London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202120966)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120966

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

18 December 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 handling of:
1. Repairs to the building following a burglary.
2. The resident’s request for it to provide CCTV footage to the police.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of a flat in a block, and the landlord is the freeholder. The landlord does not have any recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.

Summary of events

On 11 September 2021, the resident’s block was broken into and burgled. The resident’s individual property was not broken into, but the communal bike store for the block was burgled.
The resident contacted the landlord on 13 September 2021 to report 3 broken fire doors in the building, as they had been “kicked in” during the break in. He reported the doors would not close, and posed a security risk.
The resident made a complaint on 21 September 2021 and said:
1. Since 11 September 2021 his, and the neighbouring blocks, had been burgled multiple times
2. The fire safety panel on the front of the building was damaged, and 2 internal fire doors were “kicked in”. The block was being accessed by this same method on an “almost nightly basis”
3. The fire doors were still not fixed, and the landlord was not treating the repair with the appropriate urgency, despite logging the repair as an emergency repair
4. He was still awaiting confirmation the landlord has passed on CCTV footage of the burglary to the police
5. The landlord should hire temporary security, until the building was secured, to deter criminal activity.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 6 October 2021 and said:
1. In line with its policy, it had attended to the doors within 4 hours, but they were not repairable. A work order was raised after the visit, and it was awaiting confirmation of the date the replacement would take place
2. The repairs team had visited the building the day before, and it was hoping to confirm a repair date “imminently”
3. It confirmed CCTV footage had been sent to the police
4. It had considered the resident’s proposal for security, and for a single person to cover the blocks for 24 hours, it would cost approximately £6,000 per week. Meaning each residents’ service charge would increase by £500 per month. Due to the cost, it felt the solution was not appropriate. However, if the resident wanted to take it further, he could request this, and it would start the consultation process
5. It explained he could ask his complaint to be considered at the next stage, if he was unhappy with its response.
The resident contacted the landlord on 15 December 2021 and said he was unhappy with the landlord’s response. He said the matter was not resolved as the fire doors and panel were still broken, and the wrong CCTV footage was sent to the police. The resident asked his complaint to be considered at stage 2.
The landlord emailed the resident on 17 December 2021 and said:
1. It would raise a separate complaint about the fire door repair, as it needed to be addressed by its maintenance team. Its priority had been restoring the security of the building, which it had now done
2. The fire safety panel had been disconnected, so it could “maintain security from outside”. It planned to do further works to remove the “access point”, but would take time as it would need to update the fire risk assessment and notify the fire service
3. The incorrect CCTV footage was provided to the police. This was because the ‘timestamp’ on the cameras was incorrect. The actual footage of the incident had since been recorded over. It did check the cameras monthly, but this was just to ensure they were working
4. It would arrange for its contractor to attend and check the cameras were working properly, and provide training to staff
5. It apologised for the frustration the issue had caused, and for the time it had taken to give “clarity” about the error.
The resident emailed the landlord on 30 December 2021, and asked the landlord for compensation for its handling of the CCTV issue. He also asked that it consider discretionary compensation for the “distress and inconvenience” caused by its handling of the matter. The resident explained he had spent an “unnecessary” amount of time chasing it to provide footage to the police, only for the wrong footage to be sent.
The landlord emailed the resident on 21 January 2022, and said it was “working on” a response and offer of compensation in relation to the CCTV issue. It restated that the complaint about the repairs to the doors was being handled by its maintenance team.
The resident contacted the landlord on 31 January 2021 and asked for an update on the repairs, following the burglary. The resident asked his complaint to be escalated to the next stage, and for an update on the separate complaint, about the doors. It does not appear the landlord responded to this email. The resident emailed again on 2 February 2022, and asked for his complaint to be taken to stage 2.
The resident contacted this Service, on 9 February 2022, and asked for assistance in getting the landlord to open a stage 2 complaint investigation. This Service wrote to the resident on 12 May 2022 and apologised for the delay in taking matters up with the landlord, and asked if he still needed assistance. The resident responded on the same day, and confirmed he did.
On 17 May 2022 the landlord attended the resident’s property and replaced the fire safety panel.
The resident contacted the landlord on 23 May and 8 June 2022 and asked for his complaint to be taken to stage 2. This Service wrote to the landlord on 22 June 2022 and asked it to provide the resident with a stage 2 complaint response by 6 July 2022.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 1 July 2022 and said works to replace the doors would start on the week beginning 25 July 2022.The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 4 July 2022 and said:
1. It had experienced “severe delays” in getting quotes for the replacement doors, and had to change suppliers twice, to get the correct doors. It confirmed the works would start the week commencing 25 July 2022
2. The fire safety panel works were completed on 17 May 2022
3. It outlined the timestamp issue on the CCTV, and explained its contractor attended on 28 June 2022 to service it, and the timestamp was now correct
4. The landlord explained that the Covid-19 pandemic had contributed to the delays due to “low material availability”, and its prioritisation of emergency repairs, caused a backlog of other works
5. It apologised and acknowledged the “time, effort and inconvenience” the matters had caused, and offered the resident £560 in compensation, made up of:
  1. £160 for the delays in taking his complaint to stage 2
  2. £150 for the “delays and service failures” in completing repairs, following the burglary
  3. An additional £100 for the time and effort to chase the works needed
  4. £150 for the “service failures” relating to the incorrect CCTV being recorded and provided to the police.
The resident contacted this Service on 6 July 2022 and asked the Ombudsman to investigate his complaint. He said he was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the issues and its offer of compensation.
The landlord’s repair log shows it completed the replacement of the fire doors around 27 July 2022. The exact date the works were completed is unclear.

Assessment and findings

Relevant Obligations policies and procedures

The resident’s lease agreement states the landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining all “access systems” and points of entry. It is also responsible for maintaining CCTV and communal fire systems. The lease states the landlord can claim the cost of repairs and maintenance of the above through the resident’s service charge.
The landlord’s routine repairs and responsibilities policy states that it is responsible for repairing external doors, and fire doors, as well as communal fire safety equipment.
The landlord’s compensation policy for leaseholders states it may offer compensation for leaseholders when it identifies a failing it its handling of repairs it is responsible for. The policy states it can offer compensation of a maximum of £100 for defects if not “made good” in the following timeframes:
1. Emergency defects: within 24 hours
2. Urgent defects: within 5 days
3. Routine defects: within 20 days
The landlord’s fire safety policy states that its fire safety risk assessment must cover fire safety access panels. The policy says it must conduct a new risk assessment if planned works are likely to “interfere with existing fire safety measures”.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The policy states that if it needs more time to complete a stage 2 investigation, it will write to the resident to explain why.

Repairs to the building following a burglary

At the time of the resident’s complaint, in September 2021, he explained he was concerned that the building was left insecure following the burglary, and that the block was accessed on multiple occasions. The landlord’s complaint response, of October 2021, lacked detail in relation to the resident’s concern. It is noted that the landlord felt the resident’s suggestion of 24 hour security was too expensive, but was supportive of it if he wanted to explore it further.
The landlord failed to explain what it had done to secure the building, or outline its view on whether the building was secure at that point. This was a failing in its handling of the matter. The resident was evidently concerned about the ongoing security of the building, and the landlord’s response lacked detail and caused a detriment. The resident was left not knowing what the landlord intended to do to secure the building, or when it would do it. This Service has seen no evidence to indicate the landlord engaged with external agencies, such as the police, to mitigate risk while the building was left temporarily insecure. This was a further failing in its handling of the matter.
It is not possible to determine exactly when the landlord was of the view it had successfully secured the building. Its email of 17 December 2021, on the evidence available, appears to be the first time the landlord set out its position that it had secured the building. It is reasonable to conclude, based on the evidence, that this occurred shortly before its email. This was an unreasonable delay, and outside of its target timeframes for emergency repairs.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response said that it was booking the repair to replace the doors “imminently”. It is evident that the repair was not booked at this time. The resident was cost time in trouble in having ask it for an update in December, 2 months after it said the repair was imminent. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord was proactive in explaining the delays to the resident, which was unreasonable. The resident experienced a disappointment of being told an important repair was imminent, for it then not to happen. That he had to ask for an update further inconvenienced him.
In January 2022, the landlord decided the repair/replacement door issue would be dealt with as a separate complaint. This was inappropriate, and will be assessed in further detail in the complaint handling section below. This decision also impacted on the landlord’s overall handling of the door issue. It is evident that, after this point, the landlord provided very little in the way of updates about the replacement doors, until it sent its letter to the resident on 1 July 2022. This was unreasonable.
The works to replace the doors was evidently complex, and there were some factors outside of the landlord’s control that caused a delay. That the landlord was not proactive in providing updates about the delays was unreasonable. An explanation about the delays it was experiencing would have helped manage the resident’s expectations. The resident experienced the inconvenience of not knowing why there was a delay, or when the landlord hoped to complete the repair.
There were similar failings in relation to the landlord’s communication about the fire safety panel. In December 2021, the landlord explained it needed to do works to the panel. It said it needed to update its risk assessment and notify the fire service, which was an appropriate application of its fire safety policy. However, the repair was completed 5 months later, in May 2022, which is outside of its target of 20 working days for a routine repair. It is noted that the complexity of the repair made meeting this target challenging. However, the lack of evidence of proactive updates about the delay amounts to a further failing in its handling of the matter. The resident was cost additional time and trouble of needing to ask the landlord for an update about the repair, in early 2022.
It is noted that the landlord experienced delays in replacing the doors due to supply chain issues. The landlord appropriately offered an explanation in its stage 2 complaint response, of July 2022. This went some way to putting right its poor communication about the issue up to that point. The Ombudsman appreciates that supply chains did suffer significant delays, due to the Covid-19 pandemic, which evidently impacted on its ability to replace the doors within its target timeframe. While appropriate to explain this to the resident, that it did not acknowledge it failed to update the resident proactively during that time was unreasonable. The inconvenience this caused the resident is increased by the fact it took 7 months to respond to the stage 2 complaint.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response gave no assessment or explanation about its handling of the repair to the fire safety panel, which was a further shortcoming. The lack of assessment of its actions or acknowledgement that it took 5 months to complete the repair, was unreasonable. The landlord failed to assess its actions in relation to a specific concern the resident raised, as part of his complaint. This was a failure to apply the complaint handling principles set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code states that “landlords must address all points raised in the complaint”. It is noted that the landlord said when the repair was completed, but the lack of assessment of its actions up to that point caused an inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response identified failings, and appropriately apologised. It offered a total of £250 for its handling of the repairs following the burglary. The landlord failed to assess its poor communication in any detail, or show what learning it had done to prevent similar issues happening again. It is noted that the delays in completing the works were somewhat outside of its control. However, its stage 2 complaint response did not identify all of its failings, and did not show appropriate learning.
The landlord failed to acknowledge that it left the block temporarily insecure without appropriate measures in place, and that it failed to engage with the resident around this. The £250 in compensation it offered did not fully put things right for the resident, as the full detriment he experienced was not considered in its final response. As such, a series of appropriate orders have been made below.

Request to send CCTV footage

The issue of the CCTV footage is a complex one, which the resident evidently found distressing. It is not disputed that the issue of the incorrect footage being sent to the police, due to the timestamp issue, caused a detriment. The resident expressed a concern to the landlord that the issue contributed to the fact the perpetrators of the burglary were never caught. While the Ombudsman sympathises with the resident’s experience, and the understandable distress the matter caused, it is not for this Service to determine whether the landlord’s actions affected the police investigation. This Service has, however, considered whether the landlord’s actions in relation to this matter were reasonable in the circumstances.
In its stage 1 complaint response, of October 2021, the landlord outlined its position that it had sent the CCTV footage to the police. However, its response lacked detail, as it did not assess its handling of the issue. The resident had raised a specific concern about delays in providing the footage to the police. The lack of assessment of its handling of the matter, up to that point, was a failing, and caused the resident an inconvenience. Simply stating that it had sent the footage was dismissive and lacked transparency. It would have been reasonable to provide the resident with an assessment of its actions up to that point, and confirmation of when the footage was sent. That it did not was inappropriate.
By December 2021, it became apparent that there was an issue with the footage sent to the police. From the evidence available, it is unclear when the landlord became aware of this issue. But, its email of 17 December 2021 appropriately gave an explanation and how it planned to put the issue right by correcting it and providing further training to staff.
It is evident that the monthly checks of the CCTV, at the time, did not involve checking that the timestamp on video was correct. The landlord sought to put this error right, which was appropriate by training correcting the CCTV, and giving staff further training on the CCTV. The landlord did not put the issue right until June 2022, 5 months later. This Service has seen no evidence to indicate the landlord was proactive in providing updates about the delay to the resident, which was a failing in its handling of the matter.
Despite identifying a failing, in December 2021, it did not seek to offer redress to the resident at that point, which was inappropriate. It, unreasonably, did not immediately open a stage 2 complaint investigation, when asked to. It would, therefore, have been appropriate to make an offer of redress outside of its complaints process. That it did not do so was a failing in its handling of the matter.
It is noted that, by January 2022, the landlord was considering an offer of compensation outside of its complaints process. However, having decided to do so, this Service has seen no evidence that the landlord followed up on this. This was a further failing in its handling of the matter. The resident suffered a disappointment of the landlord telling him it would offer compensation, in January 2022, and it not happening. The resident waited a further 6 months for an offer of compensation for the landlord’s admitted failings, which was unreasonable.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response outlined what it had done to put the issue right, and confirmed the timestamp was now correct on the CCTV. The landlord completed the service to the CCTV 5 months after the evidence indicates it was aware of the issue. This was well outside of its target timeframes for routine repairs, which was a failing. That the landlord provided no explanation of why there was a delay in completing the service, was a further failing in its handling of the matter.
The landlord apologised, and offered the resident £150 in compensation for its handling of the CCTV issue. This was appropriate in the circumstances. However, the landlord failed to acknowledge the delay in completing the service, or explain why it had completed the repair outside of its target timeframes. The landlord’s final complaint response did not reflect on what it would do to prevent similar failings happening again, and did not apply the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle of learning from outcomes. There was a delay in completing the repair, and the lack of explanation about the delay. This, including the lack of learning in its complaint response mean the £150 it offered did not fully put things right for the resident.

Complaint Handling

The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2 in December 2021, as he was unhappy with its response. There is no evidence to indicate that the landlord opened a stage 2 complaint investigation at that time. This was a failing in its complaint handling. The Code states that landlords must progress a complaint to stage 2 if the resident asks it to. That it did not do so created an unfair and protracted complaints process for the resident.
The landlord’s action in opening a separate complaint for the fire door replacement, in December 2021, was inappropriate. The landlord had already outlined its position in relation to the doors in its stage 1 complaint response. For it then to suggest the resident had to start the complaints process again, albeit with a different department, was unreasonable. This Service has seen no evidence that the separate complaint was ever responded to, as the door replacement was ultimately dealt with under the stage 2 complaint response, sent in July 2022. The landlord’s actions around the complaint about the door replacement were unreasonable, and created a protracted and confusing complaints process for the resident.
The landlord’s communication in December 2021, when it said it had opened a separate complaint about the doors, was silent on the other aspects of the resident’s complaint. The landlord failed to explain whether the other aspects of his complaint were progressing to stage 2, which was a further failing in its complaint handling.
The resident experienced a significant inconvenience, time and trouble in asking the landlord to open a stage 2 complaint. The resident emailed the landlord 6 times to ask it to provide a stage 2 response, as well as asking for assistance from this Service. As outlined above, the landlord appeared to try and resolve the issue outside of its complaint procedure, by stating it planned to offer compensation for the CCTV issue. But, the offer of compensation did not materialise. The delay in opening the stage 2 complaint investigation resulted in an unreasonable delay in the resident being offered redress for failings the landlord had already admitted.
The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response 136 working days after the resident asked his complaint to be taken to stage 2. This was well outside of the timeframes set out in its policy, and the Code. The resident experienced an unfair and hard to access complaints process. The result of the delay contributed to the overall detriment the resident experienced, as he was waiting 7 months for answers to the substantive issues in his case.
The landlord’s complaint responses, as outlined above, lacked detail, and a meaningful assessment of its actions. The landlord apologised for the delay in responding to the stage 2 complaint, but failed to show any learning about its complaint handling and how it would seek to stop similar failings happening again. This lack of learning, as well as the lack of learning about the substantive issues in the complaint, amount to a finding of maladministration in its handling of the complaint. The £160 it offered for its complaint handling did not fully put things right for the resident.
In July 2023 the Housing Ombudsman published a special report on the landlord, which identified a “disconnect between policy and practice” in its complaint handling. In response to the publication of the special report, the landlord completed training with its complaint handling staff. The aim of this was to ensure “more empathetic complaint responses” and to “act on learning from complaints”. Therefore, this report has not made an order for the landlord’s complaint handling practice, as it has already actioned what would have been ordered.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the building following a burglary.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of resident’s request for it to provide CCTV footage to the police.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of resident’s complaint.

Reasons

There were delays in completing identified repairs, following the burglary. Repairs were completed outside of the landlord’s target timeframes. While it is noted that the delays were somewhat outside of the landlord’s control, its communication was poor. The lack of temporary security measures it put in place, and proactive updates caused the resident a detriment. The resident experienced distress at the building not being secure, and he was required to regularly ask it for updates which was inconvenient. Its complaint response failed assess its actions in any detail, and explain what it would do to prevent similar failings happening again. Its offer of redress did not fully put things right for the resident.
The landlord identified an issue with its CCTV, and there was an unreasonable delay in putting it right, which was well outside of its target timeframes. It appropriately apologised for its identified failings, but did not explain why there had been a delay. The landlord was not proactive in providing updates to the resident, which caused further inconvenience. The £150 it offered did not fully put things right for the resident.
The landlord, unreasonably, delayed opening a stage 2 complaint investigation, which cost the resident significant time and trouble. Its complaint responses lacked detail, and a meaningful assessment of its actions. There was an overall lack of learning in the landlord’s complaint responses.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report
2. Pay the resident £1,210 in compensation, made up of:
  1. The £250 it offered for its handling of the repairs following a burglary (if it has not already done so)
  2. A further £200 in recognition of the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its handling of the repairs following a burglary
  3. The £150 it offered for its handling of the resident’s request for it to provide CCTV footage to the police (if it has not already done so)
  4. A further £150 in recognition of the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its handling of the resident’s request for it to provide CCTV footage to the police
  5. The £160 it offered for its complaint handling (if it has not already done so)
  6. A further £300 in recognition of the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint.
Within 8 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Considering the failings identified in this report, complete a review into its handling of the repairs, including how it can reduce the risk of similar failings happening again. The review should consider the impact of a lack of proactive communication with resident
2. The outcome of the above review should be shared with this Service, also within eight weeks.