London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202126008)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126008

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

31 March 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 condensation to the windows resulting in mould and rotten frames;
2. Handling of the subsequent complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a leaseholder under a shared ownership lease. The landlord is the freeholder. The property is a one bedroom flat.
Under the terms of the lease, the resident was obliged to pay the service charge and to keep the ‘interior of the premises and the glass in the windows…in good and substantial repair and condition’.
The lease obliged the landlord to maintain, repair and renew all external parts including the windows ‘on the outside of the flats’, but not including the glass or interior surfaces.
The landlord’s complaints policy said that following a stage one complaint, it would ‘write within 10 working days’ after receiving a complaint ‘to explain the outcome of our investigation’, how it would ‘resolve the complaint and the timescales’.
The landlord’s complaints policy for stage two complaints says that it would ‘write with the outcome and next steps within 20 working days of the request to escalate’.

Summary of events

The resident said that he contacted the landlord, via its website, in January 2022, to report rotting window frames, to which the landlord did not respond.
The resident raised a stage one complaint on 23 February 2022. He said that:
1. He asked the landlord to repair his “rotting window frames”.
2. The windows were “ruined through condensation and now contain mould”.
3. He raised the issue again on 7 February 2022 and that the landlord did not respond.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day and said that a repair had not been raised on its systems but that it would attend on 30 March 2022 to investigate.
The landlord issued the stage one response on 24 February 2022 and said that it was upholding the complaint. It reiterated that an operative would inspect and repair two bedroom windows on 30 March 2022.
The resident contacted the landlord by phone on 30 March 2022. It said that the operative did not attend, despite receiving three text messages confirming the appointment. The landlord said that the job was booked for 12 May 2022 as an all-day appointment. It offered the resident £20 in vouchers to acknowledge the error. It also scheduled a new appointment for 11 April 2022.
The resident raised a stage two complaint on 31 March 2022. The resident said:
1. An appointment was booked over the phone for 30 March 2022.
2. He received a reminder by text message on 29 March 2022 and another reminder on 30 March 2022.
3. He took the day off work and waited in all afternoon for the operative to visit but nobody attended.
4. After calling the landlord and waiting on hold for 40 minutes, on 30 March 2022, the landlord said that the booking was for March 2022 but was changed to May 2022 on its systems.
5. The landlord was to call him back to rectify this issue but no call was received.
The resident emailed the landlord on 7 April 2022 and said that the email constituted a “third formal complaint” as the landlord had not responded to the stage two complaint. The email summarised the events up to that point. The landlord responded on 8 April 2022 and apologised for the “miscommunication” around the missed appointment. The landlord said that the appointment was scheduled for 11 April 2022. The resident’s comments indicate that this appointment went ahead as scheduled.
The resident emailed the landlord on 29 April 2022. He said that it had now been three weeks since the appointment where photographs were taken of the mould to the windows. He informed the landlord that he recently visited a health expert as he was suffering from “severe allergies”. The resident said he was told that the mould could impact his ability to fully recover and that he should avoid cleaning the mould to avoid the inhalation of mould spores.
The resident then asked the Ombudsman to intervene. This Service wrote to the landlord on 28 June 2022. We attached a letter from the resident and said that a response was required from the landlord by 29 July 2022. The landlord’s records show that a voicemail and email acknowledgement were provided to the resident. The timeline shows that the landlord’s stage two response was 61 days overdue at this point.
The landlord’s internal emails, between 22 July 2022 and 26 July 2022, recorded the discussion on the resident’s tenure; namely that he was a leaseholder. The landlord’s surveyor said that the sinking fund may be needed and the cost be split with the neighbouring leaseholder. Additionally, that “if window repairs and mould wash can be carried out and some secondary glazing to the 2 bedroom windows then that would go through our section 20 process”. It was accepted that an error was made in recognising the correct tenure at the start of the process.
The landlord issued a stage two response on 26 July 2022. It said that:
1. It attended the property on 8 April 2022 to take photographs of the windows.
2. Its building surveyor passed the job to a window contractor to measure for secondary glazing to the bedroom windows, repair to the kitchen windows and for the “round window” to be replaced.
3. When the window contractor called the resident to make an appointment, the resident said that photographs had already been taken and he did not want to take another day off work to provide access.
4. When the repair process started, the issue was treated as a standard tenancy repair. However, as the resident was a leaseholder, repairs may need to go through the section 20 process.
5. It was responsible for “external frames and furniture, but not internal frames, hinges and furniture, or glazing”. An inspection was required to determine the extent of the works required and the associated liability.
6. It apologised that “miscommunication led to a missed appointment” on 30 March 2022 and that this would be learned from.
7. It offered the resident £200 in compensation comprising, £100 for distress and inconvenience, and £100 for delays.
The landlord’s internal emails show that an appointment was booked for 5 August 2022 and subsequently missed by the landlord.
The landlord has copied this Service into an update provided to the resident on 29 March 2023. It said its ‘section 20 team’ advised that the property formed part of a listed building and was located in a conservation area; thereby placing restrictions on the type of window replacement available. It added that if the resident was “happy to accept the section 20 process” an appointment would be made for the property to be inspected in April 2023.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to reports of condensation to the windows resulting in mould and rotten frames

Under the terms of the lease, the resident is obliged to keep the interior of the property, including the glazing, in a good condition. The landlord’s position is that the resident would need to be consulted under the section 20 process and the landlord would replace the windows with a share of the costs being paid for, by the resident, through the sinking fund. This interpretation of the obligations under the lease was not disputed by the resident and was therefore appropriate in the circumstances.
The landlord provided the resident with a copy of a notice of proposal, from March 2017, in relation to major works. The notice detailed the landlord’s section 20 procedure and was provided for the resident’s understanding. It states that ‘In accordance with Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 … [the] landlord must consult tenants who are required under the terms of their leases/tenancy agreements to contribute to costs incurred under a qualifying long-term agreement’. The applicable financial threshold for issuing the notice was £250 per property.
It is reasonable to conclude that the works required to the windows would have met the £250 threshold and therefore required a section 20 consultation. As the landlord did not recognise that the resident was a leaseholder when the issue was first raised, there was an unreasonable delay, of over five months, in initiating the section 20 process. This resulted in delays in initiating the process for replacing the windows. This led to distress and inconvenience as a result of not having the issue resolved sooner which was compounded by the resident’s allergies and the associated mould. Consequently this constituted service failure by the landlord .
The landlord offered the resident £100 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused. It would be reasonable, however, for the landlord to compensate the resident an additional £100 for the delay in recognising the tenure as had it done so earlier, the resident may not have had cause to complain.

Complaints handling

While the landlord promptly responded to the resident’s first complaint, the resident escalated to stage two on 31 March 2022. The landlord’s complaints policy for stage two complaints says that it would ‘write with the outcome and next steps within 20 working days of the request to escalate’.
The landlord provided a stage two response on 26 July 2022 this was just under three months (89 days) outside of its stipulated timeframe of 20 working days. When progressing through the complaints process, the resident should not have to contact any other party for assistance as it is inconvenient and unnecessary to do so. Furthermore, had the resident not contacted this service, it is possible that the delay may have been greater, or that the response may not have been issued. In the circumstances, this amounted to maladministration, for which additional compensation is appropriate.
The Landlord has offered the resident £100 compensation for the delay in responding to the complaint. However, in consideration of the inconvenience of involving a third party, and the time and trouble in chasing the landlord, total compensation of £200 is reasonable in recognising the impact on the resident for the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to reports of condensation to the windows resulting in mould and rotten frames.
2. Maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord did not provide an appropriate response to the resident’s reports of condensation to the windows resulting in mould and rotten frames. This was due to it not recognising that the resident was a leaseholder which resulted in delays in responding.
The landlord did not respond to the complaints within its published timescales, resulting in a detrimental impact on the resident

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to pay the resident at total of £400 compensation comprising:
1. £200 for distress and inconvenience to the resident which was caused by the five month delay in recognising the correct tenure.
2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in dealing with the complaint.
Where compensation has already been paid, this may be deducted from the total. In this instance, if the amount of £200 has been paid to the resident, it can be deducted from the award, leaving a total of £200.
The landlord is, within four weeks of the date of this report, to review its systems and the training of relevant staff so that it is able to recognise the correct tenure of a particular resident. This would enable the landlord to provide more accurate information and take appropriate action sooner, when a repair issue is reported. The landlord should then implement any required training within four weeks thereafter.