London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202200838)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200838

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

9 February 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Repairs to the resident’s door and window.
   2. The condition of the boiler when the resident started her tenancy.
   3. The resident’s concerns about asbestos at the property.
   4. The associated formal complaint.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. At the time of the events set out in this report, the tenancy had just begun.
3. The property where the resident now lives became vacant in late 2021. The landlord commissioned an asbestos survey in November 2021 after which some floor tiles and other materials were removed. It commissioned a gas safety check in February 2022. The boiler was certified as safe and fit for use.
4. The resident moved into the property on 13 March 2022. She reported that the boiler did not work. The landlord replaced it 2 weeks later. The resident also reported other problems with the property to the landlord, including a faulty front door, faulty windows and poor drainage from the shower and bath.
5. On 13 April 2022, as she was not satisfied with the landlord’s response to her reports, the resident complained about the lack of heating, repair issues with the front door, windows in the lounge, plumbing in the bathroom, and her concerns about asbestos at the property. In its response on 26 May 2022, the landlord apologised and paid the resident £62 because she was without hot water and heating for 2 weeks in March 2022. It said any asbestos at the property was safe.
6. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, focusing on repairs, and the boiler and asbestos issues. In its decision of 19 October 2022, the landlord said that an operative had recently visited the property and it agreed to fix the front door, a window and do other works. It offered the resident a further £230 in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused by the repairs and its delay in escalating the complaint to stage 2.
7. The resident complained to this Service. She said the repairs to the front door were finally completed in October 2022 but were done so the door now allowed drafts to enter the property. She said that asbestos in the hall had never been checked. She said she wanted the outstanding issues solved and compensation for the fact the required works had not been carried out when the property was empty.

Assessment and findings

8. A copy of the resident’s escalation complaint has not been provided for this investigation. The landlord acknowledged her request, however, and set out its understanding that her remaining concerns were about:
   1. Unresolved issues with a door and lock, and failed appointments to fix them.
   2. A window repair remained outstanding.
   3. Why the gas boiler was not inspected or serviced properly prior to moving into property.
   4. Why she was not informed of asbestos in the property before moving in.

Repairs to the resident’s door and window

9. The records show the resident raised the issue of the door lock in April 2022, soon after she moved in. The notes state she said she had been told a new lock would be installed before she moved in, but it had not been. It appears, therefore, that the door was secure, but a new lock had been promised. There is no apparent action on this issue until the resident escalated her complaint.
10. In its final complaint response, in October 2022, the landlord confirmed that it had visited the resident earlier in the month to inspect the remaining work for the door and window. It said that, following the inspection, it had arranged work to fit a new door lock, adjust the door, and replace a windowpane. It apologised for not completing the work earlier, and for the failed appointments.
11. The landlord’s repair records show the window problem was also reported in April 2022. It was appropriate that it acknowledged its delays with both the door lock and window and apologised. The main impact for both repair issues appears to have been the resident’s ongoing frustration at the delay. However, the landlord did not explain why the delays had occurred, or how it would improve its services in light of the resident’s experiences. These are both important remedies recommended in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), so that landlords can show they have learnt from a tenant’s complaint.
12. The landlord offered the resident £100 compensation for its repair delays. The resident first raised the issue of the faulty door and lock in March 2022. The landlord did not resolve the problem for 8 months. While this was a relatively minor issue and there appears to have been no effect on the ability of the resident to secure the property, that level of compensation cannot reasonably be said to be proportionate to the scale of the delay, when considered against the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. Accordingly, this aspect of the complaint remained unresolved.
13. There were also, as the landlord accepts, several missed appointments over the course of these 8 months. The landlord’s policy says that compensation should be paid for appointments missed at short notice. It made no payments and so, this too, remains unresolved.
14. This Service cannot assess whether the repairs to the door were completed to an acceptable standard. However, there is a recommendation below that the landlord should discuss this matter further with the resident.

The condition of the boiler when the resident started her tenancy.

15. In response to her complaint the landlord told the resident that her boiler had been checked and certified safe several weeks before she started her tenancy but subsequently failed. The copy of the front page of the gas safety certificate provided to this Service refers to a faulty appliance at the property. The resident says that this shows that the boiler was, in fact faulty when she moved in. However, this Service has seen the rest of the certificate which confirms that the boiler was certified as safe. This supports the landlord’s claim that the boiler had been certified and that it had complied with its duties as set out in its policy.
16. The above notwithstanding, the boiler subsequently failed and further inspection deemed it beyond repair. It may have been useful for the landlord to have clarified to the resident that the eventual failure of the boiler was not due to it previously being faulty, given the short time between the two events. Nonetheless, nothing in the evidence undermines its explanations as it is not unusual for electrical appliances to fail without prior notice.
17. The 2 weeks’ timescale within which the landlord replaced the boiler was reasonable in the circumstances as a new one was required. the £62 compensation for the lack of heating and hot water was in line with its compensation policy. It offered the resident a further £100 for the inconvenience she experienced. There is no indication that the landlord’s actions led to the boiler failure, or that it could have completed the repair sooner. Because of that its response to this complaint, and the compensation it offered were reasonable.

The resident’s concerns about asbestos at the property.

18. The landlord commissioned an asbestos survey for the property during the void period. The survey found some unsafe asbestos containing material (ACM) and this was removed. Any other ACM was found to pose no risk.
19. In May 2022, the resident asked the landlord whether it would be safe to replace a carpet because she was concerned about asbestos. She also wanted assurances that there was no asbestos risk at the property generally. The landlord dealt with this enquiry in both of its complaint responses. It asked its asbestos team and received assurances that any asbestos had been “capsulated” – treated and made safe – and therefore posed no risk and replacing carpet would be safe. It explained this to the resident, and provided a copy of the asbestos report prepared when the property was empty.
20. The resident says that the landlord should have given her this report when she moved in. There is no evidence that the landlord was obliged to provide the report at the start of the tenancy, or that it had any other specific reason to do so. When the resident asked about the matter it provided the information. Its initial handling of the asbestos during the void period, and the information it provided were appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances.
21. Part of the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman was that the landlord failed to survey her garden shed during its asbestos survey. No evidence has been provided to this Service showing that this concern was raised with the landlord. Because of that, the resident should discuss her concerns directly with the landlord, and the issue cannot be considered in this investigation.

Complaint handling

22. The landlord’s complaint handling policy says that if a complainant is dissatisfied after stage 1, they can escalate to stage 2 and the landlord will respond within 20 working days where possible, and otherwise within 30 working days.
23. The landlord treated a contact from this Service, made on 21 July 2022, as a request from the resident to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the complaint process. It did not reply until 19 October 2022 and this Service has seen no evidence of any updates being provided to the resident during that period. The landlord acknowledged the delay, apologised, and offered £30 compensation. As with the repairs, it did not explain why the delay had occurred, or how it intended to improve its service. Its response was therefore incomplete, and the compensation offered was not proportionate to the 3-month delay and lack of communication.

Determination

24. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Repairs to the resident’s door and window.
    2. The associated complaint.
25. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of:
    1. The condition of the boiler when the resident started her tenancy.
    2. The resident’s concerns about asbestos at the property.

Orders

26. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must pay the resident £300. This is comprised of:
    1. £200 for its delayed repairs to the door and window.
    2. £100 for its delayed complaint handling.
    3. These amounts are inclusive of the £130 already offered by the landlord during the complaints process. The landlord must provide evidence of payment to this Service.

Recommendations

27. It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to further discuss her concerns about asbestos in her shed set out above.
28. It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to further discuss her concerns about the condition of her front door.
29. In July 2023, the Ombudsman concluded its special report on this landlord which included recommendations about reviewing its complaint handling approach and repairs. The Ombudsman has therefore not made further recommendations around these aspects of service in this report but expects the landlord to take all relevant learning points from this case into account in its overall reviews of complaint handling and its repairs service.