London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202201317)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201317

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

1 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. Multiple repairs to the resident’s:
  1. Kitchen.
  2. Bathroom.
  3. Master bedroom.
  4. Guttering.
  5. Boiler.
2. The resident’s rehousing request.
3. The associated complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a 2-bedroom flat, where she lives with her 2 children. One is an adult and the other has a visual impairment. Her children are different genders. The resident has medical circumstances that mean she uses oxygen therapy at home.
The resident reported to the landlord that her kitchen worktops were rotten on 10 May 2021.
She has reported water leaks from a neighbouring property repeatedly since at least 2013. In 2021, there was a serious leak in her home, which affected the fuse board and caused water damage to the kitchen. She was decanted (moved temporarily) from the property while works were carried out. The fuse board was replaced during the decant. Other repairs, including the replacement of the kitchen worktops, were not done.
On 11 October 2021, the resident reported a repair for her bath panel. The landlord inspected on 29 November 2021, and agreed to fit a new bath panel, bath, shower screen, and repair the bathroom ceiling.
During a routine gas inspection on 15 January 2022, the landlord’s contractor identified a fault with the boiler flue, which was too close to an air vent. A gas safety warning notice was issued stating that the boiler was ‘At Risk’ and should not be used. The gas was not capped. The repair was booked for 15 August 2022, with the landlord noting it ‘sounded urgent’.
On 8 April 2022, the landlord replaced the resident’s kitchen worktops, but she was unhappy with the repair quality. She felt the kitchen units needed replacement.
While replacing the kitchen worktops the landlord was due to replace the tap but it did not do so. The resident was left without a water supply in the kitchen. As the landlord disconnected the waste water connections, she was unable to use the washing machine or sink. She reported this to the landlord, which delivered 10 litres of drinking water, but later told her the repair was not an emergency and asked her to call back in working hours.
On 14 April 2022 the resident made a complaint to the landlord. She said:
1. She was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of communication about the kitchen repair. She had been given little notice of appointments. They had repeatedly been cancelled or moved without notice. She did not have dates for her property inspection. She was unable to reach the landlord by phone.
2. The quality of workmanship was unacceptable. The contractors had broken the splashback tiles, there was missing sealant around the worktops and sink, and the worktops were unevenly joined. The contractor had advised its operative to install the worktops while acknowledging it would affect the finish of the repair.
3. The contractor couldn’t fit the tap, and she was still without running water in the kitchen. She felt the out-of-hours team were dismissive over the phone.
4. The landlord had told her the kitchen would be renewed, not repaired.
5. Her kitchen extractor fan did not work.
The landlord responded on 22 April 2022. It upheld the resident’s complaint. It said:
1. It would investigate the kitchen repair.
2. The resident requested it did not reinstate the old tap as she wanted to buy her own tap, which was unavailable at the time.
3. It wanted to check the resident was aware she would have to pay for the home improvements she had requested.
4. It only replaces kitchens if they are beyond repair. If the resident wanted to report repairs, it would log these.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response, reiterating her concerns and saying in addition:
1. The contractors did not attend to inspect on 21 April 2022 as agreed.
2. The worktop fitted was not her chosen colour.
3. She disputed the landlord’s position on the tap, saying she had been told the old tap was not repairable. Neither the tap nor the waste water connections had been installed to date.
4. She was not told the home improvements would be at her own cost.
5. The contractors had left spare worktops in her flat and in the car park.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 29 April 2022. It reiterated its position on her taps and told her an inspection of her kitchen would take place on 5 May 2021.
On 10 July 2022 the resident called to request her family were decanted due to simultaneous works due in the bathroom and the kitchen.
On 12 July 2022 the landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. It said:
1. It acknowledged that communication failures had caused her distress and inconvenience.
2. It acknowledged delays and the poor quality of the repairs. It said it would renew the kitchen and install additional plug sockets.
3. There was a misunderstanding about the taps, but she should not have been left without running water and it should have been more sympathetic. It had spoken to the member of staff in question.
4. The bathroom works would be prioritised.
5. It had arranged a damp inspection and would dryline her bedroom wall.
6. It gave her appointment details for her boiler and extractor fan repairs.
7. Its rehousing team would call her to discuss rehousing. It gave her advice on applying for rehousing on medical grounds.
8. It offered compensation, awarding £20 for its delayed response, £150 for time and effort, £250 for right to repair, £560 for inconvenience and £560 for distress. This totalled £1560.
On 22 July 2022, the resident asked the landlord to reschedule her boiler and plastering repairs.
The landlord emailed the resident on 2 August 2022, saying:
1. It apologised for misinforming her about her medical transfer request. It had passed her feedback to the relevant team and asked them to update her.
2. It gave her a series of repairs appointments for her extractor fan, plastering, boiler repair, kitchen, and two inspections.
3. It revised its offer of compensation. It offered £4876.22, comprising:
  1. £20 for its delayed complaint response.
  2. £150 for time and effort.
  3. £560 for distress.
  4. £4466.00 for room loss, calculated for 13 months at 50% of her rent.
On 4 August 2022, the resident reported she was unhappy with the quality of her bathroom repairs. The landlord arranged for a plumber to attend the following day.
The landlord attended the property without the correct extractor fan on 8 August 2022. On the same day, the resident requested a decant as she felt her home was unliveable whilst there were simultaneous kitchen and bathroom repairs.
The landlord booked the resident a hotel on 10 August 2022, and agreed to pay her food costs. The resident responded that she could not go, as it had taken too long to arrange. She was unhappy with how the landlord had spoken to her on the phone. The landlord’s records are unclear on which date the resident was decanted. She returned home on 19 August 2022 after the kitchen had been replaced.
The resident was unhappy with the works, and the landlord emailed her on 2 September 2022. It told her:
1. How to claim on its liability insurance for the damage to her flooring.
2. It would replaster her kitchen the following week and repaint it as a gesture of good will.
3. It apologised for installing the wrong colour worktop. It had passed her feedback to its contractors.
4. It arranged to repair leaking pipework and taps in her bathroom and would assess the bathroom flooring. It believed the bath was stable.
5. It revised its offer of compensation, bringing the total to £5523.20. In addition to it’s previous offer, it offered:
  1. £147.20 additional room loss payment
  2. £60 for distress
  3. £20 for time and effort
  4. £100 reimbursement of food costs
On 20 December 2022 the landlord requested a further bathroom survey as the resident reported that the bath visibly moved when full.
On 19 January 2023 the resident reported that although she had been told to prepare her bedroom for works, the landlord had carried out an inspection. She told the landlord that the mould in her bedroom was affecting her health.
The landlord’s surveyor inspected the bathroom on 20 January 2023 at short notice. In a later email, the resident said she had believed all the outstanding repairs would be inspected at the appointment. She said that during the appointment, the surveyor shouted at her with raised hands and called her a liar. She felt intimidated by this and asked them to shop shouting. When they refused, she asked them to leave.
The landlord emailed the resident on 23 January 2023 apologising for its surveyor’s behaviour. It said it would share feedback with their manager. It would not renew the bathroom but had arranged further repairs. It gave her information about the schedule of works for her bedroom repairs and said it would follow up her rehousing application.
On 10 February 2023 the bedroom repairs began. The resident was told that they would not be completed until 29 March 2023. She called the landlord several times to request her family be decanted. She said she had been told her bedroom was uninhabitable due to the disconnected sink, dust and wires. The carpet was damaged, and the bed would not fit. The landlord’s operative denied saying this, but confirmed the wires were not live.
On 21 February 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. She said;
1. She was overcrowded. It had not responded to her rehousing requests. She wanted an update and a point of contact going forward.
2. The landlord did not decant her when it was aware that her boiler had a ‘do not use’ warning in January 2022. The repair had been delayed repeatedly and she did not have an appointment. She believed the boiler was releasing carbon monoxide into her home and felt unwell when it was used. She felt that she was choosing between heating, and carbon monoxide poisoning.
3. The bedroom plastering was rescheduled twice. The repairs were unsatisfactory and incomplete. The landlord was aware of her family’s additional needs but had not responded to her decant request. She was unable to sleep in her bedroom, and her property was a ‘construction site’.
4. On 10 August 2022 when there was no water in the kitchen, the landlord advised her to use water in the bathroom to wash cook, and drink. This was offensive.
5. She was unhappy with the behaviour of the landlord’s surveyor during the inspection on 20 January 2023, and had not received an apology for this.
6. She was told the bathroom would be replaced, not repaired, and the works had far exceeded their estimated completion date. She asked the landlord to keep her updated when plans changed in future.
7. She was unhappy with the bathroom repairs, listing multiple concerns.
The landlord responded the next day. It said it did not intend to replace the bathroom but had booked repairs. It gave her updated dates for the works to her bedroom and boiler. It had checked her housing application and apologised that she had not been contacted since October 2022.
On 29 March 2023, the landlord recorded the outcome of its inspection and gave the resident a schedule of works for the bedroom. It would investigate the resident’s concerns about the bath and sink and replace the vinyl. It would also replace the fire strips in the front entrance door, and power-wash the downpipe. It had reported the possible carbon monoxide leak as an emergency. It noted she asked for compensation for the damage to the carpet and curtains, and that she was sleeping in the open plan kitchen/living room with 2 large mattresses and storing her oxygen cylinders there.
The following day the landlord’s contractor recorded that the boiler repair was not an emergency. It had offered a next day appointment, but the resident refused this.
On 18 April 2023, the resident notified the landlord that a gas warning notice had been issued, and the gas capped. Medical symptoms were recorded on the notice, and the boiler, cooker and pipework were found to be immediately dangerous. The landlord decanted her and said its contractor would attend and it had asked its rehousing team to review her case for rehousing. When the contractor attended, it issued a further notice saying the boiler should not be used as a plume kit was required.
The resident’s application to move through the landlord’s internal transfer list was refused on 19 April 2023. On the same day, an internal email from a surveyor who inspected the property on 30 March 2023 outlined the repairs needed, and said that in their opinion, the landlord should decant the resident.
The landlord’s contractors attended again on 20 April 2023. No repairs were done to the boiler, but a carbon monoxide alarm was fitted. The contractor said the boiler was safe and uncapped it. The resident returned home but did not trust the landlord’s findings. She called her gas supplier who capped the boiler, saying a full carbon monoxide inspection of the property should be arranged.
On 22 April 2023 the landlord told the resident it did not decant residents because there was no gas supply in their property. It offered her food vouchers. When she queried why she was not offered these sooner, the landlord agreed to reimburse the cost of meals if she provided it with receipts. It ordered her a takeaway for that night.
The resident instructed her own gas contractor to inspect the boiler. A further certificate was completed, recommending a full carbon monoxide investigation and an additional alarm in the kitchen. It advised the resident to remove her beds from the kitchen, and noted there was no stability device on the cooker, which was too low against the height of the worktops.
On 27 April 2023 the resident emailed the landlord. She said she still had no heating, hot water, or cooking facilities. She was unhappy that the landlord had not fitted the plume kit. The landlord responded the following day. It:
1. Apologised for the delay in communications and repairs, summarised the agreed works and its response to her complaint so far. It explained that her stage 2 complaint case was ‘active’ until a suitable resolution was reached.
2. It said she had been asked home to return as it found that her gas was safe. It understood that the her gas had been reinstated and it was sorry to hear this was not correct.
3. Her home was safe. The gas could be uncapped if she agreed to this. It would treat the plume kit as an urgent repair but there may be some delay.
4. It apologised that its rehousing team had not called. It would ask them to call her.
The resident was unhappy with this response. She felt it would be unsafe to uncap the boiler before it was repaired, and the landlord had misled the environmental health team. She felt that the landlord blamed her for not providing access for an appointment. She had waited at home on 24 April 2023 but the contractor called at 5pm to cancel the appointment. She was unhappy that there had been further delays to her repairs. The contents of her bedroom were stored in the kitchen. She said the health of her family had been impacted.
On 11 May 2023, the contractor went to the property to fit the plume kit but came without scaffolding. They emailed the landlord, writing that they had told the resident it was safe her to have the gas reinstated without the plume kit.
The plume kit was fitted on 18 May 2023, and the boiler was reconnected. A carbon monoxide investigation was completed on 24 May 2023. The investigation report noted the cooker was not level with the worktops, had no stability device, and the resident should be advised to move her beds. Other repairs were identified, including repairs to the guttering and the replacement of the intumescent strips in the resident’s fire doors.
On 26 May 2023 the landlord sent a final complaint response to the resident, saying:
1. It acknowledged the severe repair delays. They were due to a shortage of staff and materials.
2. It gave job references for several outstanding repairs including her guttering, which it said was to help with he damp, the redecoration of the bedroom and the replacement of the fire door strips.
3. It apologised that the resident was left without gas due to lack of access and miscommunication. Following the carbon monoxide investigation, no further work was needed. It would install an additional carbon monoxide alarm.
4. It was unsafe for her to sleep in the same room as the cooker.
5. If there was a fault with her cooker, this was her responsibility.
6. Although there were outstanding works to the bedroom, it was habitable.
7. The decision on her medical application was made by an independent assessor and the landlord could not overturn this. It advised the resident to look at her local council’s housing register or mutual exchange.
8. It told her how to make an insurance claim.
9. It offered an additional £1460 in compensation, comprising:
  1. £190 for poor communication.
  2. £120 for loss of utilities.
  3. £200 delay to repairs.
  4. £760 distress and inconvenience.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and sought support from the Ombudsman. She wanted more compensation and to be rehoused due to overcrowding. She also wanted the kitchen to be adjusted as the cooker was too low as a result of the renovation and was a fire hazard.
On 19 July 2023 the landlord apologised for not renewing the strips on the front entry door. It would reattend. It was pleased the guttering had been repaired. The resident replied telling the landlord the guttering had not been repaired, as its contractor arrived without scaffolding, and was therefore only able to clear the lower-level guttering.
The work to the bedroom was completed but the resident reported she was unhappy with landlord’s workmanship. She was also unhappy with the duration of the works and the hours the contractors attended. She said there were outstanding repairs in her bathroom and she was unhappy with the work quality.
The landlord carried out an inspection. It recorded that although the resident was unhappy with the bathroom tiling, in its view it was acceptable. It noted that the resident should be told not to sleep in the kitchen as this was unsafe. It recorded that the although the resident felt the worktops installation meant that her cooker was too low, it felt the worktops were installed correctly. It agreed to do the following repairs:
1. Repaint the bedroom and storage cupboard.
2. Recarpet the bedroom.
3. Reconnect the taps.
4. Repair the light over the bathroom sink.
5. Put sealant between the floor and skirting.
The landlord emailed the resident on 19 September 2023. In addition to the works noted in its report, it also told her it would rectify the height of the cooker.
On 28 September 2023, the resident emailed the landlord as she had been affected by a further leak from the same property, which had caused more damage to the bathroom flooring.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

There was a serious leak into the property in 2021, and the resident was decanted for several weeks. This decant was the subject of a separate complaint made to the landlord which did not form part of the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman. Therefore, although it adds context to the current complaint, it is outside the scope of this investigation,
During the period of the complaint, the resident says the condition of her home impacted on her health. It is outside our remit to establish if there was a direct link between the action or inaction of the landlord and the health conditions of the resident and her family. We will consider any distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced as a result of errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about hers and her family’s health.

Kitchen repairs

In its repairs policy, the landlord says it completes day-to-day repairs in an average of 25 working days. Under its policy it is responsible for maintaining the sink, including taps, the tiling, cupboards, worktops, and extractor fan.
Shortly after the resident reported her worktops were rotten on 10 May 2021, she was decanted for 6-8 weeks. The evidence the landlord has provided does not explain why the works were not completed during the decant, so the Ombudsman finds that this was unreasonable. Completing the repair when the resident was decanted would have minimised inconvenience for her.
The landlord’s records show it inspected the kitchen on 10 February 2022. This was several months after the resident returned to the property. The landlord’s records do not explain the delay. The Ombudsman considers the delay unreasonable, as it far exceeds the landlord’s average timescale to complete repairs. After the inspection, the worktops were replaced on 8 April 2022. This timescale was reasonable as the landlord will have needed to order materials which may reasonably have taken several weeks to be manufactured.
When the worktops were replaced, the resident was left without a working tap in her kitchen. The landlord and resident have conflicting views on why this happened. With the evidence provided, the Ombudsman is unable to determine which account is correct. It was reasonable for the landlord to accept that regardless of any miscommunication, the resident should not have been left without running water in her kitchen. It also acknowledged it had been unsympathetic when the resident called the out-of-hours service and gave feedback to the relevant staff member. This was fair and demonstrated its desire to put things right. The landlord’s errors have been considered when assessing its offer of compensation.
Landlords should aim to provide high-quality, first-time fix repairs, but in this case the quality of the work was poor. When the resident raised concerns, the landlord and its contractor gave her conflicting information about how to report them, and she was not told that improvements requested using the home improvement form would be at her own cost. This was not reasonable as the resident was unable to make an informed decision about submitting the form and wasted time it as a result. The landlord should make sure it gives clear, consistent advice, and takes concerns forward when they are first reported.
The landlord installed worktops in a different colour to the one the resident selected. This was inappropriate and made the resident feel that she was not being listened to. After inspecting the worktops, the landlord agreed to replace the kitchen. The repair was ‘closed’ on 23 October 2022. This was 17 months after the repair was first reported, and far outside of the landlord’s average of 25 days for day-to-day repairs, so this was inappropriate. These delays, and the poor quality of the repairs caused the resident distress and inconvenience over an extended period.
A gas safety warning notice identified that the resident’s cooker was below the height of the worktops, and there was no stability connection. As the gas inspection took place after the kitchen works, it is likely that the works caused the hazard. The resident told the Ombudsman she has taken reasonable steps to rectify the issue by raising her cooker to its highest extent. The landlord initially told the resident the kitchen had been correctly installed and the cooker was her responsibility, but on 18 September 2023 it committed to resolving the issue. However, the issue remains unresolved 3 months later. As this repair has been identified as a hazard, this timescale is not reasonable. The landlord should ensure that the cooker and the counter tops align and reinstate the stability connection.
The resident reported that her kitchen extractor fan was broken on 29 March 2022. The repair was booked for 8 August 2022, due to a shortage of parts. Although the repair took too long, as it was the result of a parts shortage this was outside the landlord’s control. However, on 8 August 2022 the landlord’s records indicate it attended without the fan. This was not reasonable and caused the resident avoidable disruption.
The landlord’s records incorrectly show the repair as completed in May 2022, so it is unclear when the fan was replaced. This is a knowledge and information management failing. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management finds that landlords cannot ensure evidence-based practice or provide a high-quality service where there are record keeping failures.
The landlord recognised its failures in the handling of the kitchen repairs and offered the resident compensation, which is discussed later in the report.

Bathroom repairs

The resident reported a repair for her bath panel on 11 October 2021, and the landlord inspected on 29 November 2021. This 6-week timescale is reasonable, as an inspection is more specialised than a day-to-day repair. However, it is not reasonable that the landlord did not complete the repairs until 4 August 2022, 10 months after the inspection. The landlord did not keep the resident updated, and when she chased it for an update on 28 January 2022, it had not contacted her for 2 and a half months. The delays and poor communication will have caused the resident inconvenience and uncertainty.
The landlord carried out 3 inspections, on 14 September 2022, 20 January 2023 and 29 March 2023, as the resident was unhappy with the quality of the bathroom works. The landlord agreed further works after each inspection. Although it is good practice for the landlord to inspect following works where concerns have been raised, the number of inspections and ‘recalls’ indicates that the landlord repeatedly failed to carry out high quality repairs. The landlord should have identified all the workmanship issues on the first inspection rather than needing further inspections. This led the resident to feel that she received a worse service because she is a social housing tenant.
On 20 January 2023 the landlord came to the resident’s property, giving 10 minutes notice of its attendance. The resident told the landlord that when the surveyor arrived, they shouted at her. She felt intimidated and asked them to leave. The landlord appropriately acknowledged that this behaviour was unacceptable, gave feedback to the member of staff’s manager and said that they had been given customer service training. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord acted appropriately to resolve the issue.
The landlord’s records show that the bathroom works were completed on 10 October 2023, 2 years after they were agreed. This timescale was unreasonable and delays could have been avoided if the landlord had completed thorough and adequate repairs. The landlord has acknowledged this in its complaint responses and offered compensation. This is discussed later in the report.
The resident remains unhappy with the tiling repair to her bathroom, as the tiles are a different shade of white and do not align. The resident has raised this with the landlord several times. The landlord’s records show that it feels the condition of the tiles is acceptable, but do not show if it has communicated a decision to the resident. The landlord would not be expected to replace the tiles for cosmetic reasons but it would be expected to replace them if the misalignment is causing the tiles to not function properly. The landlord should tell the resident if it will replace them or not, so this is clear.

The bedroom

The resident had reported damp and mould in her bedroom. In July 2022, the LL arranged to dryline the room on 28 December 2022. The landlord’s records do not show why the job was booked for 5 months later, but its repairs policy says that it will book appointments for the first available date. The landlord should have offered an earlier appointment, particularly as the resident had damp and mould in her bedroom and the landlord was aware she has medical conditions that affect her breathing. Whilst the Ombudsman cannot assess the specific impact of the damp and mould on the resident’s health conditions, it is widely recognised that damp and mould can pose a significant general risk to health.
The resident asked that the appointment be moved from 28 December 2022 to the new year. This delay was therefore outside the landlord’s control. The resident told the landlord that although she was asked to prepare her bedroom for the works to begin on 19 January 2023, the landlord only inspected the property on this date. The landlord should have been clear in setting out what would take place at the visit, in order to manage the resident’s expectations. After inspecting, the landlord offered the resident an appointment in March 2023. Given the impact of this repair, it was appropriate for it to bring this forward to February 2023, at the resident’s request.
The landlord initially told the resident the works would take 5 days. After beginning the works on 2 February 2023, the landlord then told the resident it would not complete the works for 31 working days. Whilst repairs can sometimes take longer than expected, the landlord should have had a clearer idea of the duration of the works from the outset and it should have been able to give a more accurate estimate. During this period the resident and her 2 children were all sleeping, living and eating in the open plan kitchen living room, where she was also storing her belongings. She said that the house was ‘a construction site’ and felt her bedroom was unhabitable.
The works carried out were poor quality. The landlord acknowledged this, along with other failings, and agreed further works, including replacing the resident’s carpet. It also offered the resident compensation, which is discussed later in the report.
However, the resident has told the Ombudsman that the works, which were agreed in September 2022, are still outstanding. This delay in inappropriate and may have led the resident to feel that it had not learned from its earlier failures. The landlord should arrange to complete these repairs as soon as possible, in line with its published timescales for repairs.

The guttering

The resident says the guttering has needed repair for ‘years’. The guttering in question is directly outside the resident’s bedroom. As a result, water is running down the side of the building. She believes it is responsible for damp and mould in her bedroom. The landlord’s repairs records show guttering repairs of a similar description logged by the resident on 14 December 2020 and 11 October 2021. Although the repairs logged in 2020 and 2021 show as complete on the landlord’s records, as the resident reports the guttering repair has been needed ‘for years’ it seems the earlier repairs did not resolve the problem.
The landlord logged a further repair to the guttering on 23 May 2023 following an inspection of the property. On 19 July 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident confirming it had been completed. However, she responded explaining that although the lower-level guttering had been cleared, hers had not as the workmen did not have scaffolding. There were 2 failings here; firstly, the landlord was aware of the building composition so should have arranged scaffolding from the outset. This caused an avoidable delay. Secondly the landlord’s records were incorrect. This led to the landlord giving incorrect information to the resident, which may have damaged the landlord-tenant relationship further.
When the Ombudsman spoke to the resident on 1 December 2023, the landlord had installed the scaffolding the previous month, but the guttering repair had not been completed. This is not appropriate, as the landlord has not given an explanation as to why this repair is outstanding, or kept the resident updated on its progress. This does not align with its repairs policy aim of carrying out timely repairs and may have contributed to the damp and mould in the resident’s bedroom.

The boiler

Under schedule 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord must keep the boiler, fittings, installations, pipes and flues in proper working order and must carry out an annual gas safety inspection.
The resident’s boiler was installed with its flue too close to an air vent. The landlord’s records indicate it was installed in 2016. Although the landlord must do an annual gas safety check, the problem was not identified until 14 January 2022. When the problem was identified, the contractor issued a safety warning notice, which said the boiler was ‘at risk’, ‘could present a hazard at any time’, and should not be used. The landlord should consider why this was not identified at earlier gas safety checks in order to learn from this and prevent similar issues from happening again.
As the boiler could pose a hazard, the landlord should have treated it as an emergency repair and attended within 24 hours. The landlord did not inspect until 20 working days later on 10 February 2022. This was not acceptable and could have had safety implications for the family.
The landlord found that a ‘plume kit’ would make the installation safe, but scaffolding would be needed. Although at this point the boiler was still connected, the resident had been told not to use it. Therefore, the landlord should have ensured that she and her family had adequate facilities when it became aware that it could not immediately fix the issue. It could have considered providing her with alternative space heating and hot water provision or decanted her. It did not do so, and this was unreasonable.
The landlords process for arranging scaffolding appears inadequate. This caused repeated significant delays to the repair:
1. The landlord’s first available date for the repair was 15 August 2022, 6 months after the inspection.
2. When the resident contacted the landlord in July 2022 to reschedule the appointment, the next available date was 12 December 2022 5 months later. On both occasions, the landlord failed to arrange scaffolding within a reasonable timeframe.
3. On 12 December 2022, the scaffolding did not arrive, and upon checking the landlord realised the request was not on its scaffolding spreadsheet.
4. The landlord’s records suggest it was unclear if its contractors had their own scaffolding.
5. The landlord told the resident it would install the scaffolding on 14 February 2023. However, it did not attend until 15 February 2023, when it arrived without scaffolding.
6. The landlord attended to install the plume kit without scaffolding again on 11 May 2023.
The repair was not completed until 18 May 2023, 16 months after the issue was identified. This was unacceptable and had a significant impact on the resident and her family. The resident had been told that her boiler was dangerous, and felt that when she used it, she was choosing between the risk of carbon monoxide poisoning and being unable to heat her home or use hot water. It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to establish whether the boiler was causing a carbon monoxide leak as there is not clear evidence one way or the other to confirm this. However, it is understandable that the resident was concerned as there is evidence that she had been told the boiler was unsafe.
On 21 February 2023, the resident told the landlord she felt unwell when the boiler was in use. The landlord responded 2 days later but did not acknowledge that she had indicated concerns about carbon monoxide poisoning, although it updated her on the repair.
She again told the landlord she was concerned about symptoms of carbon monoxide poisoning during an inspection on 29 March 2023. It logged an urgent repair with its gas contractors. They did not consider the job an emergency and told the resident they could not attend until the next day. The landlord should have taken urgent steps to ensure the resident was safe each time she reported these symptoms. It was inappropriate that it did not do this.
It was appropriate that the landlord decanted the resident on 19 April 2023 when the gas supplier issued a further gas safety warning notice and capped the gas. The landlord attended the following day, which was in line with its 24-hour timescale for urgent repairs.
On 20 April 2023, the landlord installed an additional carbon monoxide detector in the property. It felt the property was safe, so it reinstated the gas and asked the resident to return. It did not install the plume kit as had been recommended at the previous inspections. As the resident had been told that her boiler was dangerous, and the recommended work had not been completed, it was important that the landlord was clear with the resident why it now felt it was safe to reinstate the gas. The landlord’s records do not document this conversation, so the Ombudsman is unable to confirm it was handled appropriately. This is a record keeping failing.
The resident did not trust that the boiler was safe and called the gas supplier the same day. They capped the boiler again, and the resident informed the landlord of this. The landlord’s position was that it had told her the boiler was safe, and it would install the plume kit, but this was ‘not required’, so she was choosing not to have a gas supply. The Ombudsman cannot determine if it was safe to reconnect the boiler but can assess whether the landlord was fair and reasonable in its treatment of the resident.
The resident had lost confidence in the landlord, to the extent that she hired her own gas contractors to inspect, as she did not trust the landlord’s contractors. Given it had acknowledged multiple failures through the complaints process for her other repairs, the landlord should have taken steps to reassure the resident. The first time the landlord’s records indicate it told her the reasons it felt it was safe to reconnect the boiler was in May 2023, several weeks after she returned to the property. This was a missed opportunity to reassure the resident and take steps to repair the landlord tenant relationship.
The resident did not have heating or hot water in her home until 18 May 2023, 27 days after the boiler was capped. The resident has said that she and her family ‘really struggled’ during this time. Temperatures were as low as 1 degree celsius overnight, and she was unable to buy temporary heaters. However, she did not want the gas to be reconnected until the plume kit had been fitted, as she felt it was a life-threatening risk for her family.
This was a second missed opportunity for the landlord to consider service adjustments, given the vulnerability of the household. The landlord should also have considered the safeguarding implications for the resident’s daughter, even if it viewed the resident’s decision not to reinstate the gas as unreasonable.
The landlord’s records indicate a lack of clarity and cohesion between teams. For example, after the resident was decanted for 2 nights, internal emails argued this was a mistake, as the landlord ‘did not decant for gas’. It is inappropriate for the landlord to make decisions on decant using a blanket policy without considering the individual circumstances of the case. The emails suggested that the family should have used electric water heating, without considering if they had electric water heating available, and did not address the lack of space heating in the home.
The landlord also emailed the environmental health team saying the resident’s gas had been reconnected, although it had been capped again 5 days previously, and correspondence referred to a gas leak, when the repair was needed to repair an unsafe installation, rather than a leak. It is important for the landlord to be clear and accurate in its responses, so the resident can have confidence in its actions. The landlord also needs to provide accurate information to other agencies. Failure to do so could have impacted environmental health’s ability to assist the resident.
In its complaint response, the landlord did accept some failings, apologising that ‘due to miscommunication and lack of access’, the resident was left without gas. Although the resident had missed calls, given that the landlord had missed and rearranged multiple appointments since the fault was identified, and the resident had been in regular contact throughout April 2023, it was not reasonable for the landlord suggest the resident was responsible for a lack of access to the property. The landlord could have considered contacting her by email but has provided no evidence it did so.
The landlord also acknowledged that its delays to repairs were inappropriate and caused distress. It offered compensation as discussed further below.

The resident’s living situation during the repairs

The resident told the landlord that she was storing oxygen in the same room as the cooker, and this was unsafe. NHS guidance on home oxygen therapy says it should be stored at least 3 meters away from any appliances that use an open flame, including a gas cooker, and 1.5 meters away from electrical appliances, including radiators. It would therefore have been appropriate for the landlord to assess this and take action to support the resident to find a suitable place to store her medical equipment. It did not do so, and the resident continues to store her oxygen in a potentially unsafe location.
Although the landlord was aware that the resident used home oxygen, that her child is visually impaired, and she was worried the works could impact their health, there is no evidence the landlord considered this when scheduling works at the property. This was inappropriate as the landlord’s rehousing policy says it will consider a decant when “we must complete works on the home which would make it unsafe for our resident to remain whilst they are being carried out”. Whilst it may not have been unsafe to remain in the property more generally, the landlord should have considered the resident’s individual circumstances when deciding if it was safe for her and her family to be in the property during the repairs. Had it done so, it may have concluded it was appropriate to decant the resident, or stagger repairs to minimise their impact.
Some of the bathroom and kitchen repairs were done at the same time, and the landlord showed a lack of foresight in considering the physical environment the resident and her family would be living in. There is no evidence that it considered:
1. The impact living in a confined space with ongoing works would have on her visually impaired child, although the resident said she was worried there would be trip hazards.
2. If the resident would be able to move her bed and other large furniture, given her medical conditions.
3. If living in an environment with building dust could affect the resident’s health, as an oxygen user, although she communicated worries that dust may make her unwell.
When it knew that the works were delayed, the landlord should have proactively considered the impact on the family, rather than relying on the resident to raise concerns. The resident called 5 members of staff before calling the contact centre to request a decant. This caused her stress and worry, which could have been avoided.
After the resident called, the landlord was unable to access pictures it had taken of the property or make an immediate decision about decanting her. Although it sent an ‘urgent’ internal email, there is no indication that the landlord responded to her decant request. This caused the resident distress and may have led her to worry about the possible impact on her family’s health.
During a property inspection on 29 March 2023 the surveyor identified other repairs needed in the property, including boiler and guttering repairs, which are addressed elsewhere in this report. They also identified that the intumescent strips in the front entrance door should be replaced. Although the landlord did ultimately replace the door strips, it first attended on 12 July 2023 and 24 July 2023 to replace them but left without completing the work. This was not reasonable as providing access for 2 additional appointments caused disruption to the resident.
During the inspection, the surveyor wrote that the family should be decanted. The landlord received this information on 19 April 2023, when the resident was coincidentally decanted due to a boiler repair. The surveyor was not aware of this, and their opinion was based only on the repairs.
It is clear that the landlord felt a decant should be considered, noting the ‘high vulnerability of the household’, that the resident’s child is ‘blind’ and they were finding it difficult to manoeuvre around the property. However, the landlord appeared to confuse the surveyor’s request for a decant with the concurrent gas decant. It is also clear that not all staff were aware of the landlord’s decant process, as an email requesting decant was sent to the wrong team. None of the documents provided by the landlord show that the surveyor’s decant request was assessed. This was inappropriate and had a significant impact on the resident. She felt a decant would have minimised the impact of the repairs on her family’s health and wellbeing.

Compensation

In its complaint responses the landlord has appropriately acknowledged its failings and the impact this had on the resident. It offered her a total of £6983.20 in compensation. This included awards for its late complaint response, room loss, time and effort, distress, inconvenience, poor communication, loss of utilities, delay to repair and reimbursement of food costs. This award aligns with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (available on our website)which says that awards of over £1000 should be considered where there have been serious failings by the landlord which have had a significant detrimental impact on the resident, and where these failures have accumulated over a prolonged period of time.
However, in its initial compensation offer, the landlord offered £250 for right to repair and £560 for inconvenience. When it revised its offer of compensation, it incorporated these amounts into an award of £4876.22 for room loss. In the Ombudsman’s view, the awards for right to repair and inconvenience do not equate to room loss and should be paid in addition. The landlord is therefore ordered to pay the resident a further £810. This brings the total the landlord should pay the resident to £7793.20.
In this case, although the landlord demonstrated a desire to resolve the issues by offering an appropriate level of compensation, it has not made the necessary changes in its service to put things right for the resident or demonstrated that it has learned from outcomes. After the complaint had exhausted the complaints process, there were further delayed repairs, and poor-quality workmanship. Several of these repairs are still outstanding. This has exacerbated the impact on the resident and has seriously undermined the landlord/resident relationship. As a result, the Ombudsman finds that there has been severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repairs. The landlord will be ordered to complete the outstanding repairs to fully resolve the complaint.

The resident’s request for rehousing

The landlord has an allocations and lettings policy which explains the circumstances in which residents are eligible for rehousing using its internal transfer list. Residents may be eligible for rehousing if they are “severely overcrowded” and anyone in their household has a medical condition which is impacted by the overcrowding, or they have “a significant medical need or disability which means they are unable to remain in their home”. It will also consider ‘exceptional cases, as approved by senior management’. The landlord uses an independent medical assessor to assess if residents meet its medical criteria.
Residents are also able to explore other options for rehousing, including applying to their local authority for rehousing, and mutual exchange.
The Ombudsman has considered whether the landlord followed its allocations policy in deciding if the resident was eligible for rehousing and concluded that it did. It was appropriate for it to send the resident’s medical information for assessment through an independent assessor, and the assessor found that she did not meet its criteria. It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to evaluate the medical assessment as we are not medically qualified.
It was appropriate for the landlord to tell the resident that she could reapply with additional evidence, and signpost her to apply for rehousing through her local authority, and to consider mutual exchange.
However, the time it took to respond to her request, and its communication during this time, was inappropriate. The landlord’s records indicate that the resident applied for rehousing on medical grounds in October 2022. Despite repeatedly saying that it would contact the resident, it acknowledged that it had not done so until her application was refused in April 2023, 6 months after she made the request. The delays in its response and the timing of her application being refused led the resident to believe that the refusal was a direct result of her complaint. The Ombudsman can understand the resident’s concerns regarding the timing of the refusal, but we have seen no evidence that this was the case. As an independent and impartial service, we base our decisions on the available documentary evidence.
The resident has applied for rehousing with her local authority, but she is not eligible, as it only awards rehousing priority to overcrowded residents if they are overcrowded by 2 rooms or more. The landlord does not have any influence on the local authority’s allocations policy, but it should consider it in communication with the resident. For example, the landlord repeatedly advised her to move her bed from the open plan kitchen. In order to avoid one of the household sleeping in the only reception room, 2 members of the household would have to share a room. Given the age gap and gender difference between the children, and the medical needs of the family, this may not be appropriate. This makes the landlord’s advice inappropriate.
The communication failures and delays did not affect the outcome of the resident’s request for rehousing, but they do amount to service failure. The landlord’s offer of compensation is reasonable taking into account this service failure as well as its other errors. However, the Ombudsman recommends that the landlord make in person contact with the resident in a way that meets her needs to discuss her housing circumstances and make sure that all options are explored.

Complaint handling

The landlord has a 2 stage complaints policy and says it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It will aim to respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days, and stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord will update the resident if it is unable to meet its deadline, and any extension will be no longer than an additional 10 working days. This aligns with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), published on our website, which sets out our expectations for landlords’ complaints handling.
The landlord met its policy timescales for its stage one complaint process and provided a ‘final’ response 11 working days after the Ombudsman had requested this. These timescales were appropriate. It did not meet its timescale for its stage 2 response, which it sent 60 working days after receiving the escalation request. It did tell the resident there would be a delay in its response but did not tell her when she could expect a reply for over 2 months. This did not manage her expectations and may have caused her concern and frustration.
The landlord acknowledged the delay was inappropriate and gave the resident £20 in compensation. This is higher than the amount suggested in its compensation policy, which says that a fixed award of £10 is appropriate where it has identified a ‘failure to respond’. The Ombudsman considers this compensation to be reasonable in the context of the total compensation offer.
While the landlord’s complaint policy aligns with the Code, the landlord considers its complaints to be ‘open’ until all agreed actions have been completed. In this case, the severe delays to repairs meant the landlord kept the case ‘open’ until at least June 2023.
After receiving a stage 2 complaint response in July 2022, the resident emailed the landlord with a further complaint about the outstanding works on 21 February 2023. The landlord acknowledged her email on 24 March 2023, apologising for its delay in responding and saying that it would respond to her points in due course. It would have been appropriate for it to tell her that she had exhausted its complaints process and could approach the Ombudsman, but it did not do so.
When the resident contacted the Ombudsman in May 2023 the resident’s complaint was still open, and the landlord was still actively updating her on actions. It was reasonable that the landlord kept the case open to monitor the actions it had agreed. The Ombudsman therefore asked the landlord to provide a final response. It did so on 26 May 2023.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord did not address all the issues the resident raised, including the extractor fan, the tap, or the response of the emergency out of hours service. It did not acknowledge any specific failings, although it upheld the complaint. And it did not appreciate the impact of its failings on the resident or offer any redress.
These issues are similar to those in the Ombudsman’s special report on the landlord in July 2023 (published on our website), in which we found that in some cases, the landlord’s responses did not fully address the issues and that “some responses were overtly dismissive – the landlord appeared not to care about the resident or consider the human impact at the heart of the complaint”. The initial complaint in this case was made at a similar time to those considered in the special report.
The landlord has acted reasonably by implementing changes to improve its complaints responses since the complaint was made, including introducing a housing quality assurance team in June 2022. Staff have also been given additional complaint handling training. This is reflected in the landlord’s later responses, which did recognise the impact on the resident, and offer appropriate redress.
In this case, the landlord did delay in responding to the resident’s initial complaint, and its stage 1 response was inadequate, but as the landlord has implemented appropriate learning since the response was sent and offered appropriate redress for the delay, it has done enough to resolve its errors in complaint handling and no further orders have been made in respect of this.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing.
In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer prior to the Ombudsman’s involvement which satisfactorily resolves the concerns raised by the resident about the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Complete the outstanding repairs to the bedroom, bathroom and guttering.
2. Complete the agreed works to ensure the height of the cooker is aligned with the worktops and does not pose a safety risk. It should install a cooker stability device at the same time.
Once these works are completed the landlord should inspect them to ensure they have been completed to an adequate standard and provide evidence of this inspection to the Ombudsman and the resident.
As explained above in the assessment, the landlord should pay the resident £810. This is in addition to the £6983.20 already agreed which should also be paid now, unless it has been paid already. It comprises:
1. £250 for right to repair.
2. £560 for inconvenience.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to carry out a case review to consider how it can ensure:
1. It has a clear process for considering decants, with all requests and decision making documented.
2. All relevant staff are aware of the decant process.
3. It takes a holistic approach to complex repair cases, particularly where it knows residents are vulnerable.
4. Repairs for ‘open’ complaints are monitored.
5. Its arrangements for repairs requiring scaffolding to ensure:
  1. It has sufficient supply of scaffolding so that appointments can be arranged within a reasonable timeframe.
  2. It is aware of which of its contractors cannot provide their own scaffolding.
  3. When it is aware scaffolding is required, this is recorded so it does not attend future appointments without it.
6. Its contractors provide high quality works and repairs are fixed first time wherever possible.
7. Staff respond appropriately when residents inform them of health and safety risks e.g. storing oxygen in an unsuitable location.
The landlord should share the findings from this case review with the resident and the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

The landlord should seek advice and/or carry out an assessment to ensure the resident is able to store her oxygen safely at home.
The resident told the Ombudsman that in early December 2023, a contractor drilled through her bathroom wall into her smaller bedroom and caused one of her radiators to leak. If these repairs have not been completed, the landlord should ensure these are completed in a timely manner.
The resident has told us that her child would benefit from handrails in the bathroom. The landlord should contact the resident to discuss this.
The resident told us that she received the first 2 compensation payments, but not the second 2. The landlord should ensure that these have been / are paid to the resident.
The landlord should contact the resident in a way that suits her needs to discuss her rehousing options.