines as staff could visit communal areas on health and safety work and would wear personal protective equipment. The staff were checking the fencing, boundary, pathway and accumulation of rubbish and access would be gained via a side gate. Noone would be at risk and she would be contacted to confirm a date for staff to visit in due course.
4. It would look into the issue raised with fumes coming from the neighbour’s property and a possible breach of planning once the resident had clarified her concerns.
5. Issues with leaky lead mains, a sloping floor and a hole in the ceiling were the leaseholders’ responsibility. The buildings insurance may cover some or all of the works so it provided the insurer’s details so she could liaise with them directly.
6. It had not been made aware of any works to the property that were being undertaken at that time, so if works were happening she would need to complete a home improvement form. It was happy to provide an extension on the time given for her to remove rubbish, but asked her to advise when the work was complete and the rubbish was cleared.
7. The letter sent to the resident was advising her of the allegations of trespassing and threats that it had received. Residents should not cause a nuisance to neighbours or neighbouring properties and she should not remove any part of the neighbour’s fence. The option of mediation between the resident and her neighbour was offered.
On 5 October 2020, the resident reported her property was sinking in the middle and there was a potential issue with the joists, wood worm and rotten wood around the windows. The landlord agreed to contact the local surveyor to inspect the property.
The landlord asked the resident on 14 October 2020 to carry out repairs, notably to remove rubbish from the rear garden and repair the pathway. It also asked her to provide dates she would be available for a surveyor to visit to inspect the boundary. It wrote to her again on 21 December 2020 about a surveyor’s visit on 13 November 2020. It said it wanted to arrange another meeting to resolve the boundary issue, and asked for dates she would be available. It also reminded her to repair the pathway and clear the rubbish.
The resident was advised on 23 March 2021 that a surveyor would be attending the property on 1 April 2021. The resident reminded the landlord on 31 March 2021 that the following issues remained outstanding: a leaking lead mains water pipe; sloping wooden joists; replacement bathroom window; and fumes from the neighbour’s property. Internal landlord emails sent on 1, 6 and 7 April 2021 acknowledged these issues had been ongoing since 2020 and that clarity was needed over what responsibility it had.
The resident was told by the landlord on 20 April 2021 that:
1. A leak from the incoming water mains sat with maintenance. An order would be raised to investigate and resolve.
2. It would inspect the joists but would need full clear access.
3. In terms of the damaged bathroom window, it had an obligation to repair the frame and sill and needed clarity on the repair needed.
4. She would need to report smelling log burner fumes to the Crime Enforcement & Regulation team.
The landlord told the resident on 4 May 2021 that, upon inspection, it was established she needed to contact the water company to locate the stopcock to the exterior. It could then arrange to cut out the internal leaking stopcocks and fit 2 new lead locks and 2 new stopcocks, pipework and fittings. The resident responded on 10 May 2021 and said the contractor had indicated it would contact the water company, so she did not understand why she was then being asked to. The landlord replied the same day and explained it was because it was within her property.
The resident then contacted the landlord again on 10 May 2021 and explained she did not want a particular surveyor to attend as they and a member of landlord staff were “combative and intimidating”, had a relationship with her neighbour, and were involved in mocking her. She said the floor was sinking near the kitchen door and the bathroom window was metal and she thought there was a leak at the bottom. She also mentioned the window at the front of the property was leaking and there was a crack under the bay window.
On 12 May 2021 the resident said she had contacted the water company and she was unable to respond to technical questions, which is why she referred the matter back to the landlord. The landlord advised the resident it was liaising with the Property Manager and a surveyor and would update her in due course.
The resident complained to her MP on 25 May 2021 and the MP contacted the landlord on 2 June 2021 asking it to address her concerns. Between June and August 2021 the landlord liaised with the resident’s MP over the issues raised.
The landlord told the resident on 11 June 2021, that it had asked its contractors to contact the water company directly and provided a further response on 16 June 2021. It said:
1. In terms of it not having a “leasehold surveyor” it did not have specialised surveyors in the leasehold team. It was working with its legal team to seek a resolution to the boundary dispute and would then update her.
2. She had sole responsibility for the walkway and to ensure it was kept in a good state of repair. Her neighbour had a right to use the walkway and an obligation to contribute towards maintenance costs. If it had to repair the walkway, the costs would be recoverable directly from her and her neighbour.
3. In respect of the leak from the water mains, its contractor had completed initial investigations and found the main stop-valve usually located on the public pathway could not be located. This had been reported to the water company and once it could be located, the maintenance work would continue to address the leak.
4. A repair had been reported to deal with slates that had fallen from the bathroom roof and she would be contacted for an appointment to be made.
5. It would be taking pictures as evidence for its investigations.
6. The report of leaking windows in the bathroom and front unit was reported to the maintenance team. As freeholder, it had a responsibility to repair and maintain the external envelope of the building and this usually would include external parts of the window frames but not glass, handles and hinges. It suggested she contact its maintenance team.
The landlord’s legal team sent a Letter Before Legal Claim to the resident on 12 July 2021 to say she was in breach of sections 4 and 16.1 of her lease (repairs to the pathway and nuisance to others, respectively). It said a boundary expert would be instructed to confirm the boundary for a fence and the resident would be charged for that. If the rubbish was not cleared by 21 July 2021, and the pathway repaired by 28 July 2021, the landlord would apply for an injunction for the work to be done.
The water company attended on 15 July 2021 and a job was raised to locate the stopcock. The landlord explained it would call a few days before it planned to visit. It would then arrange for the contractor to return to carry out the internal works required.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 13 August 2021 to say she had received a letter on 10 August 2021 about it arranging for a surveyor to assess the boundary of the property. She complained that the landlord was acting for the neighbour and not her and she was not happy for the visit to take place on 16 August 2021 or to be charged for it. She asked that the Property Manager no longer have anything to do with her property issues and by seeking an injunction against her, showed bias.
Internal landlord emails in October 2021 referred to there being a potential charge for each leaseholder for the surveyor to look at the boundary issue and the landlord to fund the rest as no section 20 notice had been issued. The email also confirmed the landlord was responsible for the window frames and the resident, the glass, locks and hinges. A job was then ordered on 14 October 2021, for the windows to be looked at, following the resident’s report that they were not operating properly.
On 15 October 2021 the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns. It explained:
1. There was no evidence the Property Manager was acting in the interests of her neighbour or had acted inappropriately, but it accepted her contact with its staff had “at times been uncomfortable and difficult”. It said her reports and complaints had been accepted, taken seriously and investigated and its staff were continuing to assist with all the concerns she had, and that involved talking to all concerned parties. Her request to have her home managed by another Property Manager was rejected and would not be open to further review, appeal or reinvestigation.
2. A letter rather than an email regarding the surveyor’s visit was sent in accordance with the lease.
3. The cost of the consultation to consider the boundary issue was to be borne by the resident and neighbour. As it was to resolve a dispute, no consultation was required. If she had evidence to the contrary she could submit it. An expert was being used as she had raised issues with the ability of the Property Manager and surveyor in the past.
4. She had obtained one quotation for the remedial path works and it understood she was getting more.
5. In relation to the water leak, she had been told to liaise with the water company but she had had an issue with that so it reported it on her behalf. She would be updated once more information was known.
6. A job was raised to check the roof slates but no fault was found and the drainage systems were observed to be running clear.
7. Damp in the basement was her responsibility to investigate and resolve.
8. It was responsible for the window frames and casements but she was responsible for the glass, hinges and locks. It asked her to let it know which windows required repair works and what the faults were. It would then arrange for a repair worker to visit and assess the units for repairs.
The landlord asked the resident on 6 January 2022 whether someone could come back to the property to get more information about the boundary, following a report being written in August 2021. It also offered her mediation with the neighbour and asked when the pathway repair would be complete.
In an undated email from the resident between 12 and 14 January 2022, she told the landlord she had made repairs to her pathway and agreed a date for it to visit and note outstanding issues. She also explained:
1. The member of staff that had attended previously had mocked her, so she did not want him to attend again.
2. She had not asked for a surveyor to attend and if she wanted one, she could obtain her own independent surveyor.
3. The neighbour had moved a boundary in the garden knowingly.
4. She did not want to mediate with the neighbour as they had made “false and slanderous statements” about her.
The landlord visited the property on 13 January 2022 and sent a follow up email to the resident on 17 January 2022. It had referred a number of issues to its insurance team, including: possible subsidence (cracking and water ingress around the windows); sloping hallway floor; door frames coming away and gaps in brickwork; cracked tiles around the bathroom window; different levels of pathway; and leaks from the neighbour’s property. It would update the resident once it had a response. The legal team also emailed the following day and provided its insurer’s details so the resident could make a claim directly for any issues she felt it was responsible for.
The resident told the landlord on 18 January 2022 that her neighbours were intimidating her and she thought it was because she was black. They had made false accusations about her to the police and landlord and she had suffered 2 leaks from their property. She acknowledged there was a trailer in the garden, but this had been there when the neighbour moved in and she was unhappy with the neighbour, at times, going on to her land.
On 4 February 2022 an independent boundary report was produced which confirmed the rear boundary fence, which had been in dispute, lay on the neighbour’s property and there was no trespass.
The resident and landlord exchanged emails in April 2022 regarding the neighbour leaving rubbish on the resident’s property. On 4 May 2022 the resident was sent diary sheets to record all incidents and was told the property manager would look in to it and respond within 10 working days. It is not known what further action, if any, took place immediately after this.
The landlord visited the property on 25 August 2022 to check the garden. It noted some plywood and a wheelbarrow were there, along with some items on a patio, but no debris. The resident again mentioned she was unhappy about the neighbour encroaching on her boundary by fitting a gate and that she wanted to fit a gate also. The landlord advised her to contact the neighbour and request a homeowners Improvement form.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 14 November 2022 and acknowledged having spoken with her that day about her complaint. It said it would issue a response by 21 November 2022.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 21 November 2022 it apologised for the delayed response and offered £70 compensation. It then addressed the resident’s concerns relating to: her reports of outstanding repairs; accusations by the neighbour; and the unprofessional conduct of staff. It confirmed that an inspection was needed to clarify the works needed to joists, windows, and the cellar. It requested photographs of crumbling plaster and confirmed a job to replace missing roof tiles would be re-raised.
With regards to the resident’s concerns about the neighbour’s accusations and staff conduct, the landlord said these points related to a matter dealt with by its legal team so it was limited in what it could say. However, legal action was only used as a last resort and it would need to evidence the issues. As well as witness statements, it would need proof such as photographs, videos and documents. While it appreciated the resident felt false statements had been made, it could not conclude that as it would have needed to be raised in court; as would her concerns over having to pay the landlord’s costs. It signposted the resident to Citizens Advice for help getting independent legal advice.
In terms of the conduct and unprofessional behaviour of some staff, while it acknowledged the resident’s feelings, it found no evidence of the resident being communicated with any differently to the neighbour, or that staff were rude or showed bias. It was satisfied that the stage 1 complaint was addressed fully. However, it took the matter seriously and any reports of unprofessional behaviour were passed to the person’s manager, although it could not share what action, if any, was taken. It could not find a copy of a video the resident had referred to, so asked for this to be resent so it could be considered.

Events following the end of the complaints process.

The resident and landlord exchanged emails about the roof repair at the end of November 2022 and, on 6 December 2022, the landlord confirmed that a roofing company would be contacting her.
In the meantime, a surveyor visited the property on 5 December 2022. On 7 December 2022 it explained to the landlord that it had no way of solving the matter of dry rot on the timber joist as it could not assess the joist through the cellar. It said there was a hatch in the wall in the cellar that leads to the joists but the hatch had radiator pipes running in front of the opening, preventing access. It also said the area of the kitchen floor the resident said was affected by wood rot was as a result of the laminate laid on the floor rather than any defect. It noted the resident was unwilling to lift the laminate to enable an inspection so it was unable to do any more.
The resident advised the landlord on 18 January 2023 that she was in the process of fixing the tiled pathway outside her property which was considered a hazard.
The resident notified the landlord that she had had the floorboards lifted so a surveyor could make a full assessment as to why the floor was sinking and the walls were cracking. The landlord contacted the surveyor on 2 February 2023 about a further inspection, but they were no longer working in that area. However, they commented that a crumbling pillar may have been as a result of an object being moved and hitting it.
A surveyor attended to inspect the joists on 28 February 2023. The resident asked the landlord on 24 March 2023 whether she would be sent a copy of the report and in the landlord’s response of 29 March 2023, it advised that its surveyors did not write reports. It confirmed that the surveyor had been “unable to fully determine the issues with the joists with the amount of the floor that had been lifted”.
The landlord advised that the previous surveyor had said the wood did not appear rotten and the few cracks she observed appeared to be superficial not structural movement. It said, “the surveyor advised the issues with the flooring were possibly due to the weight on the floors from furniture and that this was not evenly distributed”. In order to fully determine the issues with the joists, much more flooring would need to be lifted in the kitchen and if the resident wanted to arrange this, it would send a surveyor again for a more in depth inspection. The landlord chased for a response on this point on 2 May 2023.
On 9 May 2023 the resident told the landlord she was unhappy with the 2 previous surveys carried and that reports were not done. Although the landlord had offered her £70 compensation, as she had been ordered to pay £500 court costs, she had been told the landlord may increase its compensation payment; but she had heard nothing further.
The landlord advised on 26 May 2023 that it was sorry for the delay and had contacted the Area Supervisor and the Maintenance Manager to get some advice on what would be the next steps to support her. On 7 June 2023, it explained that, as a leaseholder, she would need to arrange for further investigative works as the 2 previous surveyors had found no issue. If any issues were found, it would reimburse any costs she had incurred and arrange any necessary works.
In June 2023, the resident and landlord exchanged emails about a surveyor she intended to instruct herself, and the landlord’s intended actions once it received the surveyor’s report.
On 29 June 2023 the resident notified the landlord that there was a leak from her upstairs neighbour’s property causing damage to hers. The landlord provided the resident with details of its insurer the following day in order for her to make a claim for any damage. The resident has confirmed she then made a successful claim.
It is not clear when the resident instigated a legal disrepair claim, but on 27 September 2023, the landlord was notified by its lawyer that the resident was no longer pursuing it. However, it recommended the landlord ensure a schedule of works was drawn up and all repairs carried out as soon as possible. No evidence has been provided to show whether this happened.
On 6 December 2023, the landlord provided the resident with details of its insurer if she felt she had a claim for subsidence. An internal landlord email of 13 December 2023 set out the steps it had taken following the stage 2 response, to address the outstanding repairs, as follows:
1. Joists – an inspection found no issue but more of the floor needed to be lifted to inspect further and the resident did not agree to that. The resident was advised she would need to arrange her own surveyor or contractor and advise the landlord of the works it was liable for
2. Windows – these were to be inspected but no report came back recommending a repair was needed.
3. Crumbling plaster – the legal team had said the landlord may be responsible for this but it would depend on how close to the stopcock the plaster crumbling was. No photographs were sent from the resident to consider.
4. Cellar – the surveyor found no damp but the cellar was not included in the title plan or lease so it could not complete works in any event.
5. Roof – a job was raised, but it was cancelled as there was no response. A second time there was no access but the tiles were then replaced on 16 December 2022.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s handling of outstanding repairs

With regard to the log burner fumes, following the resident’s complaint of September 2020, the landlord initially said it would look in to a possible breach of planning. However, the resident had to chase the landlord after 7 months, and was then told the correct course of action would be to report smelling log burner fumes to the Crime Enforcement & Regulation team. This delay was unreasonable as, had the resident been given this information sooner, she could have potentially got the issues resolved more quickly.
The resident was told it was her responsibility to address the leaks and floor issues, but the landlord did explain that its buildings insurance may cover some or all of the works. It was therefore appropriate for it to provide her with its insurer’s details so she could make a claim.
The Definition of the Demised Premises in the lease states that the floors above the joists, as well as sewers, pipes and wires that serve the property are the leaseholder’s responsibility. Therefore, at that point, the issues appeared to be for the resident, as leaseholder, to resolve so the landlord’s response was appropriate.
The landlord had also asked the resident to remove rubbish from the rear garden and to repair the pathway at the front of the property. The lease states that the resident is responsible for keeping the property in “good and substantial repair and condition”. It also said the resident could not permit or become a nuisance to the owner or occupier of any adjoining or neighbouring property.
Therefore, with there being rubbish at the property and the pathway being in disrepair, the landlord was able to enforce the terms of the lease in order to get those issues resolved. The lease also explains that leaseholders may have to pay a fair proportion of the expenses of maintaining in good repair part of the property. It was therefore right for the landlord to bring to the resident’s attention that her neighbour also had an obligation to contribute towards maintenance costs.
By March 2021, the resident provided more information about the leaks and issues with the flooring. She said there was a leak from the lead mains water pipe that serviced both flats. She also believed the sloping floor was caused by the joists being rotten. She had mentioned the bathroom window needed replacing and she also reported slates coming off the bathroom roof.
The landlord created a job to assess the bathroom roof but no issue was found. It said it would carry out an investigation in to the leaks and flooring and the leaking windows had been reported to the maintenance team. However, in accordance with the terms of the lease, it was only responsible for the external envelope of the building and that included external parts of the window frames but did not include glass, handles and hinges. The landlord’s Repairs Policy reiterated what the lease said about the responsibility for windows but also said that for homeowners in general, plumbing located inside the home and all floors are the responsibility of the homeowner. Therefore, its advice was correct at that time.
The landlord’s Repairs Policy says “Leaseholders repair responsibilities are set out in their lease. With a few small exceptions, leaseholders are responsible for all repairs to the interior of their property and all facilities that service only their home.” It goes on to say it aims to complete routine repairs within 25 calendar days and if it carries out a repair that is the resident’s responsibility, it will charge the resident for the cost incurred plus an administration fee and VAT.
It was right for the landlord to manage the resident’s expectations about what it was liable for, and what her responsibilities were under the lease. However, at times its responses were confusing. In addition, it is apparent the repairs were not completed within the timescales in the Repairs Policy. The landlord carried out a number of inspections to investigate the reported repairs but, the resident was also told to liaise with its insurer about the same issues. Therefore, it was not always clear what the resident should do to get matters resolved.
As time went on, despite investigations taking place, surveyors were unable to see any issue with the joists due to insufficient flooring being taken up. As an issue with the joists could not be established, the landlord’s approach of telling the resident she could arrange her own inspection if she wanted to if she felt strongly there was a problem, was reasonable.
However, although the landlord contacted the water company over a stopcock to address the issue with leaks, and said it would then contact the resident, it is not known whether this issue ever got resolved. The possibility of subsidence, issues with the windows/plaster cracks also appears to remain outstanding.
It is not clear from the evidence whether the landlord is actually responsible for all the issues raised by the resident. There were delays by the landlord in providing information initially when the resident raised issues in 2020. It did arrange for inspections to take place to establish what repairs were needed, so some headway was made. However, the lack of clarity means that after more than 3 years it potentially feels to the resident, that very little has progressed. Bearing in mind the landlord’s own solicitor advised it in September 2023 to produce a schedule of works and to carry out the necessary repairs, no evidence has been provided to indicate that was done.
This amounts to maladministration and in order to move things forward, the landlord should agree a schedule of works with the resident and against each reported repair state whose responsibility it is to carry out the repair and what section of the lease or policy it is relying upon when deciding that. It should then ensure any repairs it is responsible for are carried out promptly.
Although a number of repairs remain unresolved, the landlord has experienced challenges also, as the resident has not always been happy with its approach or the surveyors it used. Therefore, this has also contributed to how long this has been going on for. However, the resident has at times had to remind the landlord that there were outstanding issues. In addition, she was initially told she was responsible for the repairs, then the landlord accepted responsibility for investigating them and at times took steps to do that, but it then told the resident to liaise with the insurer.
The landlord could have been clearer and more proactive when taking action in respect of some of the repairs needed, such as addressing the leak and faulty windows. To recognise that the landlord could have dealt with things better, and the frustration caused to the resident as a result, it should pay her £400 compensation. In accordance with this Service’s remedies guidance, this amount sufficiently recognises that the landlord has made some attempt to put things right but has not given enough thought to the impact on the resident as a result of not fully addressing these issues sooner.

The landlord showing bias

The resident has said the landlord has shown racial bias, not only because it took legal action against her, but also in its more general handling of her reports, particularly about the neighbour and its staff. While the resident has also expressed concerns that the neighbour’s behaviour towards her was racially motivated, it is important to note that the Ombudsman is not assessing the resident’s actions, but the landlord’s.
The neighbour removed an apple tree and erected a fence in the garden and the resident said this resulted in the boundary line not being correct. She feels that by the landlord arranging for a boundary report to be done without her agreement, it was showing racial bias towards the neighbour. She has said the landlord has focused on resolving an issue with the boundary over addressing safety concerns and she thinks it wants to evict her.
While the Ombudsman can consider the reasonableness of the actions taken by landlord, if the resident believes she has been unlawfully discriminated against or shown racial bias, she may wish to seek independent legal advice. Alternatively, she could contact the Equality and Human Rights Commission for further information on her options. The Ombudsman does appreciate the strength of feeling the resident has on this point and accepts it is a very important issue. However, this Service is unable to make a legal finding that she has been discriminated against because of race. This would be a matter for the courts to determine, where appropriate evidence could be interrogated and the relevant legislation applied to the circumstances.
The resident thinks the landlord commissioning a report to determine the boundary was unnecessary, but she brought the matter to its attention. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that by doing so, she wanted its help in resolving the problem. This is supported by her agreeing to the landlord obtaining input from its legal team initially.
The landlord offered mediation in order to help the parties resolve the dispute. The resident’s comments indicate she feels she was treated compared to the neighbour and it took their accusations more seriously than her own. However, evidence has been provided to show that both the resident and the neighbour complained to the landlord about each other. The landlord did write to the resident about her behaviour, but it also wrote to the neighbour too, based upon reports from the resident.
The landlord also made it clear to the neighbour as well as the resident, that they would be responsible for the cost of an independent boundary report and if it had to repair the walkway outside the property, both parties would also be responsible for the cost of that.
The landlord appropriately acknowledged the resident’s feelings on this point when it addressed her complaint, but it found no evidence of her being communicated with any differently to the neighbour, or that staff showed bias. The evidence considered supports that and, therefore, a finding of no maladministration is made.

The conduct and unprofessional behaviour of staff

The resident has said landlord staff were rude and when they visited the property and were in the garden talking to her neighbour, they mocked her. The landlord found no evidence of this when it investigated the complaint. The resident mentioned she had a video to support her claim, and the landlord asked for this to be sent in order for it to be considered.
No evidence has been provided to show that video was sent to the landlord, and a copy has not been provided to this Service. Having spoken with the resident though, it is accepted that she is upset by the visit that took place. All she has said about what happened has been noted; but the lack of evidence means this Service cannot conclude that the landlord’s staff acted inappropriately.
In terms of the landlord’s obligations/the action it took, it did take the resident’s concern seriously when it addressed the complaint, as it said the report of unprofessional behaviour was passed to the person’s manager. However, it rightly explained that that information was confidential, so it could not share what action, if any was taken against the member of staff.
Overall, the way the landlord handled the resident’s concern over the conduct and behaviour of its staff was reasonable.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s Complaints Policy says a stage one complaint should be responded to within 10 working days. If escalated to stage 2, a response should be sent within 20 workings days. If an extension is required at either or both stages, this should not be more than an additional 10 working days.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint within 10 working days. Its response was detailed and addressed the issues raised, setting out what action, if any, it would be taking, so it complied with its obligations set out in its Complaints Policy.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 14 November 2022 having spoken with her that day about her complaint, and having acknowledged she remained unhappy, it promised a response to her concerns by 21 November 2022.
The Complaints Policy states that a complaint can be escalated within 6 months of either a stage 1 decision or completion of works, whichever is the later. In this case works were still outstanding as work was being done to establish who was responsible. Therefore, it was reasonable that the landlord’s response was issued at stage 2.
Despite the landlord’s response being sent on time and addressing the outstanding issues, it apologised for the delay in responding. It explained it was experiencing a backlog with its stage two reviews due to an increase in complaints and changes to its Customer Relations Team.
No evidence has been provided to show that the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated earlier than 14 November 2022; however, the response indicates she had been waiting some time. As a result, it said it would pay £70 compensation by way of a remedy.
In the absence of any additional evidence, as the landlord found there to be a delay in it escalating the complaint, the Ombudsman has accepted that to be the case, as it does not appear to be in dispute. It is not known though, how long the resident had to wait for the stage 2 response.
The landlord’s Complaint Compensation Standard Operating Procedure says it should consider its failings and the impact to the resident. Its guidance on compensation states where there has been an issue with its complaint handling and there has been medium impact, compensation of £50 – £100 is appropriate.
The complaint was ultimately addressed and the lack of evidence would indicate that the resident was not continually having to chase the landlord for her complaint to be considered at stage 2. Therefore, any impact on the resident as a result of the shortfall in the landlord’s service, was modest. It follows that the compensation offered by the landlord was in accordance with its guidance and was reasonable.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42(e) of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of accusations made against the resident by a neighbour is out of jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports concerning outstanding repairs.
2. no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
  1. the landlord showing bias.
  2. The conduct and unprofessional behaviour of staff.
In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

There was a delay in the landlord providing information to the resident and inconsistent advice given in relation to who was responsible for repairs.
The complaint about the landlord’s handling of accusations made against the resident by the neighbour is out of jurisdiction.
There is no evidence of the landlord treating the resident unfairly or showing racial bias.
There is no evidence of misconduct or unprofessional behaviour in respect of the landlord’s staff.
There was a slight delay in progressing the service complaint to stage two; but, it did not prevent the complaint from being responded to promptly, and sufficient compensation was offered by way of a remedy.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £470 compensation made up of:
  1. £400 for its handling of repairs at the property.
  2. £70 for its delay responding to the complaint (if it has not paid this amount already).
1. Carry out an inspection of the property and;
  1. Produce a schedule of works with the resident.
  2. Against each reported repair state whose responsibility it is to carry out the repair and what section of the lease or a policy supports that.
Within 4 weeks of a schedule of works being agreed, it should ensure any repairs it is responsible for are completed.