London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202114537)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114537

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

21 April 2023

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:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of a leak from a vent in the bedroom;
2. Handling of a leak from above into the bedroom and hall;
3. Response to the resident’s request for compensation for water damaged items;
4. Complaints handling.

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.
The resident included within her request to escalate her complaint to stage two of the landlord’s process, a complaint about the landlord’s handling of a leak from above into the bedroom and hall, and of its handling of decoration works following this. This related to an escape of water from the flat above hers in June 2020. The landlord did not identify this as a new complaint and failed to open a new complaint or to respond to the resident on this complaint.
After carefully considering all of the evidence submitted to this Service, this part of the resident’s complaint has not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. This is because the part of the complaint specifically about the leak from the property above has not been investigated or responded to within the landlord’s complaints process. Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme it is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a two-bedroom flat within a four-storey block.
The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident’s household. The resident says that her son has asthma and other allergies.
The tenancy agreement and the landlord’s repairs policy sets out its responsibility for maintaining the structure and exterior of the property, including walls, roofs, windows, gutters, external pipes and, fixtures and fittings for water, gas, electricity, heating, and sanitation. This is in line with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The policy says that routine day to day repairs will be completed at the earliest mutually convenient appointment within a reasonable timeframe.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints process. Under its complaints policy it defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by” the landlord. The landlord will try to resolve complaints “there and then” but, if it cannot, it will acknowledge the complaint within one working day. It will then respond within ten working days to explain the outcome, how it will resolve the complaint and the timescale for this. If the resident is dissatisfied, they can ask for the complaint to be escalated to stage two. An independent member of the landlord’s staff will review the complaint and provide a response within 20 working days.
The complaints policy also sets out complaints which are excluded from the complaints process, which include:
1. Where a legal claim is made, including insurance claims.
2. Where a resident is taking a matter to court, or it is being dealt with by another statutory agency with the power to resolve the complaint.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out when it will pay compensation to a resident. The landlord also has a compensation guidance document, which sets out when compensation will or might be paid, and values. Payments can be made as consolatory or goodwill gestures for inconvenience, distress and the time and effort in making a complaint. The guidance includes a table for single discretionary payments for service failure with banded values based on impact on the resident.

Summary of events

On 2 December 2018 the resident called the landlord to report water and debris coming through the vent in her son’s bedroom. The landlord’s records show the repair as completed on 21 December 2018. There is a note to say follow-on works were not arranged until 25 January 2019.
The landlord raised a job on 25 January 2019 to unblock the guttering, which was described as “at different levels of roof and may need specialist equipment” to access. The landlord requested a quote for the works on 29 January 2019, but rejected this as not cost effective on 11 February 2019.
On 28 June 2019 the resident called the landlord to make a complaint. The complaint was acknowledged and recorded. This will be referred to as the first complaint. The complaint was about:
1. A leak from the vent in her son’s bedroom since December 2018 which was still ongoing.
2. That she had been told she could have compensation for a water damaged mattress and bedding but had not heard anything about this since.
3. The gutter was blocked, and this was causing mould and damp, meaning her son who has asthma could not sleep in his bedroom.
Between 2 July 2019 and 23 August 2019, the landlord tried to arrange the works to clear the guttering. The landlord’s internal emails show that the quote from a contractor was too high. The landlord decided to complete the works in-house and raised a job on 28 August 2019 to hire a cherry picker, a raisable platform to reach the guttering.
The landlord responded to the resident’s first complaint on 4 October 2019. In its response it:
1. Said the guttering would be repaired on 7 October 2019.
2. Offered compensation of £320 made up of:
  1. £200 for time and effort;
  2. £60 for distress;
  3. £60 for inconvenience.
On 8 October 2019 the resident emailed the landlord to ask about how to claim for the water damaged bed and mattress, referring to an earlier conversation about this. She also asked when the works would be completed, as no-one came on 7 October 2019. There is no evidence that the landlord replied to the resident’s email.
The landlord’s repair records show that the work to clear the guttering and seal any leaking joints was completed on 28 November 2019.
The resident emailed the landlord on 3 December 2019 to accept the compensation offered. She also asked again where she could send her receipts to for compensation for her bed and mattress. She asked what the next steps were for the works.
On 23 December 2019 the landlord called the resident in response to her email. The landlord’s note of the call says that it explained that it “cannot give compensation as the resident [was] in arrears.” It also explained that it “will not be [paying] compensation for her mattress as [it does not] compensate for personal belongings”.
The landlord’s repair records show that a repair for a new vent cover was completed on 13 February 2020, and that no plastering was needed.
The resident emailed the landlord on 19 May 2020 to chase her compensation as it had not been applied to her rent account, which was in arrears. There is no evidence the landlord replied to the resident’s email.
On 7 December 2020 the resident made a complaint to the landlord. This will be referred to as the second complaint. The resident’s second complaint was about:
1. Having not received the compensation offered following the first complaint.
2. The works carried out had not stopped water and debris coming in through the vent in her son’s bedroom.
3. Plastering had been done but painting had not been done.
The landlord responded to the second complaint on 9 December 2020. It said:
1. The complaint was upheld, and the compensation previously offered had now been applied to the rent account,
2. It was arranging a surveyor’s appointment as she had requested.
Internal emails between 9 December 2020 and 10 December 2020 show that the landlord tried to arrange a surveyor to inspect the property. The landlord decided that the job did not require a surveyor, but that a contractor supervisor could be sent instead, which would be ok because “at least he looks like the surveyor!”
On 16 May 2021 the landlord emailed the resident to ask if the surveyor had attended. The resident replied on 1 June 2021 to say that the surveyor had not come and the issue remained. The landlord replied the following day saying it would arrange a surveyor.
In an internal email on 5 July 2021 the surveyor said that all the works for the leak had been raised. This Service does not know the date the surveyor inspected the property. On 18 August 2021 in an internal email the landlord said that a roofer had inspected, that there was no water leaking from the vent in the bedroom and that it would decorate the room.
On 2 September 2021 the resident called the landlord to chase the decoration works for the bedroom.
The landlord emailed the resident on 23 September 2021, in response to an email she had sent about her second complaint. This Service has not been provided with a copy of the resident’s initial email. The landlord provided a further complaint response to the second complaint and said:
1. An appointment had been made for 5 October 2021 to remove the vent in the bedroom and block it up.
2. Offered £270 in compensation for inconvenience, delay, time and effort.
3. Offered £125 in decorating vouchers.
On 1 October 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to ask for her complaint to be escalated to stage two. She declined the landlord’s compensation offer and said:
1. The issue with the vent in her son’s bedroom dated back to 2018 and the leak had destroyed items of property.
2. That a leak from above caused damage to her son’s clothing, bedding, personal items, mattress, and bed in May 2020. The leak also affected the hallway. No decoration works had been completed.
3. That her son had not been able to sleep in his bedroom since these issues as he no longer had a bed.
4. That she would like:
  1. £1500 compensation for the damaged items;
  2. £500 compensation for inconvenience, delay, and emotional distress;
  3. Decoration works to be carried out to her son’s bedroom and the hallway;
  4. For the decoration works to be carried out by the landlord or for compensation of £800 plus £150 in decoration vouchers so that she could hire a private contractor to carry out the work.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate the complaint on the same date, but said that there was a delay of a minimum of eight weeks due to increased numbers of escalated complaints.
On 7 December 2021 the landlord called the resident to discuss her stage two complaint. It advised her that she would need to make an insurance claim for the damaged bed and that it would provide her with the details on how to do this. The landlord sent these details by email the following day.
The landlord sent its stage two response on 13 December 2021. In its response it:
1. Set out the resident’s two complaints and what the resident had asked for when escalating the complaint.
2. Confirmed that it had given details on how to make an insurance claim for damaged items.
3. Said that she had accepted compensation for the first complaint which had been applied to the rent account and apologised for the delay.
4. Increased the offer of compensation for the second complaint from £270 to £350 to take into account distress caused.
5. Said that it was unable to complete further decorating works or to cover the cost of this, but increased its offer of decorating vouchers to £150.
6. Apologised for any shortfalls in support it had provided.
7. Confirmed that the vent had been inspected and had been closed to avoid any further problems.
On 20 December 2021 the landlord emailed the resident to ask if she wanted to accept the compensation offered. The resident replied to say that she would be approaching this Service. When the resident approached the Ombudsman, she said that she wanted the landlord to redecorate her hallway and her son’s bedroom, and compensation for damaged personal possessions and for stress and inconvenience.
The resident has told this Service that following the final repair to the vent, to block it up, there have been no further leaks. However, the landlord did not complete any decoration works and the resident has now paid a private contractor to complete these works. The resident has also told this Service that she had not made a claim against the landlord’s insurance; she said that she was not clear on how to do this. She said that she was told by the landlord to claim on her own contents insurance if she had this, which she did not. The resident has now replaced damaged items herself over time due to the expense.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak from a vent in the bedroom

The resident first reported water and debris leaking through the vent in her son’s bedroom on 2 December 2018. The issue was finally resolved on 5 October 2021, a total of 1,039 days or almost three years later. This was an excessive delay in completing the repair and was not in line with the landlord’s policy or repairing obligations.
Following the repair being reported, the landlord did not request follow-up work until 25 January 2019 when it requested a quote to clear the guttering to prevent water leaking. It received a quote but rejected this due to the high cost quoted. While the Ombudsman recognises that the landlord had a duty to achieve value for money, it also had a legal obligation to complete repairs within a reasonable time. While the landlord rejected the quote based on cost, it did not obtain any other quotes or take any other action until a complaint was made; that was a service failure.
The landlord took no further action until the resident’s first complaint was received on 28 June 2019. The landlord then took 53 days to try to arrange works and decide to complete the works in-house by hiring a cherry picker. A further 97 days passed before the repair to the guttering was completed.
The landlord accepted that it was responsible for repairs to the guttering. The landlord’s policy does not provide a timeframe for completion of repairs, except that routine day to day repairs will be completed within a reasonable timeframe.
Guttering works to a tall building may not be considered a routine day to day repair. This type of work requires access to work at height and will likely take longer to arrange and complete, however must still be completed within a reasonable timeframe. The records show that the landlord was slow to act, and failed to take any further steps once it rejected the contractor’s quote until it received a complaint. Once it decided to complete the works there was a further extended delay. The repair was not completed within a reasonable timeframe.
The landlord then carried out a repair to the vent cover on 13 February 2020 however no decoration works were completed. This was not done in a reasonable timeframe; it was over a year after the resident first reported the issue.
The resident made her second complaint about the vent leaking on 7 December 2020. She asked the landlord to send a surveyor to inspect. The landlord decided that a surveyor was not needed, but they would send a contractor supervisor assuming the resident would not know the difference. This was poor practice and demonstrated that the landlord had not taken the issue seriously which it should have, although the landlord did send a surveyor at a later date. A surveyor inspected sometime after 16 May 2021 and said all works had been raised on 5 July 2021.
The vent was inspected in August 2021, however the repair to remove and block up the vent was only raised on 23 September 2021, on the same day as the landlord responded for the second time to the second complaint. No decoration works were carried out to make good. There had already been a substantial delay in completing the repair by the time the vent was inspected, and a further delay before the repair was arranged. This caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident.
It is not clear why the landlord delayed in completing the works. The landlord also did not consider the resident’s concerns that her son has asthma and other allergies and could not sleep in his room.
The landlord upheld the resident’s first complaint and awarded compensation of £320. This was for inconvenience, distress, time, and effort in raising the complaint. The amount awarded was at the highest figure under the landlord’s guidance on compensation for service failure. This covered the period from 2 December 2018 until 4 October 2019. This amount was not proportionate to compensate for the level of distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident.
In the landlord’s second response to the second complaint on 29 September 2021 it offered further compensation of £270 for inconvenience, delay, time, and effort, along with £125 in decorating vouchers. At stage two it increased its offer to £350 with £150 in decorating vouchers.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles as well as our own guidance on remedies.
There was a delay of almost three years in resolving the issue. During this time the resident says her son could not use his bedroom due to damp and mould, her son also having asthma, and due to the water damage to his bed. This would have had a large impact on the resident and her son’s ability to use the property and have caused great inconvenience and distress. Taking all of this into account there was severe maladministration, and the landlord has not offered reasonable redress.
Taking in to account the specific circumstances of this complaint, that the property has two bedrooms and the resident’s rent payments, an order has been made that the landlord pay compensation of £4,628. This figure is 20% of the average weekly rent of £156.36 per week for the period 2 December 2018 until 5 October 2021, being 148 weeks. This figure reflects the loss of a bedroom and the level of impact these failings have had on the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for water damaged items

The resident asked for compensation for water damaged items from the start. The landlord failed to address this and gave incorrect or confusing information when it told her “[it does not] compensate for personal belongings” without explaining its policy of referring this to its insurers.
While it was an option available to the landlord to refer the resident to its insurer, the delay of nearly one year to do so was not reasonable. The landlord did not provide details of its insurance department, information on how to make a claim or even inform the resident that she would need to make a claim before 30 June 2020. This is despite the resident raising the issue on 28 June 2019. The resident has told this Service that what she had to do was not made clear, and she did not understand she could make a claim.
There was maladministration; the landlord failed to complete the repair within a reasonable time and it is not disputed that water damage to items of personal property resulted. The landlord is responsible for the repair and for putting everything right that results from its failure to repair within a reasonable time. This includes damage to the resident’s personal items. This Service’s guidance on insurance sets out that it is not reasonable for landlords to ask residents to claim on their own contents insurance in situations like this where the landlord is clearly at fault. Accordingly an order that the landlord pay £1,500 in compensation has been made to reflect the impact the maladministration had on the resident and for the loss of items that she explained included a bed, mattress, bedding and clothing.

The landlord’s complaints handling

The landlord responded to the resident’s first complaint 103 days after it was made, not within ten working days under its policy. The landlord offered compensation which the resident accepted. However, the landlord later told her that it would not compensate her at all as she was in arrears, which was not correct; this would have caused distress to the resident. There was a dismissive attitude from the landlord, which did not show it wanted to put things right to resolve the complaint. Compensation was only applied to her rent account following her second complaint on 7 December 2020. This amounted to maladministration.
The landlord provided a first response to the resident’s second complaint within target, however, did not provide its full response until 23 September 2021, some 291 days after it was made.
When the resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage two, the landlord told her that there would be a delay of at least eight weeks. The landlord’s policy says that it will respond to stage two complaints within 20 working days. The landlord responded in 74 days.
For both stage one complaints and the stage two complaint the landlord failed to meet its policy timeframes. In total the resident spent 468 days waiting for complaint responses. This would have caused additional distress and inconvenience to the resident and delayed having her complaints resolved. There is no evidence the landlord considered offering any compensation for these failures, and their impact on the resident. These failures are maladministration, and financial compensation of £300 is appropriate to reflect the impact on the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in relation to:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak from a vent in the bedroom.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for water damaged items.
2. The landlord’s complaints handling.
In accordance with Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of a leak from above into the bedroom and hall, is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Reasons

There was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of the leak, as the landlord did not follow its procedure to complete the repairs within a reasonable time. There was a delay of more than three years in completing an effective repair to the leaking vent. It delayed in inspecting the issues and did not communicate clearly with the resident. It did not consider the resident’s son’s medical conditions. While it did offer compensation this did not amount to reasonable redress.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for damaged items, as the landlord failed to explain or direct the resident to its insurance department until nearly a year after the resident first raised the issue of damaged personal property. The landlord did not clearly explain or assist the resident with a claim. It failed to take responsibility for the damage caused by its repairing failures and put things right.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling, as the landlord did not respond to complaints within the timeframes set out in its policy. It gave incorrect information to the resident and delayed in applying compensation awarded to her rent account.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology from a senior manager to the resident for the failures detailed in this report;
2. Pay directly to the resident further compensation of £6,428 made up of:
  1. £4,628 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s severe maladministration in its response to the leak from the vent;
  2. £1,500 for its failure in its response to the resident’s request for compensation for water damaged items, and to compensate for those items, to reflect the distress, inconvenience and financial loss caused to the resident;
  3. £300 for the inconvenience, time and effort caused to the resident due to its complaint handling failure;
3. Ask the resident to provide a copy of the invoice or receipt for the decoration works she paid to have completed, and reimburse the resident this amount within two weeks of receiving this invoice or receipt;
4. Review its processes in relation to specialist and complex works where working at height is required and provide the outcome of this review, with proposed service improvements to this Service;
5. Confirm compliance with the above orders to this Service.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Investigate the resident’s complaint about its handling of a leak from the property above into the bedroom and hall and to provide its response at stage one to the resident and this Service.
2. Provides clear information to residents who request compensation for damaged items when they first enquire. In cases where it has been at fault it should either compensate the resident itself, or facilitate a claim on its own insurer, and not refer the resident to their own contents insurance, in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on complaints involving insurance.
3. Provide regular updates to residents if it is not able to respond to complaints within its timeframes, and award compensation for these failures as a matter of course.