London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202207073)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207073

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

28 March 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 the resident’s:
1. Reports of antisocial behaviour.
2. Request for repairs to the ventilation system.
3. Request for other repairs.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord, which is a housing association. The tenancy commenced on 5 June 2013. The landlord’s records note that the resident suffers from rheumatoid arthritis and arthralgia.
The property is a 1 bedroom flat on the first floor of a block of similar properties. The landlord has installed a communal ventilation system in the block.
The resident logged concerns with the landlord about antisocial behaviour (ASB) caused by her neighbour since 2018. The resident reported that the ASB carried out by the neighbour living above her caused vibrations and electrical waves in her property. She believed that this was caused by her neighbour using heavy machinery in their property above. She also reported rapid changes in the air temperature, either excess heat or cold air, coming from the flat above. The resident was concerned her neighbour above may be growing cannabis in their property. In a telephone call to this Service on 26 February 2024 the resident confirmed the issues were ongoing.
During a visit to the property in 2019 the landlord noted there was a fault with the ventilation system. On 6 January 2020 the resident reported an issue with a leak under her kitchen cupboard. In September 2020 the resident reported issues with the communal fire door closer. On 15 November 2019 the resident reported an ongoing leak into her bedroom. The landlord’s file note of 4 September 2023 noted that works to the ducting system were ongoing however, the resident reports they were completed on 22 February 2024. In her complaint to this Service, also on 4 September 2023, the resident reported that the repairs remained unresolved. In her telephone call to this service on 26 February 2024 the resident confirmed that she had instructed a solicitor regarding a disrepair claim but that proceedings had not been issued.
On 15 November 2019 the resident made a formal complaint in relation to repairs including the presence of black soot in the property and a leak in the bedroom. She also reported high levels of vibrations throughout the building and experiencing electric shocks and radiation in the property.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 22 November 2019. It said that it expected that vents may accumulate dirt over time and advised the resident to clean the vents using a moist cloth. It said it would arrange for a surveyor to inspect the property.
The resident completed the landlord’s online complaint form on 23 September 2020 to say she had reported ongoing issues with electrical fields the day before, 22 September. She had been told she would receive a call back that day but had not received a response. Following intervention from this Service the landlord emailed the resident on 24 September to confirm that it had raised a new complaint about leaks, electrical/heating repairs, air vent repairs, the communal fire door and reports of ASB.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 24 September 2020. It said that the works to the door closer had been put on hold due to COVID-19 and would be rescheduled. Its contractor had replaced the heat exchanger and filters. It has responded to all reports of ASB and action plans have been put in place where necessary. It asked the resident to let it know if she remained dissatisfied.
On 21 November 2020 the resident emailed the landlord to express her dissatisfaction that her complaint had been closed so quickly. She asked to escalate her complaint about the ASB issues.
On 15 December 2020 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response, as follows:
1. On 30 September it had renewed a loose connection to a shaving light.
2. It could not comment on the communal door or air vent because they had been raised as a separate complaint.
3. It had investigated the resident’s reports of the neighbour above using heavy machinery.
4. It had tried to contact the resident above to discuss the resident’s allegations that he was growing cannabis, causing excess heat. It had discussed it with her neighbour who denied the allegations. It advised the resident to make a report to the police. It suggested that mediation might be a possibility.
5. It confirmed it had attended to check the ventilation system.
6. It offered to refer the resident to the local authority for an assessment of her welfare.
The resident contacted this Service for assistance and, following our intervention, the landlord raised a stage 1 complaint on 8 July 2022. The resident emailed the landlord on 15 July to provide additional information in relation her complaint, the main points were:
1. Vibrations and electrical fields were being caused by her neighbour above.
2. Extremes of temperature within the property were causing “hot spots” and spells of “very cold air.”
3. A kitchen unit removed to investigate a leak had not been reinstated.
4. The communal fire door was sometimes “impossible” to open.
5. A leak in the bedroom had been ongoing for 5 years causing her bedroom to become “soaked in water” when it rained.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 4 August 2022, as follows:
1. It acknowledged the resident had been raising issued about ASB caused by her neighbour since 2018. It had previously issued a stage 2 complaint response on 15 December 2020. In December 2020 the landlord inspected the property and found an electrical fault with the bathroom shaver light which was repaired. It inspected the ventilation system in January 2021 which was found to be in “good working condition.”
2. The landlord apologised that the resident had experienced these issues intermittently, with various contractors attending, over the past 3 years. Its surveyor was due to carry out a further inspection of the property on 16 August.
3. Its records showed that the latest appointment for the communal fire door had been attended. The door entry system had been programmed and tested, and 2 new key fobs had been delivered to all residents.
4. It confirmed that the repairs should have been managed more effectively and swiftly for which it apologised. It said it had identified learning from the complaint which had been fed back to senior managers.
5. It confirmed that the amount of compensation it could offer for time and effort was capped at £200. It offered: £30 x 6 = £180 for inconvenience and distress and £200 for time and effort (total: £380.00).
The resident emailed the landlord on 30 August 2022 about its stage 1 response. Her main concern was the ongoing ASB which was not addressed in the complaint response. On 28 September the resident emailed the landlord to chase its stage 2 complaint response.
Following intervention from this Service the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 10 March 2023, as follows:
1. It had investigated the resident’s allegations that her neighbour was using heavy machinery which caused vibrations and radiation inside her property. The landlord asked her to provide medical evidence that burns on her face were caused by radiation. It also signposted the resident to make a claim on its liability insurance should she wish to pursue a personal injury claim.
2. It had investigated the resident’s allegations that electric shocks she had received in her property were the result of her neighbour above using hydroponics. It had located a fault with the bathroom shaver socket which it had repaired. It did not find evidence of any further electrical faults.
3. It had investigated the resident’s reports of extremes of heat in her property and had identified “several issues” with the boiler. Repair works were ongoing.
4. Following its inspection of the kitchen it had raised an order to overhaul the kitchen base and wall cupboard units.
5. It attended the property on 6 December 2022 to carry out repairs to the communal fire door which were completed on that day.
6. Its records did not show that the resident had reported a leak in the bedroom and requested it be reported to its repairs team.
7. It offered £530 compensation comprised of the £380 offered in its stage 1 complaint response and £150 for the delay in carrying out the review at stage 2.
In her email to this Service on 7 April 2023 the resident confirmed that her complaint related to ongoing issues with ASB caused by her neighbour and various unresolved repairs including damp and mould, ventilation, the communal fire door, kitchen units and a leak in the bedroom.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s responsibilities, policies and procedures

The government’s guidance on antisocial behaviour principles states that landlord should have clear and transparent processes to ensure that residents can report ASB concerns, can understand how the matter will be investigated and are kept well informed of progress once a report is made.
The landlord’s ASB policies dated March 2019 and January 2022 state that it will:
1. It will agree an action plan with the complainant and keep them updated throughout the case.
2. Provide advice and support. This could include making referrals to other agencies that can provide assistance and, where appropriate, empowering the reporting party, victims and witnesses to take positive action such as to gather evidence.
3. Try to contact the resident before closing a case to discuss it with them. If it is unable to make contact, it will write explaining why it is closing the case.
The resident’s tenancy agreement says that the landlord will keep in repair and keep in working order any installations it has provided (…).
The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 requires landlords to appoint a responsible person to manage all fire safety precautions including fire doors which must be “maintained in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair.”
The landlord’s complaints policy states that it aims to provide stage 1 complaint responses within 10 working days and stage 2 complaint responses within 20 working days.

Scope of the investigation

The resident’s correspondence with the landlord raises a wide range of repair issues at various stages of the complaints process. This investigation has focussed on the key themes which the landlord had responded to through the internal complaints process.
During her complaint to the landlord, the resident had reported that the issues she has reported have impacted on her health. While this service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.
The resident had provided this Service with additional information, including independent reports on the property’s thermal properties, the heating, ventilation and air conditioning system and underfloor heating, which was provided to the landlord after it issued its stage 2, and final, complaint response. The resident had also raised a number of additional repairs in her disrepair claim, such as issues with the water pump and overall maintenance of the property, which were not considered as part of the complaints process.
In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. Any new information or issues that were not known by the landlord to consider as part of the formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.

Reports of ASB

The resident’s reports of ASB consistently related to vibrations/electrical waves/radiation, excess heat and blasts of cold air. The landlord took appropriate steps to assess whether there were any defects at the resident’s property or within the building which would account for the issues. An internal email dated 13 August 2019 confirmed it had visited the property but could not detect any vibrations. A return visit with a surveyor generated the same outcome.
An internal email dated 9 October 2020 confirmed that it had visited in February 2019 to investigate reports of a buzzing noise. It confirmed that the noise in the bedroom was from the transformers on the resident’s bedside table lamps. When these were turned off the noise stopped. No other noise was audible during the inspection. During the visit the resident had placed a handheld power meter against the stud wall between the bedroom and the hallway, expressing concern that there were high readings. It reassured her that this was caused by the electric current travelling to the light fitting. It demonstrated that when the switch was in the off position the reading ceased.
On 22 January 2020 the landlord sent an internal email to request that it “proof” the communal boiler to prevent continuous vibrations being felt by the resident caused by the boiler system. Confusingly, the corresponding response relates to ongoing works to the ventilation system only. Having reviewed the evidence it is not clear where the suggestion that the communal boiler was a factor arose which is a record keeping failure.
The landlord arranged a further inspection of the property on 13 October 2020 to carry out “room carbon monoxide test, exhaust, air intake and seal tests” which all passed. This is evidence it appropriately continued to investigate whether other factors related to the property could be causing the issues.
However, there is no evidence that the landlord considered carrying out a full survey of the property above. Given the number of consistent reports, and their nature, this would have been appropriate. This is because it would have satisfied itself that it could rule out any defects as a possible contributory factor. Not only would this have informed its investigation, but it would also have reassured the resident that it took her complaint seriously. That it did not do so was a failure.
The resident provided the landlord with screen shots of measurements taken by apps on her phone, including those attached to her email of 9 November 2021. The apps measured radiation, sound and electrical magnetic fields. On 9 November 2021 and 25 January 2022 the landlord appropriately addressed the information provided in its emails to the resident. It advised that the information in the screenshots did not prove the source of the nuisance which was a reasonable response.
In her email to the landlord of 15 July 2022 the resident asked the landlord to install a thermal digital camera into her property as part of its investigation into electrical fields and excess heat. In an internal email dated 7 March 2023 the landlord considered the merits of radiation measurements provided by the resident using apps downloaded onto her phone. It considered the request that it install a thermal digital camera into the property but it was not sure that this would measure levels of radiation. However, it failed to consider this further and failed to address this in its stage 2 complaint response of 10 March which would have been appropriate. That it did not do so was a failure.
The landlord took appropriate steps to discuss the resident’s reports with her neighbour. Its file note dated 19 December 2019 showed it had spoken to the neighbour who denied causing excess noise. On 6 January 2022 the landlord updated the resident that it had again spoken to her neighbour who continued to deny the allegations. He made counter allegations of harassment against the resident. The landlord’s file note states that during a conversation with the resident on 17 January it advised that it could not take further action against her neighbour without evidence which was reasonable.
Given that the neighbour above denied the allegations the landlord acted to independently verify the resident’s reports. This included a door knock carried out on 28 April 2022 where it spoke to a resident of the building who confirmed they had no issues. It had also knocked at the neighbour’s property, he was not at home and it noted there was no evidence of possible drug use at the property. While this was a welcome step it happened very late in the process, with the original complaint ongoing since 2019. That the landlord did not consider doing so earlier was a failure.
The government’s guidance on antisocial behaviour principles requires landlords to ensure that residents are kept well informed of progress once a report is made. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will assign each case a priority, agree an action plan with the resident and keep them updated throughout the case. It also says it will carry out risk assessments on high risk cases and on standard cases where appropriate.
On 13 December 2019 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that it had logged an ASB complaint. When she did not hear further the resident was caused time and trouble in chasing the landlord on 17 December for an update. The landlord replied on the same day to confirm that a case had been opened and a case manager would be in contact. The case manager emailed the resident on 19 December and appropriately wrote an action plan.
On 6 January 2020 the resident emailed the landlord to advise that the situation had not improved. On 9 January the resident was caused time and trouble when she emailed the landlord to chase for a response to her email and a call she had made the day before, on 8 January. She was caused distress because she felt the landlord was not taking her complaint seriously.
A customer relations officer emailed the resident on 10 January to confirm it had asked the case manager and their manager to contact the resident. However, on 16 January 2020 the resident was inconvenienced when she emailed the landlord to set out her dissatisfaction at its inaction to her reports of ASB. She had still not been contacted by the case manager which caused her distress because she “felt ignored.” She asked the landlord to raise a formal complaint.
On 7 February 2020 the resident emailed the case manager to ask how to proceed with a noise spreadsheet she had completed and recorded files submitted via the noise app. She did not receive a response which was inappropriate. This was particularly disappointing for the resident who had gone to the trouble of providing evidence as requested to do so. Furthermore, she had to email the landlord again to seek an update on her case.
On 10 February 2020 a member of the customer relations team advised the resident to contact its contact centre regarding her dissatisfaction with its response to the reports of ASB. Given that this was the same officer who had replied to her on 10 January it would have been appropriate for the officer to take ownership of the ongoing issue. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to try to provide a resolution, either by raising a formal complaint or by speaking to the case manager directly. It was inappropriate to cause further distress and time and trouble to the resident by putting the onus on her to contact another team.
When the resident followed up with the landlord on 17 February 2020 she was told her case was closed. In her email to the landlord of the same date, 17 February, she expressed her frustration that it had closed the case without notifying her. This was a failure because its action were not in line with its ASB policy which said it should try to call and if it cannot do so it would write a letter. This was a missed opportunity because closure letters help to manage resident’s expectations around the landlord’s response.
The evidence shows that the resident continued to report incidents of ASB, including on 29 June, 8, 22 and 24 September 2020. The landlord’s records show that generally the reports were acknowledged. However, there is a lack of detailed responses setting out whether the report had triggered a new ASB case or if not, why not. This was a missed opportunity to reassure the resident that she was being heard and to manage her expectations around its response. That it did not do so was a failure.
An internal email dated 7 October 2020 confirms the landlord did not have an open ASB case at that time. When its contractor attended the property on 13 October it recommended that a housing officer visit the resident to discuss the situation with her. There is no evidence that it considered doing so which was a failure. This is because it missed an opportunity to explain to the resident the steps it had taken, why, and next steps.
A file note dated 8 January 2022 confirmed that the ASB case remained closed. However, the note was either incorrect or by 17 January the landlord had opened a case because it telephoned the resident to confirm it would keep the case open for a further 14 days. It said that if there was no evidence it would close the case. On 25 January the landlord emailed the resident to provide an update on her case which was left open for monitoring. An internal email dated 2 March confirmed that an ASB case opened and actioned in February was already open to another officer “who had done a lot of work on the case.” It decided to close the duplicate case to avoid confusion.
This was a record keeping and communication failure. Not only was the file note of 8 January inaccurate, because the case was in fact open, but the resident had been contacted by a new officer in relation to a new ASB case. The officer had gone as far as creating an action plan and carrying out a risk assessment matrix (RAM) which were provided to the resident on 25 February. In the email of 25 February the officer said it would contact her again in 14 days. When the landlord realised its error it failed to explain the situation to the resident. This caused confusion and frustration to the resident who emailed the landlord on 21 March to say she had not been able to contact the officer and had not had the 14 day review that was promised.
The landlord’s file note shows that it closed the case on 23 May 2022 due to lack of evidence. The resident continued to log reports of ASB with the landlord, including on 19 July, 3 and 20 September 2022. An internal email was sent on 27 September 2022 requesting that contact be made with the resident. On 17 November 2022 the landlord spoke to the resident to advise that it had investigated her reports previously and there had been no evidence of the issues reported. It closed her ASB complaint accordingly.
The resident made further ASB reports including 6 October 2022, 5 and 12 January and 15 February 2023. The landlord’s records show that it met with the resident on 22 February with a further meeting arranged for March. While this was a welcome step the landlord could reasonably have considered visiting the resident in her home by appointment to discuss her concerns much earlier on.
The landlord emailed the resident on 29 October 2021 to confirm that it had previously investigated the same reports and had not found any evidence. It said that because the neighbour had denied the allegations any further reports should be made to the police who would visit the neighbour’s property. In the resident’s action plan dated 9 November the landlord reiterated its advice. It said that any further vibrations should be reported to the police “for them to witness the nuisance and provide a report of their findings.”
This advice was inappropriate because, except for concerns around the growing of cannabis, there was no suggestion that the vibrations themselves were the result of criminal activity. While the police work closely with landlords it is not their responsibility to witness out of hours noise nuisance on the basis that they can report back. This inappropriately raised unrealistic expectations for the resident who was referred back to the landlord by the police, as noted in its file note of 25 January 2022.
Due to the landlord’s inaction the resident was caused distress, inconvenience, time and trouble in raising a formal complaint on 21 November 2020. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 15 December 2020 signposted the resident to the local authority’s noise nuisance team. This was appropriate advice however, it would have been reasonable for it to have considered how it might support the resident by contacting the local authority itself.
This would have provided an opportunity to explore how they might work together to jointly investigate the ongoing complaint. This could have included consideration of installing noise monitoring equipment or similar. This was particularly relevant because the resident reported experiencing issues with the noise app on 25 February 2022. That it did not work jointly with the local authority as a means of supporting the resident was inappropriate. This was because it was not in line with its ASB policy, which says it can make referrals to other agencies that can provide assistance and, where appropriate, to take positive action such as to gather evidence.
In its email to the resident of 29 October 2021 the landlord appropriately sought to support the resident by offering to refer her to the local authority for a welfare assessment which she accepted. However, on 9 November the resident confirmed she intended to contact her GP about the matter. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord agreed with her that she would contact her GP in the first instance, on the basis they could make appropriate referrals for her welfare if necessary.
However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to check in with the resident to see if it could offer any further assistance with her welfare following her conversation with her GP. There is no evidence that it did so, in line with its ASB policy to provide advice and support, which was inappropriate.
The landlord’s internal email and file note, both dated 8 March 2023 recognised that it was limited regarding options to resolve the resident’s complaint. However it acknowledged that her welfare should be its “paramount concern, offering her the support she may need.” It emailed adult social services that day having been unable to reach them by phone.
Given the resident’s repeated expressions of her distress caused by the situation, her being open to the landlord making a referral for an assessment of her welfare, and the landlord’s ASB policy in relation to support for complainants, the landlord did not go far enough to consider the resident’s wellbeing. It only decided to contact adult social care at the point at which it offered its stage 2 complaint response, knowing the resident had contacted this Service. The response was delayed and as such was a failure.
This investigation has identified the following failures, including:
1. Failure to address the resident’s request for a thermal camera.
2. It did not go far enough to provide support for the resident, by working jointly with the local authority or by considering her welfare at an early stage. The evidence does not demonstrate a genuine commitment to the resident’s welfare being of paramount concern.
3. It failed to keep the resident updated as per its ASB policy and failed to manage her expectations which caused her distress, inconvenience, time and trouble.
4. Failures in its case management caused duplication of cases which in turn created confusion and distress to the resident.
The failures amount to maladministration because there were failures which adversely affected the resident. The landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and had made no attempt to put things right. The landlord had been ordered to pay the resident £600 which is line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there has no permanent impact on the resident. The higher amount reflects the landlord’s failure to provide the resident with a service, causing her to feel ignored, and the efforts she went to in order to seek a resolution to her ASB complaints.
Following the Ombudsman’s special report on the landlord it is currently undertaking a review of its ASB policy and procedure. It is planning staff training around those changes. Therefore, there is no requirement to make a further order in this report.

Repairs to ventilation system

On 15 September 2019 the resident logged a report that she was experiencing a “funny smell” and black soot coming through the air vents. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 22 November advised that the soot was “no cause for concern” and gave advice on cleaning.
An internal email, also dated 22 November 2019, said that the landlord had tried to inspect on 30 July in response to an earlier report. It did not get access on that occasion so it requested that it try again. It was positive that the landlord recognised the need to reinspect. However, it would have been appropriate for it to have done so earlier so as to inform its complaint response. The response that was issued caused distress to the resident. In her email to the landlord on 12 December she said she felt it had not fully considered her circumstances and had provided a “superficial” response.
The landlord’s contractor attended the property on 12 December 2019 and reported that the cooker extractor and Mechanical Ventilation with Heat Recovery unit (MVHR) were “completely blocked” due to a missing filter. Due to the excessive amount of dust collected the heat exchanger was damaged. It said that where the unit had been running for so long without the filter there had been an impact on the existing ducting. The landlord emailed the resident the following day, 13 December, to confirm that works were required.
On 20 January 2020 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that it continued to progress works to the vents. In its email to the resident of 24 January the landlord confirmed that works to the vents had been carried. It appropriately acknowledged the delay and offered compensation. It also signposted the resident to make a claim on its liability insurance for damage caused to her possessions by the soot.
On 8 September 2020 the resident emailed the landlord to report “a burnt smell and other funny smells” coming through the ventilation system. She raised the issue again in her email to the landlord of 24 September. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 15 December said the issue of the air vents was being addressed as part of another complaint case so it offered no comment on the situation. There is no evidence that the landlord addressed the residents ongoing concerns at that time, through the complaints process or otherwise. This was inappropriate because it caused frustration and distress to the resident.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 4 August 2022 said that it attended the property in January 2021 and found all elements were in good working condition. This is not reflected on the landlord’s repairs records and it is therefore unclear as to what prompted the inspection which is a record keeping failure.
The repair logs show that on 29 September 2021 the resident reported a humming noise and excess heat which she felt might be caused by a blockage in the ventilation system. There are no notes as to what work took place but a job was raised and shows as completed on 19 October. However, the resident’s email to the landlord of 29 October, and an entry on its repairs log dated 13 December, confirm the issue was ongoing.
On 13 December the landlord wrote to the resident to acknowledge her report and confirmed a contractor would arrange the appointment with her directly. The repairs log shows the job as completed on 24 January 2022 however, there are no details as to who attended and what works were carried out. The lack of information provided on the repairs log is a record keeping failure, particularly as it makes it difficult to assess why the landlord waited until 13 December to raise the order.
An repairs order was raised on 17 August 2022 to overhaul the MVHR unit, replace filters for the unit, cooker extractor and clear blockage ducting to the roof. It is unclear why, if the works were completed December 2019/January 2020, a duplicate order was raised. Furthermore, an entry dated 7 October says the “existing system is 15 years old, to be upgraded along with the systems ducting.” It is there unclear as to exactly what works were required and why which was a further record keeping failure.
On 9 September 2022 the resident was caused inconvenience, time and trouble in having to email the landlord to seek an update on the replacement of the ventilation system. In emails to the resident of 27 September and 12 October, when it also apologised for the delay, the landlord confirmed that it had chased the contractor which was reasonable.
On 13 December 2022 the landlord emailed the resident, referring to previous works carried out to the cooker extractor, MVHR and blockage. The resident replied to say the repair was never completed because the contractor was to replace the unit but needed to resize its housing because the new one was bigger than the old one. The new unit was stored at the property and therefore she had not had any ventilation since it was removed on 5 December. This investigation has not seen any evidence, including in the repair logs, in relation to the landlord attending to replace the unit. Nor has it seen any further correspondence on this particular point. It was inappropriate that the landlord did not response to the information provided by the resident. However, the evidence shows that the landlord agreed to carry out an inspection on 24 February 2023.
In its response to this Service on 4 September 2023 the landlord confirmed a decant was required for 5 days to remove and replace all ducting and “various building works.” It said it was working with the resident to find a suitable decant. In an email to us on 21 February 2024 the resident confirmed that works to the ducting were completed on 18 January.
Record keeping is a core function of a repairs service, not only so that a landlord can provide information to the Service when requested, but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure that the landlord has a good understanding of the age and condition of the structure and its fittings within the property. It enables outstanding repairs to be monitored and managed, and the landlord to provide accurate information to its residents.
The landlord’s repairs policies do not set out its response times to repairs. However, this investigation considers that the overall timescale of its response was not reasonable. This investigation has been hampered by the landlord’s poor record keeping. The failures identified in relation to delays, poor communication and record keeping amount to maladministration. This is because there were failures which had an adverse effect on the resident.
Following the Ombudsman’s special report on the landlord it is currently reviewing its repairs policy to enable it to “analyse and report on its response to repair requests and complaints about repairs.” It is also reviewing the recommendations in the report against the Ombudsman’s report on knowledge and information management. Therefore, there is no requirement to make a further order in this report.
In its stage 1 complaint response of 20 January 2020 the landlord offered £140 for inconvenience and £50 for time and effort. The compensation offered in its stage 1 response of 4 August 2022 was not broken down so it is difficult to assess how much of the £380 was apportioned to the ventilation issue. Given the number of issues considered the response this investigation considers it reasonable that £130 was awarded regarding the ventilation unit. This brings the total amount to £320.
Having considered the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, the length of time taken to resolve the substantive issue, the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and the landlord’s record keeping, an order had been made for the landlord to pay the resident £450 compensation. This is consistent with failures where there has been no permanent impact. The landlord may deduct the £320 it has offered if this has already been paid.

Other repairs

In her stage 1 complaint of 24 September 2020 the resident reported issues with the communal door closure were ongoing due to “issues with the main entrance door and interphone system.” The landlord’s repair logs show that a works order was raised on 7 April 2020 in response to a report by a neighbour that the communal door was not secure. The works were recorded as complete the following day, 8 April.
The landlord’s repair logs show that the resident reported an issue with the door entry system on 23 April 2020. There are no notes to say what works were carried out but the job is shown as completed the same day, 23 April.
There are no further entries on the repair logs of issues with the communal entrance door reported by the resident. In the absence of any evidence provided by the resident to the contrary, this investigation considers that the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s reports of issues with the communal door entry system.
On 15 July 2022 the resident reported that closer on the communal fire door had been faulty since October 2019. On 15 September the resident confirmed that there was still an issue with the fire door getting stuck. The repairs logs show that a works order was raised on 2 December 2022 following a report from the resident that the latch on the bottom of the internal communal fire door was broken and could not be closed. The landlord attended on 6 December to remove the door, ease and adjust and fit new locks to the top and bottom.
There are no other logs of reports made by the resident since 2019 in relation to the communal fire door. This investigation recognises that landlords require residents to make service requests through appropriate channels to capture and respond to such requests. However, given that the issue raised by the resident related to a communal fire door it would have been appropriate for the landlord to do all it could do ensure a works order was raised as soon as possible. By not doing so there was a delay of 6 months which was inappropriate given its obligations to all the residents in the block.
Furthermore the landlord should undertake regular inspections of all fire doors to ensure it meets its obligations under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. It is therefore inappropriate that the landlord had not undertaken its own inspection during that time and raised the necessary repair itself.
The landlord’s complaint responses lacked clarity. On 24 September and 18 November 2020 the landlord emailed the resident to advise that the repair to the communal door was on hold due to COVID-19. Given that there is no record of repairs being carried out to either door during 2021 it is unclear what repair this relates to. Furthermore, there is no evidence, either from the correspondence or repair logs that it was carried out because the next recorded repair is the one to the fire door in 2022.
It its stage 1 complaint response of 4 August 2022, under the heading of communal fire door, the landlord advised that the last repair raised for the communal door had been attended and works completed. It referred to the door entry system being tested which confirms this repair related to the main communal entrance door, not the communal fire door. This meant that it failed to provide a response to that aspect of the resident’s complaint until its stage 2 complaint response of 10 March 2023 when it set out works completed on 6 December. This was 8 months after the resident first raised her complaint which was an unreasonable delay. Furthermore, the error caused confusion and distress to the resident.
On 9 October 2020 the landlord emailed its contractor to request that when it returned to the property it also confirm if the kitchen unit needed fitting. This followed a report from the resident that it was left dissembled following investigation of a leak. An appointment was made for it to attend on 13 October. The contractor confirmed the kick board was loose and hanging down from works carried out “2 years ago.” It said that it was refitted and secured correctly.
In response to an updating email sent by the landlord on 14 October 2020, the resident replied on 15 October to ask the landlord to inspect and see for itself how the kitchen cabinet was “fixed.” She raised concerns that the contractor was a gas engineer and was therefore not a qualified carpenter. The landlord advised this was not required for this repair. Given that the job was relatively simple by its nature its response was not unreasonable. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. However, it failed to offer to inspect the works as requested by the resident which would have been appropriate given her concerns.
As a result of the landlord’s inaction earlier on in the process, the resident was caused time and trouble when she raised the issue again in her email to the landlord of 15 July 2022. In its stage 2 complaint response of 4 August the landlord said it would inspect which it did on 16 August. It said it could “not find any repair fault to kitchen cupboard units” which were found to be in “very good condition.”
On 9 September 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to chase a date for replacement of the kitchen unit. On 27 September the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that the kitchen cupboards were in good order so the kitchen would not be replaced. Given the findings of the inspection the landlord’s decision was not unreasonable however, the fact that it failed to communicate it to the resident until well over a month later was inappropriate. By not doing so it failed to keep the resident updated and failed to proactively manage her expectations.
On 28 September 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to confirm that the kitchen had suffered further damage since the last inspection. In its email to the resident of 12 October the landlord asked the resident to report any repairs needed to the kitchen. On 14 October the landlord sent an internal email to confirm that the kitchen was not due for renewal through planned works until 2029. However, once again there is no evidence that the landlord communicated this to the resident until its stage 2 complaint response of 10 March 2023, 5 months later, which was inappropriate.
On 15 February 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that it would inspect the kitchen units on 24 February. Its stage 2 complaint response of 10 March said that the inspection concluded that the kitchen units were in good order. However, the landlord raised an order to “overhaul the kitchen base and wall cupboard units.” The landlord has confirmed to this Service that works were completed on 16 June. While there was no detriment to the resident caused by its decision, the reasons for the works were unclear given its findings.
In her stage 1 complaint of 15 July 2022 the resident reported that there had been a “massive” historical leak in her bedroom for 5 years. She said the bedroom got “soaked” in water when it rained. Her carpet had become mouldy and rotten and she had to replace it. She said the floorboards were still affected and needed to be replaced. In its stage 1 complaint response of 4 August the landlord apologised for the intermittent issues which had been attended to by “various contractors” over the past 3 years. It said it would inspect when it visited on 16 August. There is no evidence that the bedroom floorboards were inspected on 16 August which was inappropriate.
In its stage 2 complaint response of 10 March 2023 it said it could not find a record of a report of a leak in the bedroom and asked the resident to make a report to its repairs service. If this was the case it is unclear why this was not communication in the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 4 August. Its response suggested that orders had been raised and that it had visited the property in connection with the issue. Either it had not investigated the matter thoroughly when writing its complaint response or there was a record keeping error, either of which amounted to a failure by the landlord.
Furthermore, the resident did not say there was a current leak, she said there had been a historical leak which had damaged the floorboards and she requested they be inspected. Therefore the landlord’s responses at both stage 1 and stage 2 were inaccurate which was a failure because it had not answered the resident’s complaint.
The failures identified in this report include:
1. Inaction in relation to raising a works order about the communal fire door on the resident’s behalf.
2. Record keeping.
3. It failed to inspect the repair to the kitchen for itself early in the process.
4. It did not communicate effectively with the resident.
These failures amount to maladministration because there were a number of failures which had an adverse effect on the resident. In its stage 1 complaint response of 4 August 2022 the landlord offered £380 compensation of which this investigation considers that £250 was apportioned to repairs not related to the ventilation unit. Considering the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the number and nature of the failures, the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £500 compensation. This is consistent with failures where there has been no permanent impact. The resident may deduct the £250 it has offered if this has already been paid.

Complaint Handling

Section 3 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in place at the time of the complaint required the landlord to set out the complaint response, including the complaint stage and details of how to escalate the matter if the resident remained dissatisfied. Section 4 of the Code required the landlord’s assessment to include what the complaint is about, what evidence is needed to fully consider the issues and what outcome would resolve the matter for the resident.
The stage 1 complaint response issued by the landlord on 24 September 2020 lacked the required level of detail. It failed to set out the complaint stage, the details of the resident’s complaint and the resident’s right to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. The speed with which it responded to the complaint, and the limited scope of the response, suggested it had not taken the time to thoroughly understand the resident’s complaint. It therefore did not undertake an in depth investigation into the issues raised and was unable to offer any meaningful resolution to the issues, including reports of ASB and the electrical repairs.
This suggested to the resident that it did not take her complaint seriously and was not committed to understanding how the issues she reported had impacted on her. She was therefore caused further time, trouble and inconvenience when she escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the process on 21 November 2020.
The resident made a further stage 1 complaint on 8 July 2022 and the landlord provided its response on 4 August. This was 9 working days over its target however, the landlord had appropriately emailed the resident on 21 July to request a 10 day extension.
The response set out actions the landlord had taken in response to her repair requests. It did not identify any specific areas where it had failed to provide a service. It is therefore unclear why it concluded that its service “fell short of acceptable standards.” Furthermore, while it said it identified learning from the complaint, it failed to set out what went wrong and what it would do differently in future to prevent a reoccurrence. This suggests that the landlord had not undertaken a thorough review of the failures to provide a genuine resolution for the resident. The response gave the appearance of being rushed, using key phrases that were not supported by its own evidence.
Section 5 of the Code requires landlords to address all points raised in the complaint (…). The resident’s response to the landlord dated 30 August 2022 expressed her ongoing dissatisfaction, particularly in relation to her reports of ASB which had not been addressed. The landlord emailed the resident on 27 September to advise that ASB was not part of the complaint it had considered. This was because it was not part of the complaint escalated by this Service. The onus was on the landlord to clarify and set out its understanding of the resident’s complaint. Furthermore, given the resident’s email of 15 July it would have been appropriate for it to have contacted the resident to its understanding of the complaint prior to its investigation. That it did not do so was a failure.
The resident was caused frustration, inconvenience, time and trouble when she contacted this Service for advice on 28 September 2022. She emailed the landlord on the same day to follow up regarding her request to escalate her complaint to stage 2, including her reports of ASB. On 12 October the landlord emailed the resident to confirm it had escalated her complaint. It sent a further update on 13 December to say a back log was causing delays with stage 2 complaint responses for which it apologised.
While it was reasonable that the landlord should apologise, it was 44 working days after it had acknowledged the complaint. Therefore its complaint response was already out of time and it was an apology for not doing something, rather than proactively managing the resident’s expectations, which was inappropriate.
Having received no further updates, the resident was caused further inconvenience, time and trouble when she emailed the landlord again on 20 February 2023 to chase its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 10 March. This was 104 days after it acknowledged receipt of the complaint on 12 October.
Complaint handling is a core function for landlords and the Ombudsman expects them to ensure they have resources in place to be able to provide an effective complaint handling response. The reason provided for the lengthy delay was therefore inappropriate. The delay caused additional distress to the resident. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord offered £150 for the delay at stage 2.
There were failures in its stage 1 complaint response of 24 September 2020 and 4 August 2022. The resident had to engage the assistance of this Service to receive a complaint response regarding her dissatisfaction about her reports of ASB. The lengthy delay in its stage 2 complaint response of 10 March 2023 was unreasonable.
The complaint handling failures identified in this report amount to maladministration. There were failures which adversely affected the resident. The landlord has only acknowledged some failings and the compensation offered by the landlord is therefore not proportionate to the failings identified by this investigation. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the landlord learnt from the complaint.
Considering the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £450 for the complaint handling failures. This is in line with a financial remedy where there has been no permanent impact. The landlord may deduct the £150 it has offered if this has already been paid.
Following the Ombudsman’s special report on the landlord it is planning to roll out refreshed complaint handling training and design a programme of regular periodic refresher training. Therefore, it is not necessary to make a further order in this report.

Behaviour and culture

Woven throughout this investigation are themes relating to the landlord’s behaviour and cultures which, as the evidence shows, had a detrimental impact on the resident. There is evidence that the landlord did not consider the resident’s welfare as paramount during its ASB investigation. It failed to communicate effectively with the resident during its response to repairs and at times appeared to be dismissive of the issues raised. Some of its complaint responses were inaccurate and lacked detail. Furthermore, it failed to thoroughly consider the resident’s individual circumstances when deciding how to respond.
An outcome of the Ombudsman’s special report on the landlord was that it should expand its training programme on empathetic resident communication to all staff to ensure that it “communicates with residents with courtesy and respect at all times.” This investigation has also ordered that the landlord review the case against the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on attitudes, rights and respect.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for repairs to the ventilation system.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for other repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident a total of £2000 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £600 for the distress, time and trouble, frustration and confusion caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. £450 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for repairs to the ventilation system. The landlord may deduct the £380 it has offered if this has already been paid.
  3. £500 for the adverse effect caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for other repairs. The landlord may deduct the £250 it has offered if this has already been paid.
  4. £450 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failures. The landlord may deduct the £150 it has offered if this has already been paid.
2. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in the case. It should provide an update on the case review and include an action plan for any next steps which should include a risk assessment and a detailed schedule of any outstanding repairs if any exist. A copy of the letter should be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 4 weeks.
Within 6 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord should carry out a review of the case to identify what went wrong. It should demonstrate its learning by reviewing the case against the Ombudsman’s spotlight reports on noise and attitudes, rights and respect to identify what it will do differently to prevent a reoccurrence of the failures identified. The date and outcome of the review should be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 6 weeks.