London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202203480)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203480

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

10 July 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 response to:
1. The resident’s reports of a leak in the property and the subsequent reimbursement request.
2. The resident’s reports of damp and mould following the leak.
3. The related complaint.

Background

The resident and her family live in a three-bedroom mid terrace house owned by the landlord and occupied under an assured tenancy since 2011. The resident’s son has represented her in the matter of the complaint. Thus, all references to ‘the resident’ in this report would include the actions of the representative.
At 5.40PM, on 24 November 2021, the resident reported uncontrollable water leaking from the electrics around the boiler, and that all electrics were affected. The landlord sent a gas engineer that evening who reinstated the electricity, but the boiler remained off. After further calls from the resident the next day, a boiler engineer attended and said a plumber was required. On attendance, the plumber said the leak was from a bidet, and should not be in use.
The resident logged a complaint and asked for reimbursement of her costs. She said that on 23 November 2021, after failing to reach the landlord and with water spraying from the boiler socket, she had arranged her own plumber to reinstate the heating and hot water. Her plumber confirmed the leak was from a main pipe and charged £300 for the repair. The landlord responded to the complaint the next day and refused to pay the costs as it said the leak was from the bidet which had been installed without permission.
The resident explained that the water was not found to be coming from the bidet and referred to a video she supplied previously. She requested a review of the landlord’s decision and said that the completed work, including making good, was close to £800. The landlord sent a further email, on 27 January 2022, reiterating that the leak was from the bidet and that the resident should have continued to attempt to reach the landlord by phone and enabled it to resolve the problem. The resident requested for the escalation of the matter. In May 2022, she raised issues with damp as a result of the leak. The landlord inspected the property and treated the walls.
The final response was issued on 2 November 2022, following contact from this Service. The landlord accepted that the issue has been misdiagnosed and that misinformation had delayed the correct repair being carried out. It offered £500 in compensation, comprising £120 for complaint handling and £380 for repairs handling. It said that any making good on the repair would be the responsibility of the resident as she had not allowed it to attend the repair. With regards to the mould and damp, the landlord said it promptly had attended and inspected the property, but no further action was needed as the issue was due to residual moisture.
The resident wanted to be reimbursed for the repairs and for the landlord to complete the remaining repairs, including dealing with ongoing damp caused by the leak, in addition to the compensation offered.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident stated that the reported damp had affected the health of a member of her household. There is no evidence that this concern was reported to the landlord, who would be expected to respond appropriately. Additionally, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to decide on whether there was a direct link between the health issues reported and the landlord’s action. The resident, therefore, may wish to seek independent legal advice on making a personal injury claim if they consider that one of the family’s health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.

Repairs and reimbursement request

The landlord’s repairs policy section 4.1 says that it is responsible for the structure and exterior of the home and fixtures and fittings for ‘water, gas, electricity, heating and sanitation’. The landlord will only redecorate following a repair where it has an obligation or in exceptional circumstances entirely at its own discretion. It will ‘make good any surfaces affected by the repair ready for residents to redecorate.’
Section 4.2 of the repairs policy provides that the resident is responsible for minor repairs and replacements i.e., repairs that require no technical ability, and to report repairs promptly and allow access to carry out the work. It also required her to ask permission before carrying out any home improvement work.
Section 4.8 provides that the landlord would aim to complete routine repairs at the earliest mutually convenient appointment. For emergency works, where there is an immediate danger to the occupant, the landlord will attend within 24 hours. For emergencies out of hours it will attend within 4 hours to ‘make safe’ and lower the immediate risk. The follow-on repair will then be completed at the earliest mutually convenient appointment.
A table at appendix 4 gives repairs responsibilities for the landlord and shows that it is responsible for ‘sink pipework when leaking’, section 5 adds ‘any pipework (when leaking)’, section 6 says the landlord is responsible for ‘pipework when leaking or banging’. The landlord is not responsible for any plumbing installed by the tenant. It is responsible for all types of heating systems so as to ensure that tenants have ready access to space heating and hot water’, the boiler, pipes and radiators (when leaking).
Section 8 says the landlord is responsible for repairs to internal walls, penetrative and rising damp and should make good any surfaces affected after the landlord undertakes a repair. It should repair condensation and mould, but would not decorate internal walls unless obligated via tenancy terms and conditions.
In this case, the resident reported the out of hours repair due to a leak around the electrics of the boiler in the afternoon of 21 November 2021. The landlord sent a gas specialist but the issue with no hot water and heating remained unresolved as a plumber was required. The resident said she spent 90 minutes on hold chasing a plumber to attend, who then said that she should not use the bidet as it was not properly fitted. Despite her request, the plumber did not look into the main pipe.
As the leak was ongoing and the resident could not get in touch with the landlord, she called her own plumber. According to the resident, the plumber confirmed that the leak was coming from the main pipe. The heating and hot water was reinstated three days after the issue was reported to the landlord.
In its initial response on 25 November 2021, the landlord said that the leak was from the bidet, and as such it had no responsibility for the repair. The resident made several requests for the landlord to watch the video supplied on 24 November 2021 from the leak, and to comment on her plumber’s view of the cause of the leak. In December 2021, the landlord advised that an inspection would be made to determine the cause of the leak, but there was some delay in the surveyor feeding back to the landlord. The surveyor’s response stated only that the surveyor could find no leak, and that the resident had stated they had to employ a plumber and would seek to recover their costs. The resident said that the surveyor approved a reimbursement of the costs but there is no evidence of this.
A further response from the landlord, in January 2022, said that the resident’s daughter had confirmed that the leak was from the bidet. It also said that the resident should have continued to try to get hold of the landlord to enable it to send operatives on an emergency order. The landlord said that by calling their own plumber, any works would now be the responsibility of the resident. It also asked for the qualifications of the operatives who carried out the repairs.
The resident challenged the claim that the family had advised the leak was from the bidet and stated that this was the view of the landlord’s plumber, not the family. The resident stated that several people had called and did not identify the cause of the leak, and that further damage caused by the leak had been ignored. In January 2022, the landlord raised an order for the work to the mains pipe and electrics to be inspected. No evidence was provided of the findings at the time, but the landlord later confirmed that the boiler was deemed safe, and the leak had been resolved.
The landlord’s final response in November 2022, 11 months after the reported leak, confirmed that a surveyor attended in December 2021 and also acknowledged that the source had been misdiagnosed by its plumber. The landlord said that the resident did not allow it to address the leak, however, and so any work carried out privately would be her responsibility.
While there is no evidence that the landlord delayed the initial response to the urgent repair request, there is no dispute that the landlord failed to identify the correct source of the leak for three days. Thus its initial response to the resident’s reports of water leaking from electrics was inadequate.
Additionally, the landlord’s plumber wrongly considered the cause of the leak to be the bidet, which had been installed by the resident. This caused further frustration to the resident and uncertainty as to whether the landlord would resolve the issue. It is not unreasonable that in those circumstances and unable to get hold of the landlord, the resident sought an alternative means of resolving the leak and the hot water issue.
When the landlord eventually acknowledged its error, it would not also acknowledge that the resident had undertaken the works at her own expense due to its poor response. It went on to say that its reactive repair service relied on the resident allowing it the opportunity to resolve the repair, and that by calling in their own plumber, they did not allow this.
Despite the resident’s video, which the landlord did not comment on, and the repeated contact from the resident, the landlord maintained its position for over 11 months later. This was inappropriate and not resolution orientated approach. It had been given ample opportunity to investigate the leak during the two days following the first report and with the attendance of several operatives in that time.
The resident was left with no heating and hot water and no information about what would happen next. This would have been a concern for the her, particularly in the winter. The landlord’s failure to repair the cause of the leak led directly to the resident instructing her own plumber.
The resident has submitted no receipt or evidence of the tradesman’s qualifications or authority to work on a gas boiler, i.e., that they are gas safe compliant. However, the work was subsequently inspected by the landlord’s electrician and gas engineer who had raised no concerns about the repair.
The landlord offered the resident a total of £380 to reflect its failure to resolve the issue of the leak. It admitted poor service and communication and apologised for the events in the case. The offer comprised £120 for time and effort, £60 for loss of amenities and £200 for distress and inconvenience.
This seems reasonable in isolation, noting the reimbursement of costs incurred will be covered below. The Ombudsman’s recommended financial remedies in the range of £250 to £700 would apply in cases where the Ombudsman has found considerable service failure, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant. Examples could include misdirection – giving contradictory, inadequate or incorrect information about a complainant’s rights. This is the case here, where the resident was advised that the landlord would not repair the leak as it was a result of the unauthorised bidet, and that it did not alter its position for almost a year after the leak was reported.
With regards to the reimbursement request, the landlord’s compensation policy states that where the resident can evidence that they have incurred reasonable extra costs because of its service failures, this amount should be reimbursed.
In this case there is no dispute that the landlord was provided with an opportunity to resolve the issue and it failed to do so. After attempting to contact the landlord again, and on the third day with no heat or hot water, the resident was left with no other choice but to employ a tradesman in order to stop the leak and restore the boiler, at a cost of £300. Following the initial repair, over the next few days, the resident’s own builders and electrician repaired the box around the leak, retiled, sanded and repainted. The resident has not provided any receipts.
Throughout the complaint process, the landlord maintained the position that it would not meet the costs incurred by the resident as she should have allowed it to resolve this issue. In its final response it said that this was because the resident had not provided a receipt or registered certification of the builder.
It is not disputed that the landlord had responsibility for the repair reported by the resident on 21 November 2021. It is fair in all of the circumstances that reasonable costs of necessary work undertaken by appropriately qualified operatives, which the landlord was responsible for but failed to do, should be reimbursed. While no receipt was provided by the tradesman and the resident, the landlord’s surveyor confirmed in January 2022 that the issue was resolved up to a standard and the boiler was safely working following the resident’s plumber involvement.
The work was done and found to be safe, it follows that the landlord should look to put the resident back into the position she would have been in, had the landlord repaired the leak promptly. Additionally, the landlord took considerable time to reverse its decision about the initial leak, and the resident was left with the understanding that the making good works were also her responsibility.
While the landlord did not have receipts from the resident about the works involved, a fair consideration of her expenses would have been reasonable in those circumstances. In cases like this, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to make enquires to receive a retrospective receipt from the resident. If this is not available, it should have obtained an estimate for an identical repair to stop the leak and restore the boiler from certified operatives. It should have also considered the same for the works done to make good the affected area of the room.
As such an additional order would be made for the landlord to obtain a quote for the works and then refund the sum quoted, or the £800 the resident paid if the new quote is higher.

Damp and mould

Section 8 of the repairs policy says the landlord is responsible for internal walls, penetrative and rising damp and to make good any surfaces affected after the landlord undertakes a repair. It is also responsible for condensation and mould but does not decorate internal walls unless obligated via tenancy terms and conditions.
In this case, the resident reported in May 2022 that there was damp/mould on several walls throughout the property. The landlord log shows that an order was raised that day and an inspection was undertaken on 19 May 2022. The subsequent report by the damp specialist said that there was no indication of damp at the property but water marks on walls, with no ongoing leak. There was residual water present, but no ongoing year-round condensation. There was visible mould/mildew, but no repairs required for the indicators of moisture identified. The report also said that the extractor fans were in good working order. It said advice was given to the resident around ventilation, heating, clutter, drying clothes etc.
The report said a ‘clean and shield’ was done and that there were no concerns that further investigation was needed as landlord. The summary overview said that no structural rising damp was identified but residual moisture following resolved leak in the kitchen. She has been advised to allow a couple of months to dry out before redecorating. She was also advised to ventilate the property more often and also make adequate use of the thermostat and heating. It was noted on the landlord’s file that she was satisfied with the clean and shielding.
The resident raised the issue of damp to this Service in May 2022 and said that in March 2022 ‘we had a builder come in again’, which implies this was arranged by the resident rather than the landlord. The resident said the builder used a dehumidifier to dry the walls and replaced the flooring which the resident had to pay for. There is no indication that the resident reported this issue to the landlord to allow it to consider it. When the damp was reported to the landlord in May 2022, it is clear that it took prompt action to inspect and address the damp issue, in line with its repairs policy.
The resident advised this Service that a further inspection occurred in September 2022, when a note was made about damp and the resident was told that someone would come out, but the resident had heard no more. The resident stated that there was still water in the walls and the floor was warped again.
While the landlord responded promptly to the report of damp in May 2022, there is no evidence of a report in March or September 2022. There are no records relating to it on the landlord’s repair log or the tenancy notes which were submitted to this Service in March 2023.
The final response in November 2022 said the landlord would make good any water damaged walls that required plastering. However, the final response also asked the resident to log the repair if required, and contact details were given to facilitate this. Whilst there are multiple repairs logged for the address in 2022 in relation to door locks, garden fence panels etc, there are no records for a report of damp in March or September 2022. There is no indication that the resident contacted the landlord to treat damp caused by the leak following the final response in November 2022.
If the resident has any further concerns about damp at the property, they should contact the landlord in the usual way and arrange for this to be inspected. At this time, there is no evidence that the landlord did not respond appropriately to the reports regarding damp and mould in the property.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy says at section 3 that stage one complaints will be responded to within 10 working days, and stage two within 20 working days.
In this instance, the resident’s first complaint dated 24 November 2021 was responded to the next day. The response gave escalation appeal rights and was sent by email.
In her response, the resident asked the landlord to watch the video of the water leaking into the property and respond. There is no record of a stage two complaint being logged, and the resident chased the matter again on 2 December 2021 and 19 January 2022. On 27 January 2022, the landlord issued another response at stage 1 which it called a “final response at stage one.” This letter reiterated the first response but did not provide the appropriate appeal rights. The resident requested a final response the same day and the landlord replied the following day that it had sent its final response at stage one on 27 January 2021, and the resident could now escalate the matter if they remained unhappy.
On 1 February 2022, the resident asked the landlord to clarify why it would not reimburse her for the repairs when two staff who had attended the day before said it should. The landlord responded four weeks later by re-sending its email of 25 November 2021. The resident approached this Service who raised the issue with the landlord and an acknowledgment for a stage two complaint was issued on 10 October 2022.
The stage two response was subsequently issued on 2 November 2022, more than 11 months after the resident requested a review of her complaint on 25 November 2021. The stage two response acknowledged the delay in the complaint process and awarded £120 to reflect this.
However, it failed to address why there were two stage one responses, the second labelled as final but with no appeal rights. It did not explain why the resident’s request for a final response on 27 January 2022 did not prompt a final response with appropriate appeal rights.
There was a failure on the landlord’s part to follow its published complaints procedure. When the resident requested a review of the landlord’s decision, the landlord responded that if she remained unhappy, she could escalate to the next stage. It should have progressed the complaint according to its process at that time. The resident’s correspondence was unambiguous, and she clearly explained the history of the repair quoting dates and giving her desired outcome.
The £120 compensation offered for this aspect of the complaint appears insufficient. Had the complaint been progressed within the landlord’s own timescales, the review of the matter may have prompted an earlier resolution.
In recognition of the above failures, additional compensation of £80 should be awarded. This is in line with the Ombudsman guidance for financial remedies which allows for awards in the range of £50 to £250 for instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the complainant and could include distress and inconvenience, disappointment and loss of confidence.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leak and the subsequent request for reimbursement.
2. The landlord’s handing of the formal complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the reports of damp.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. Pay the resident the £500 which was offered during the complaints process, if not done already.
2. Pay the resident the estimate for the repairs as provided in writing by an operative, or the £800 paid to the resident’s builder, whichever is lower.
3. Pay the resident an additional £80 in respect of its complaint handling failures.
The landlord should provide evidence to this Service that the above orders have been complied with, within four weeks of this determination.

Recommendations

The landlord should remind salient complaints staff of the correct procedure to ensure the landlord’s complaint process is followed, with appropriate appeal rights at each stage.