London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202127006)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127006

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

13 October 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 landlords:
1. Decision not to further investigate the resident’s complaint from November 2018.
2. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident has an assured tenancy agreement of the property which is a 2 bedroom maisonette.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaints policy effective from 2 November 2020.
1. Stage 1 – complaint investigation and resolution with a 10 day target from receipt of the complaint.
2. Stage 2 – Complaint review and resolution with a 20 day target from receipt of receiving the resident’s reasons for dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response.
In addition the policy says that the landlord will not investigate issues that are more than 6 months old.
The resident was decanted from her property on 8 October 2018 due to planned maintenance and repair work undertaken by a contractor on behalf of the landlord. On her return to the property on 5 November 2018 she found that the property was, ‘a complete mess with the following issues:
1. Dust all over every room, including personal possessions.
2. Bits of concrete scattered across the floor.
3. A dirty toilet which had been used by the contractors.
4. Concern of pest infestation.
In addition, the resident raised concern about damaged or missing possessions which included:
1. A missing Henry Hoover.
2. Bathroom bucket had been used and was full of sandy water with the mop broken.
3. Custom made breakfast mug was missing.
4. Cooking bowls and cutlery were missing.
5. Missing Allen keys.
6. Silver measuring tape missing.
7. 2 x large mirrors had been chipped.
8. 1 x gold mirror.
9. An exercise machine had been leant against a fabric sofa causing it to break.
10. A draft excluder and matt.
After speaking to the contractor’s site manager and the landlord’s complaint team, the resident made her complaint to the landlord about the missing or damaged items in a letter sent to the landlord on 15 November 2018.
On 15 November 2018 the landlord sent the resident an update relating to this complaint it:
1. Offered to replace the Henry Hoover and offered £125 for this.
2. Offered to replace the mop and bucket and offered £10 for this.
3. Signposted the resident to her own content’s insurance or the landlord’s insurance department.
On 20 December 2018 the resident emailed the landlord as the complaint remained unresolved for her. She said that she had forwarded receipts to the landlord about the damaged mirrors and the sofa however had received no response regarding these outstanding issues.
On 27 December 2018 the landlord updated the resident to say that the contractor would not accept liability for the missing or damaged items.
The resident responded to let the landlord know that the contractor’s manager had visited, located the Hoover in an operative’s van, witnessed the dirty bucket and broken mop and also the cutlery that had been used and ‘left dirty on the worktop.’ The resident told the landlord that she was ‘at a loss’ as for why the contractor felt it did not damage other items in the property. The resident voiced that the compensation offered had not considered the mess in the property and that this had all taken place over the Christmas period and asked the landlord to make some consideration of this factor.
On 27 December 2018, the landlord responded to the resident to advise:
1. The contractor would not accept liability.
2. The resident had the details of the landlord’s insurers if she wished to make a claim.
3. It would offer £200 for the Henry Hoover, mop, bucket, and toilet seat.
During January 2019 the landlord and resident exchanged emails negotiating on the total compensation offered for damaged items. The resident said:
1. The landlord had not ‘provided assistance’ regarding the items for which she had provided receipts.
2. There had been no clarification on how she could proceed in relation to a third party insurance claim regarding the contractor.
3. There had been no acknowledgement of, or compensation payment for, the contractor’s attitude towards her possessions.
4. Not all possessions had been compensated for with the following items being unresolved for the resident:
  1. A custom made breakfast mug £20.
  2. Cutlery priced at £19.99 along with a plastic bowl £5.
  3. 2 missing Allen keys from a set priced at £20.
  4. A screwdriver set priced at £34.99.
  5. A silver measuring tape priced at £22.69.
  6. 2 large mirrors for which receipts had been provided.
  7. 1 gold mirror for which a receipt had been provided.
  8. A damaged sofa at £424 for which a receipt had been provided.
5. She had also had to pay out for £50 worth of cleaning materials that she had not included in the calculation for compensation.
The landlord said in what can be considered to be its stage 1 response across a series of emails between 2 and 10 January 2019:
1. That the resident would need to claim on insurance for any items damaged for which it had not compensated her through the complaints process. An email address was provided to the resident so she could start her claim.
2. It would change its compensation offer to £225 to include additional costs for cleaning products and to take into account that the resident might also pay for a new draft excluder and matt.
3. There would be no more compensation through the complaints process.
On 14 January 2019 the resident contacted the landlord and said that the complaint was not fully resolved, this was due to the level of compensation awarded.
On 16 January 2019 the landlord emailed the resident and said that it would review the complaint.
On 20 January 2019 the Police confirmed to the resident that it was unlikely that they would be able to identify who was responsible for the theft and that they had closed their case.
On 1 February 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that it had carried out a review of her complaint. In this reply the landlord said:
1. Her report of theft would need to be investigated by the Police.
2. It did not compensate residents for damage to personal belongings. The resident was signposted to her own contents cover or to make a claim via the landlord’s insurance team.
3. It apologised that the contractor had used her belongings without the resident’s permission and said that service training had been provided to its contractors.
4. It confirmed its previously made offer of £225.
On 12 August 2020 the landlord’s records record further contact from the resident about her complaint. The resident again contacted the landlord to report the contractor for stealing a vacuum cleaner. The resident again said that she wanted the landlord to pay for a replacement and to provide financial redress.
Between August 2020 and November 2020 the resident and the landlord discussed the matter on several occasions. Some key points from these discussions were:
1. The resident’s view was this issue went back to 2018.
2. The landlord stated its position that the matter of theft would be for the Police.
The resident’s insurance claim was passed to the landlord’s insurance team who advised that no claim could be pursued for damage to personal items as the damage was caused by a contractor. On 2 September 2020 the landlord’s insurance team wrote to its contractor with a list of items it had allegedly removed or mishandled and invited it to take over the handling of the claim, suggesting that it referred the matter to its own insurer if appropriate. The resident was notified of this step in a letter from the landlord’s insurance team which also provided her with the contractor’s details.
In a further discussion with the landlord, the resident was promised a further update in relation to her complaint by 10 November 2020 although there is no record of the landlord sending any update.
On 7 April 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to query the lack of response and the ‘tremendous delay’ in the landlord providing a response to her complaint.
On 19 May 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to say that:
1. Her complaint was now a stage 3 complaint following her escalation request dated 13 August 2020.
2. The complaint had been left unresolved since 2018 due to constant delays by the landlord and with her receiving a promise of a full resolution in October 2020 which had not happened.
On 19 May 2021 the landlord acknowledged a complaint at stage 2 and said it would investigate the resident’s report of theft from her home by a contractor.
On 24 May 2021 the landlord sent its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint about the resident’s report of theft from her home by the contractor which said:
1. It was sorry that it had not been clear when the resident first notified it of an issue however it could not investigate theft.
2. The theft was a Police matter and needed to be pursued with the Police and directly with the contractor.
3. The resident’s request for a review of the 2018 case was declined due to the matter being more than 6 months old. The landlord provided a copy of its complaints policy.
4. It was sorry that the resident did not receive a response to her recent enquiries and complaint.
5. £140 compensation was awarded to recognise the resident’s time and trouble taken in contacting it.
On 25 October 2021 the resident contacted her local MP and said:
1. The landlord’s 24 May 2021 reply did not address all of the issues of the complaint. The response had in the resident’s view failed to:
  1. Address the thefts and damage to multiple items including kitchen items, furniture, and mirrors.
  2. It did not address why personal possessions had been boxed up and left on site and not put away in storage as promised during the decant period.
  3. The landlord had signposted her to the police and the contractor’s insurers but failed to follow up this up leaving the matter unresolved.
  4. The resident requested the complaint be referred to the Housing Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s decision not to further investigate the resident’s 2018 complaint.

In relation to the substantive matter of the behaviour of the contractors that featured in the resident’s letter of complaint dated 15 November 2018, the landlord gave what can be considered to be a final response on 1 February 2019 where it offered an apology, signposted the resident to its insurers and offered £225. It is reasonable for the landlord to have considered this matter closed after the completion of its complaints process at this point.
When the resident contacted the landlord in 2020, she was seeking further confirmation on its position regarding her complaint of 2018. The landlord acted reasonably by discussing the matter further with its insurance team who on 5 September 2020 wrote to its contractor and updated the resident on its position as was reasonable for it to do.
In its stage 2 response dated 24 May 2021, the landlord’s response adhered with its complaints policy, explaining that it would not investigate the events of 2018 due to them being more than 6 months old. Taking the timeframe from what the landlord considered its final response on 1 February 2019 to the resident bringing the matter back to its attention on 12 August 2020, 18 months had passed. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to decide not to further investigate the resident’s complaint, in line with its policy.
The landlord has appropriately relied on its complaints policy and decided that it will not review the resident’s complaint from 2018 further and therefore there is no maladministration in the landlord’s decision not to further investigate the resident’s 2018 complaint.

The associated complaint

In August 2020 the resident returned to the landlord about the conduct of its contractor in 2018. After conducting enquiries, including discussions with the insurance team, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and told her that a response would be with her by 10 November 2020, however this did not happen. This was missed opportunity for the landlord to fully address the resident’s repeated complaint in line with its policy by providing her with a stage 1 response within 10 working days.
The resident chased the landlord for a response on 2 occasions:
1. 7 April 2021
2. 19 May 2021
Whilst no formal stage 1 response had been sent to the resident by the landlord, it then acknowledged the complaint at stage 2 on 19 May 2021, 7 months after the resident’s August 2020 enquiry about her 2018 complaint. The landlord’s decision to escalate the matter to stage 2 immediately unreasonably denied the resident a chance for her complaint to be considered at 2 stages.
There was a clear failing in the landlord’s service in terms of it escalating and providing a complaint response, which the resident would have reasonably expected to receive on 10 November 2020. This prolonged the resident’s wait to receive an answer on the landlord position further, causing time and trouble to her.
The landlord considered the delays the resident had faced in receiving a response and awarded £140 in compensation in recognition of the resident’s time and trouble pursuing the matter. This amounts to reasonable redress when considering the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which suggests payments of this amount are within the range of awards suitable for circumstances such as this where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident, but had no permanent impact.
In addition to the consideration of whether this amount was reasonable, whilst the resident did not receive the promised complaint response in November 2020, she did receive a related letter from the landlord’s insurance team dated 2 September 2020 which repeated previously given advise for her to pursue a claim for damages against the contractor.
In conclusion, there were communication failings by the landlord which prolonged the resident’s experience waiting for an answer in relation to her complaint. The landlord acknowledged these delays in its May 2021 response for which it made an offer of reasonable redress.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s decision not to further investigate the resident’s complaint from 2018.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in relation its handling of the associated complaint which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

The landlord acted appropriately when referring to its policy and deciding it would not be able to further investigate the actions of its contractor from November 2018 as it was more than 6 months previous.
The landlord recognised a 7 month delay in it providing a response to the resident’s November 2020 complaint. It then awarded reasonable redress.

Recommendation

It is recommended that within 4 weeks the landlord ensures that all monies offered during this complaints process have been paid directly to the resident, including that offered in February 2019. The total amount being £365 made up of:
1. £225 offered in February 2019.
2. £140 offered at stage 2 in May 2021.