The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202207377)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207377

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

25 August 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of faulty windows, and its associated repairs.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord of a 3 bedroom maisonette.
  2. On 15 March 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to report signs of damp in one of her bedrooms, which she suspected may have been coming from the roof.
  3. In April 2021, the landlord’s contractor attended the property to carry out an inspection. They found that a leak was coming from the resident’s bedroom window, due to it being old and rotten. Subsequently, they confirmed to the resident that a work order had been raised to overhaul the windows in both her bedroom and living room.
  4. On 8 October 2021, the resident called the landlord for an update on the works, as she had received no further update since April 2021. She explained that her bedroom walls were starting to be affected by the leak. The landlord raised a new work order with its contractor for the outstanding window repairs.
  5. On 6 April 2022, the resident contacted the landlord again for an update. The landlord noted that the previous work order had been closed on 10 December 2021, because it had not approved the contractor’s quote for the work in time. It confirmed to the resident that it would raise a new work order with the contractor.
  6. On 13 April 2022, the resident made a stage 1 formal complaint to the landlord, because she was unhappy with the delay in replacing the windows, and with the fact that the work order had been closed in error. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on the same date. It apologised for the delays the resident had experienced, and confirmed its contractor would be in touch with her within 15 working days. After speaking to the resident, it confirmed it would send her £150 in “Love2Shop” vouchers as compensation to recognise the inconvenience, time and effort, lack of communication, and delay in repairs.
  7. On 3 May 2022, the resident contacted the landlord again to tell it the repairs had still not been completed. On 8 June 2022, the resident requested that her complaint be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process because it had not yet replaced her windows.
  8. On 16 August 2022, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint, and confirmed it would send her its stage 2 response by 30 August 2022.
  9. On 2 September 2022, the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It explained that its contractor had provided a quote to it for approval to carry out the required window works, but that it had not approved this in time, and the job was closed by the contractor as a result. The landlord apologised for this, and confirmed it had raised a new work order with the contractor for urgent approval.
  10. Additionally, the landlord apologised for the delays and poor service experienced by the resident. It offered £125 compensation for distress and inconvenience, and a further £150 compensation for poor management and lack of communication with the resident about the repairs. Further, it apologised for the delay in providing her with its stage 2 response, and offered an additional £130 compensation for the delay.
  11. The resident subsequently brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She explained that the landlord had not yet replaced her windows, and that she wanted further compensation for the delays. She also wanted it to fully decorate her bedroom where it had been affected by water leaking.
  12. On 10 January 2023, the landlord raised a work order with its contractor to overhaul the resident’s windows. This was completed on 21 February 2023. The resident’s bedroom was also replastered in March 2023.
  13. On 22 March 2023, the landlord paid the resident an additional £410 compensation to recognise the further delays, lack of communication, time and effort, and distress and inconvenience. Although she told the Ombudsman that she still wanted her windows replaced because she explained that the landlord had only done “patchwork” repairs to them, as her property was in a ”conservation area”, even though it had replaced her neighbours’ windows.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has complained that the landlord only “patchwork” repaired her windows when it had replaced her neighbours’ windows. While this is of concern, this is not currently something that the Ombudsman can investigate. This is because, under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints that are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. As there is no evidence that a complaint from the resident about her windows being repaired instead of replaced has exhausted the complaints procedure yet, as her latest complaint exhausted the procedure before this occurred, this matter is not addressed by this investigation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s faulty windows and associated repairs

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for window repairs. There is no timescale given in its policy for routine repairs. However, it would be expected to carry out any required repairs within a reasonable amount of time.
  2. The resident first reported a suspected leak to the landlord in March 2021. The landlord then had its contractor carry out an inspection in April 2021 which determined a leak was coming from the resident’s bedroom window. In October 2021, the landlord raised a new work order with its contractor to complete the outstanding repairs. Because the landlord did not process the contractors quote for the work correctly, the work order was closed in error. This was not noted by the landlord until the resident called it chasing an update in April 2022.
  3. Following the resident’s call, the landlord confirmed its contractor would contact her within 15 working days. The contractor failed to do this, and after the resident contacted the landlord for a further update, the landlord asked its contractor to re submit its previous quote so it could process it and they could begin the outstanding repair work. Despite this, the work order for an overhaul of the resident’s windows was not raised until January 2023, and there was no clear reason for the delay. This was a failure by the landlord.
  4. Due to the landlord incorrectly processing its contractors quote initially, and subsequent poor communication, the window repairs were unnecessarily delayed, meaning that the resident was left with the problem from March 2021 until the required repairs were completed approximately 2 years later in February and March 2023. This was a significant failure by the landlord, and one that it recognised in its complaint responses to the resident.
  5. In April 2022, the landlord apologised and awarded the resident £150 in “Love2Shop” vouchers to recognise the inconvenience, time and effort, lack of communication, and delay in window repairs. In September 2022, the landlord apologised again and awarded the resident £405 total compensation for distress and inconvenience, poor repairs management, lack of communication, and for the delay in providing its stage 2 response to the resident’s formal complaint.
  6. Between January and March 2023, the landlord completed the outstanding window repairs, and redecorated the resident’s top bedroom. It also awarded the resident a further £410 compensation for further delays, poor communication, and distress and inconvenience. This means the landlord awarded the resident a total of £965 in “Love2Shop” vouchers and compensation for this.
  7. The landlord’s compensation policy says that small amounts of compensation would usually be paid with vouchers, and payment methods can be “Love2Shop” vouchers. The policy also talks about discretionary compensation, but there are no figures given as an example.
  8. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance recommends a range of levels of compensation that can be awarded dependent on the circumstances of a complaint. A range of £600 to £1,000 is recommended for cases where there was failure by the landlord which had a significant impact on the resident.
  9. The landlord repeatedly failed to get repairs completed, demonstrating failure to provide a service it was responsible for, under the terms of its own repairs policy. Its decision to award compensation at the upper end of this range was therefore proportionate given the circumstances of the complaint. It’s decision to award “Love2Shop” vouchers after discussing a resolution with the resident to her stage 1 complaint was also in line with its own compensation policy.
  10. In summary, the landlord caused unnecessary delays in progressing window repairs for the resident, resulting in water damage to a bedroom wall that needed to be fixed. However, the landlords’ subsequent apologies, repairs, and total compensation award of £965, have provided reasonable and proportionate redress for its failure.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its handling of her reports of faulty windows, and its associated repairs satisfactorily.