London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202203033)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203033

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

03 April 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. Handling of the resident’s request not to return to her property following a decant and later request for a transferred to a different property;
2. Handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of her property and the associated repair works, including the removal of her laminate flooring;
3. Decision to take rent arrears enforcement action, and its handling of communication around this;
4. Handling of reports that the resident had been injured due to the condition of the property;
5. Handling of the resident’s personal information;
6. Complaints handling.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s personal information is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. The resident complains that personal information including about rent arrears was sent to, and opened by, another resident. This is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction because the subject of this complaint falls properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint handling body. This issue is a matter for the Information Commissioner’s Office: https://ico.org.uk/

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a first-floor maisonette.
The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident’s household. The resident says that her daughter has allergies which are made worse by the presence of carpets.
The tenancy agreement and the landlord’s repairs policy sets out its responsibility for maintaining the structure and exterior of the property, including walls, roofs, windows, external doors, drains, gutters, external pipes and boundaries, fixtures and fittings for water, gas, electricity, heating, and sanitation. This is in line with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The policy says that routine day to day repairs will be completed at the earliest mutually convenient appointment within a reasonable timeframe.
The landlord’s allocations and lettings policy sets out when and how a resident can move. The options for existing residents to move are through mutual exchange, application to the local authority for rehousing, shared ownership, private renting, other schemes or direct offer via the landlord’s rehousing list. The policy states that existing residents will not be eligible for transfer if, amongst other factors, they have a possession order against them or if they have rent arrears of over £1,000. The landlord’s income collection policy also says “residents with existing rent arrears will not be eligible for an internal transfer or mutual exchange unless they take positive steps to address the debt”.
The allocations and lettings policy also states that residents decanted so that major works can take place have a right and obligation to return to their property once the works are completed.
Under the tenancy agreement, rent is payable weekly in advance. The tenancy agreement sets out when the landlord may seek possession of the property through the courts by listing the grounds for possession under Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1988. Grounds eight, ten and eleven relate to rent arrears. The pre-action protocol for possession claims by social landlords sets out the steps a landlord must take before and during an application for possession based on rent arrears.
The landlord’s income collection policy says that eviction will always be a last resort and that it will comply with the pre-action protocol. The landlord will make regular contact with residents who are in arrears and will use payment plans to help residents pay off their arrears. The landlord will offer support and signpost to support services. The policy sets out when and how the landlord will serve legal notices and start court proceedings, in line with the Housing Acts and pre-action protocol. Once a possession order is made, the landlord will continue to communicate with the resident about “the importance of complying with [the terms of the order] to prevent eviction”. Under the policy the landlord expects arrears to be paid off within six months when an outright possession order is made.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints process. Under its complaints policy it defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by” the landlord. The landlord will try to resolve complaints “there and then” but, if it cannot, it will acknowledge the complaint within one working day. It will then respond within ten working days to explain the outcome, how it will resolve the complaint and the timescale for this. If the resident is dissatisfied, they can ask for the complaint to be escalated to stage two. An independent member of the landlord’s staff will review the complaint and provide a response within 20 working days.
The complaints policy also sets out complaints which are excluded from the complaints process, which include:
1. Where a legal claim is made, including insurance claims.
2. Where a resident is taking a matter to court, or it is being dealt with by another statutory agency with the power to resolve the complaint.
3. Anti-social behaviour.
4. Issues which occurred more than six months ago unless there are exceptional circumstances.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out when it will pay compensation to a resident. The landlord also has a compensation guidance document, which sets out when compensation will or might be paid, and values. Payments can be made as consolatory or goodwill gestures for inconvenience, distress and the time and effort in making a complaint. It includes a table for single discretionary payments for service failure with banded values based on impact on the resident.
Under the tenancy agreement the landlord can off-set any compensation payable against any sums owed to it by the resident.

Summary of events

In February 2017, the resident was decanted to a different property on the estate. This was so that the landlord could carry out major works to the property.
On 18 October 2017 the landlord was granted a suspended possession order by the county court for the property, due to rent arrears. The order was suspended on terms that the resident keep to a payment plan.
In February 2018 the landlord and resident exchanged emails about the resident returning to her property from the decant property. The resident moved back into her property on 17 March 2018.
In 2018 the following repairs, amongst others were raised:
1. On 26 March 2018 two wooden balcony steps had come away, marked as completed on 30 April 2018.
2. On 23 April 2018 water pouring down the wall not going down the guttering pipes, marked as completed on 16 May 2018.
3. On 13 June 2018 water leak in the bathroom, marked as completed on the same day.
On 11 April 2018 the resident applied to the court to vary the terms of the suspended possession order, to decrease the payment plan amount. The court granted this request.
The resident called the landlord on 3 July 2018 to ask to set up a further payment plan, which the landlord agreed to. She called the landlord again on 23 July 2018 to say that she had missed a payment but would make it up. The landlord and resident spoke about the breach on 22 August 2018 and the resident said she was receiving advice from the CAB. In an internal email the following day the landlord set out other support services it could refer the resident to.
On 11 December 2018 the resident told the landlord that there were outstanding works at the property, following a change of contractors. The landlord said that it was arranging these works.
In January 2019 the landlord called the resident regarding her arrears. The landlord said the resident was not paying the amount she needed to, and her arrears were increasing. The resident told the landlord that she was receiving support from money advice and support services and the landlord signposted to others available. However, on 5 March 2019 it wrote on its system that the tenancy sustainment support it offered was closed due to no contact from the resident.
The landlord requested an eviction from the court, and one was scheduled for 5 June 2019. The resident applied to suspend the eviction and on 31 May 2019 the court agreed. A new payment plan was ordered by the court.
On 23 September 2019 the court suspended the warrant again on terms of a payment plan. On 10 February 2020 the court further suspended the warrant, however reduced the payment plan amount.
The landlord emailed the resident on 28 May 2020 to provide information on support and advice available to help with debt and benefits.
The resident reported water leaking into her hallway through a window, and a large gap under the balcony door, on 10 December 2020 which is marked as completed the same day.
During the Covid-19 pandemic the county court paused hearing possession cases. The next hearing was on 25 June 2021 where the court ordered that the eviction could go ahead.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 19 October 2021 and the landlord recorded this as a complaint, which it acknowledged on 21 October 2021. The resident’s complaint was about:
1. The condition of the property and repairs needed.
2. Having to move back to the property after the decant.
3. Her laminate flooring having been removed by the landlord.
4. That she had injured herself twice due to the condition of the property.
5. that her post had been sent by the landlord to her decant address and not her current address.
On 28 October 2021 the landlord emailed the resident to give a partial first response to the complaint. In its email it said:
1. It was arranging a plan to complete the repairs needed at the property.
2. It was still investigating the issue with post being sent to the wrong address.
3. That it had spoken to her about her injury.
The landlord inspected the property on 9 November 2021 and produced a list of repairs that it needed to do.
On 17 November 2021 the landlord sent an email to the resident with a second response to her complaint. It said:
1. It had inspected the property and was waiting for a quote for the works.
2. That laminate flooring was not allowed in its properties which had other residents living in properties underneath. It said that this is the reason that the laminate had been replaced with carpet. It said that it understood that the resident had said that her daughter suffered from allergies, and suggested she replace the existing carpets with anti-allergen ones.
3. That it was still investigating the complaint about her post and asked the resident to give examples of the letters that had been sent to the wrong address.
The resident emailed the landlord in response on 19 November 2021. The resident said that she had called the landlord to report her post being sent to the wrong address and sent an email. She also said that she had never been told before that laminate flooring was not allowed, and this was not mentioned in any of the paperwork she had. She also asked who would pay for the anti-allergen carpets. She said that she did not believe she had done anything wrong and that she should not be made to feel that she had.
The landlord then spoke to the resident on 22 November 2021 and investigated the issues. On 23 November 2021 in an internal email, the landlord said that it was not able to locate the resident’s tenancy agreement or an inventory for the property, and so would offer to lay anti-allergen carpet with lino in the bathroom and kitchen. It also said that it was unable to proceed with the suspended possession order due to the open complaint.
On 29 November 2021 the resident sent an email to the landlord. She said that she was happy that the landlord was addressing the works needed, but she did not see the benefit of having the works done if she was going to be evicted. She said she had asked for a payment plan and that she did not want to stay at the property. Except for the roof and extractor fan works, she said she did not want any other works to be completed.
The landlord provided a third stage one complaint response on 8 December 2021. It summarised the points the resident had made and said:
1. It apologised for sending her post to the wrong address and that it would offer compensation. It also suggested she contact the police about her post being opened by someone else.
2. That it would review compensation for the length of time and distress caused by the works needed in the property. This compensation would be applied to the rent account.
3. That the remaining arrears on the rent account would need to be paid in full as the resident was in breach of her payment plan.
4. It urged the resident to allow the works to be completed, and that it would work at a pace agreed with the resident.
The resident emailed the landlord on 21 December 2021 and expressed concern at the landlord’s response. She said that she was not going to report her neighbour to the police as per its suggestion. She said that she had not been told if she was going to be evicted and that works were still going on causing distress.
On 26 January 2021 the landlord sent its fourth and last stage one response. In it the landlord:
1. Apologised for the delay.
2. Said that it had calculated compensation from when the resident had moved back into her property until when the works should have been completed in December 2021.
3. Said that it was “in total agreement that following the major works which were carried out by [its] Planned Department, your home should have been refurbished to the standard expected”.
4. Said that it would pay compensation for the 33 month period worked out as:
  1. For time taken the maximum allowed of £60 per month totalling £1,980;
  2. For distress and inconvenience the same amount times two, this all totalling £5,940;
  3. For the administrative error affecting her post the sum of £100 and £150 for the time and effort caused.
5. Confirmed the total compensation offered was £6,190 and that this would be applied to the resident’s rent account.
6. Said that the resident would need to pay her remaining arrears in full to prevent her being evicted as she was in breach of her payment plan.
On 31 January 2022 and 9 February 2022, the resident and landlord exchanged emails about the landlord’s offer. The resident requested further time to consider the offer and to seek advice. She also asked about her complaint about her injuries and her payment plan. The landlord said it would escalate her complaint to stage two. It also said that the injury matter would need to be sent to its insurance department. It again said that the resident will be evicted if she did not pay off her arrears in full.
The resident accepted the landlord’s compensation offer on 14 February 2022 but also said that she would send the stage two response to this Service.
In an internal email on 22 February 2022 the landlord’s contractors said that they had been trying to contact the resident to arrange the works but had not been able to reach her during February.
The landlord’s records say that it sent its stage two response on 28 February 2022, however the response is dated 22 February 2022. In its response the landlord said:
1. It had sent its stage one response on 28 October 2021.
2. The resident had accepted the compensation offered and it had been applied to the rent account.
3. It had tried to work with the resident to allow her to remain in her home. That following a court hearing a payment plan was agreed but this had been breached. That it had explained that the resident would now need to repay the arrears in full to be able to remain living at the property.
4. That it had been trying to complete the works at the resident’s pace but had been unable to contact her and believed she had blocked its contractor’s number.
5. During the resident’s initial call to the landlord the landlord had explained that personal injury claims need to be sent to its insurance department.
6. That her post being sent to the wrong address was due to an administrative error and apologised. It said that it had awarded compensation for this.
7. It apologised for the time taken and distress of being decanted and the works taking place.
8. It upheld the stage one response and gave information on how to contact this Service.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

The court set an eviction date for 14 April 2022 and the resident applied to suspend the eviction. The court heard the application on 13 April 2022 and suspended the eviction on terms of a payment plan.
On 15 May 2022 the resident contacted this Service and her complaint was accepted for investigation.
The resident emailed the landlord on 20 June 2022 to ask for the works to be carried out as the court had allowed her to stay in the property. The landlord then discussed the works in internal emails. It replied to the resident on 29 June 2022 to say that the resident would have to raise the works as day to day repairs, because she had delayed the planned works.
The Ombudsman has been told that at the date of this report, some works are still outstanding.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request not to return to her property following a decant and later request for a transferred to a different property

When the resident emailed the landlord to make her complaint, she said that after being decanted she was told by the landlord that she would need to return to her property. She asked to stay in the decant property or to move to a different property but was told this was not possible. She said that she was told this was because of her rent arrears, although she did not believe this was fair.
The resident also said that when her post was sent to the incorrect address it was read by another resident; that other residents knew her arrears situation and her daughter had found out. She said that she wanted to move away.
The landlord spoke to the resident following her complaint and said that the resident would not be able to move due to her rent arrears. While the Ombudsman recognises that this must be frustrating for the resident, the landlord followed its policy on allocations and lettings. Under the policy the resident was required to return to her property following the decant and was not eligible to move while the landlord had a possession order and the resident remained in rent arrears of over £1,000. This point is also set out in the landlord’s income collection policy. From reviewing the evidence, the landlord acted reasonably and there was no maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of her property and the associated repair works, including the removal of her laminate flooring

Following the resident’s stage one complaint, the landlord accepted that there were repairs outstanding to the property, and that it had removed the resident’s laminate flooring during the planned works. In response it inspected the property and produced a schedule of works to complete.
The landlord also said that the resident was not allowed laminate flooring, but she could buy anti-allergen carpet. The landlord had shown that it understood the resident’s daughter had allergies however its response was unhelpful.
In internal emails the landlord said that it could not find the resident’s tenancy agreement or an inventory for the property. It said that as it could not locate records it would offer to lay anti-allergen carpets as a goodwill offer. This was included on a schedule of works seen by this Service. However, the resident has told this Service that the landlord did not offer to re-carpet, and she has re-floored her living room and both bedrooms herself.
On 29 November 2019 the resident told the landlord that she did not want any further works to be done, with some exceptions, until she knew whether she was going to be evicted.
In its final stage one response, the landlord upheld the complaint and apologised. In recognition of its failings it offered compensation of £5,940 for the delay, distress, inconvenience and time and effort of complaining which the resident accepted. The compensation covered the time from when the resident returned to the property in March 2018 up until the end of December 2021, which the landlord said was 33 months.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
Between March 2018 and December 2021, 45 months passed during which the resident suffered distress and inconvenience due to the delayed repairs. If the landlord had calculated this period correctly, it would have offered the resident an additional £2,160 in compensation, which is appropriate redress to reflect the impact on the resident over the full period of time. It appears the landlord did attempt to compensate the resident for the whole period, however made an error and miscalculated the number of months.
The Ombudsman will consider what is fair in all of the circumstances. Having considered the landlord’s policy and guidance on compensation, and our remedies guidance, there was maladministration and the landlord has not provided reasonable redress. An order that the landlord pay £2,160 in compensation has been made.

The landlord’s decision to take rent arrears enforcement action, and its handling of communication around this

The landlord was granted a possession order for the property on 18 October 2017, suspended on terms of a payment plan. These terms were varied by the court after the resident applied to reduce the payment plan. The resident then breached the terms of the order, and the landlord requested an eviction. The court then suspended the eviction three times until allowing the eviction to go ahead at the fourth hearing on 25 June 2021. An eviction date was scheduled however the court suspended it again twice in 2022. The Ombudsman understands that the eviction remains suspended at the date of this report and the resident still lives at the property.
The landlord’s records show that it continued to contact or attempt to contact the resident, it agreed to payment plans and gave information on support and advice services available to the resident. The landlord offered its own support services. The resident had breached terms of payment plans and the arrears had increased. It was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s policy to take enforcement action. After carefully considering all of the evidence, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s decision to take enforcement action or in its communications.

The landlord’s handling of reports that the resident had been injured due to the condition of the property

In its first response to the resident’s stage one complaint the landlord said that it had told the resident she would need to make a claim for her injury with its insurance department. The landlord told the resident this again following the last stage one response and the stage two complaint response.
Under the landlord’s complaints policy, legal and insurance claims are excluded from its complaints process. It was reasonable and correct that the landlord gave the resident details of its insurance department, so that she could make a personal injury claim. This is because the landlord’s insurer will be able to reach a decision on whether the injury was a result of any negligence by the landlord. There was no maladministration.

The landlord’s complaints handling

The resident made a formal complaint on 19 October 2021, and the landlord acknowledged it two days later, outside of its one working day time frame. It provided its first response within its ten working days’ time frame. It then provided a second response 21 days later. It provided a third response 22 days after that and a fourth and last response 50 days after that. This was in breach of its policy, delayed escalation of the complaint to stage two and its resolution.
In its stage two response the landlord says that it responded to the stage one complaint on 28 October 2021. This was the date of the first response, however in total the landlord took 99 days to provide its fourth and last stage one complaint response which included its offer of compensation. The landlord did not acknowledge this in its stage two response.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord gave an update to the resident three times before its last stage one response. However, the length of time taken to investigate and respond to the complaint was unreasonably long. There was maladministration and an order has been made for the landlord to pay £200 in compensation to recognise the additional distress and inconvenience cause by this failing.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of her property and the associated repair works, including the removal of her laminate flooring.
2. Complaints handling.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s request not to return to her property following a decant and later request for a transferred to a different property.
2. Decision to take rent arrears enforcement action, and its handling of communication around this.
3. Handling of reports that the resident had been injured due to the condition of the property.
In accordance with Paragraph 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s personal information is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Reasons

There was maladministration as the landlord failed to follow its policy on repairs being completed within a reasonable time. It also failed to comply with its legal obligations under the tenancy agreement and section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The landlord accepts that the resident’s repairs remained outstanding until they would have been completed in December 2021, which is a period of 45 months. The landlord did offer compensation, which was at a fair rate, however, did not offer compensation for the whole period. The landlord also did not replace the residents’ flooring.
There was maladministration as the landlord did not respond to the stage one complaint within the timeframe set out in its policy. It took an unreasonable amount of time to respond to all of the parts of the complaint. It gave multiple complaint responses which was not in line with its policy. It failed to acknowledge the failure.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests to move, as the landlord followed its allocations and lettings policy. It told the resident the reasons for its decision not to allow her to stay in the decant property, and not to allow her to be considered for a transfer to a different property. The reasons given were in line with its policy and were reasonable.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of its decision to pursue enforcement action, as the landlord complied with its policy and legal obligations in how it communicated with the resident, offered support and signposted to services available. It’s decision to seek enforcement action was reasonable and in line with its policy.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports that the resident had been injured due to the condition of the property, as the landlord complied with its complaints policy and directed the resident to its insurance department. The landlord’s insurers are best placed to investigate to decide whether the landlord was negligent.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report;
2. Pay direct to the resident additional compensation of £2,360 made up of:
  1. £2,160 for distress, inconvenience, time, and effort for failure in handling of repairs;
  2. £200 for failure in complaints handling
3. Ask the resident to provide receipts for the flooring she has paid for, and reimburse the resident within two weeks of receiving these receipts;
4. Produce a schedule of all outstanding works and share this with the resident. These works should then be scheduled to be completed within the next 8 weeks. The landlord is ordered not to require the resident to raise or progress these works as day to day repairs;
5. Review its approach to major works which involve a decant, to include a full inspection before a resident is invited to return to their property; any works identified as incomplete should be completed before the resident returns. The landlord is to provide this Service with the outcome of its review and plans for service improvement.
6. Improves its record keeping for major works, which are not day to day repairs, to include works required and timeframes for completion. Even when delays occur for any reason, responsibility for these repairs should remain with the landlord and the resident should not be asked to raise these repairs as day to day repairs.
7. Confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within 8 weeks.