London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202211385)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211385

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

28 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs following a leak from a neighbouring flat.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. They occupy a two-bedroom flat on the ground floor.
The resident first reported a leak into their bathroom on 17 June 2022. The resident said that brown patches had appeared in the ceiling. On 20 June 2022, the resident rang the landlord who confirmed that an inspection would be completed on the same day. The resident was told to ring back once the leak was fixed to request a repair. A carpenter attended to remove the damaged part of the ceiling but it still needed to be repaired. The resident chased this repair on 19 July 2022 and reported that the leak from upstairs was getting worse. On the 21 July 2022 the resident logged a complaint with the landlord stating that the leak happened every time the flat upstairs used the shower.
The landlord wrote to the resident to acknowledge the complaint and said that the earliest date it could arrange a repair was nearly four months later. On 23 July 2022, the landlord sent its stage 1 response to the resident. That response:
1. Confirmed that a repair request had been raised in respect of the upstairs flat.
2. Advised two repairs had been raised for the resident’s flat:
  1. One for 9 November 2022 to repair the plaster.
  2. One for 10 November 2022 to repair the light in the bathroom.
3. Offered £170 compensation as a gesture of goodwill.
The resident rejected the offer of compensation, saying that the leak was now spreading into the living room wall. The resident said that the landlord had not considered their personal circumstances when determining the complaint and cited General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) as a reason not to provide an update on the leak. On 26 July 2022, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns and escalated the complaint to stage 2 of their procedure.
The resident rang the landlord on 27 July 2022 and 26 August 2022 to chase the repairs. On the second call, the landlord told the resident that their neighbour would need to chase the repair for the leak. On 26 August 2022, the resident contacted this service to escalate their complaint. We wrote to the landlord asking them to respond to the resident’s complaint. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation to stage 2. On 27 September 2022, the landlord wrote its final response to the resident. It said:
1. The repairs were booked in for 9 November 2022 and this was the earliest time available.
2. It could not disclose the date of the repairs to the leak due to GDPR.
3. It offered £355 compensation, broken down as:
  1. £170 as offered at stage 1.
  2. £60 for distress.
  3. £50 for inconvenience.
  4. £75 under the right to repair scheme.
On 3 October 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord. They said that the landlord did not consider their time of work and stress as a result of cleaning wastewater from the bathroom. The resident then reported a “major leak” in their flat on 27 October 2022. There is a record of an emergency plumber being appointed but it is not clear from the landlord’s records if one attended. On 9 November 2022 the landlord’s contractors attended the property. However, the repair could not be completed on this date as the leak in the upstairs flat had not yet been repaired. The landlord told the resident it could not confirm when the leak would be repaired “due to GDPR”.
On 17 November 2022, the resident chased the landlord for an update. The landlord responded a week later to confirm that appointments to complete the repairs had been booked in for February 2023 as the earliest date available. The resident queried this in January 2023, requesting a plan of works. The resident also raised a concern that the electrician had been booked in after the plasterer meaning there would be further repairs required later. In addition, the resident asked the landlord to repair the paintwork damaged by the leak. There is no record of work completed in February, however, the landlord’s records confirm that some work was completed on 1 March 2023. The landlord wrote to the resident on the same day to advise that decorating is the resident’s responsibility and it would do it on this occasion as a “goodwill gesture”. The work to repair the leak upstairs was completed by 15 March 2023 and all other works completed by 5 April 2023. It is not clear whether the works were limited to the bathroom.
The resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s response to their complaint and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate.

Assessment and findings

Repairs

The landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure of the property, as well as internal walls and ceilings. The landlord is also responsible for repairing plasterwork and pipes for the flow of water. The landlord also has an implied responsibility to make repairs caused by its own actions or negligence. The landlord’s repairs policy states:

“We want to provide residents with a reliable, modern and effective repairs service that undertakes repairs for which we have a responsibility to a good standard in a reasonable timeframe.

“For routine day to day repairs, we will aim to complete the repair at the earliest mutually convenient appointment.

“For emergency works, where there is an immediate danger to the occupant or members of the public, we will attend within 24 hours.”

It is not entirely clear what the tenancy status of the resident’s neighbour is, however, based on the landlord’s internal notes it does appear that the landlord had a repair responsibility for the leak which occurred. The landlord attended within a reasonable timeframe to assess the leak, however the actual work to repair the leak did not happen for around 10 months. There is no explanation provided by the landlord for the delay, except that it struggled to arrange a contractor to attend. When contractors did attend, it would appear that on at least two occasions they did not have the correct parts to complete the work, or that other work was required first.
During this time, the resident said they had to deal with repeated inflows of wastewater from the neighbouring flat. The resident reported that:
1. The severity of the leak was increasing and spreading into other rooms and flats.
2. They took time off work due to stress and that they injured themselves attempting to prevent further damage from the leak.
3. Their daughter had to sleep next to a damp wall.
4. The damp meant they had to have the heating on constantly during winter.
We are unable to definitively link any particular health issue with the landlord’s actions. However, we do think that it was unreasonable for the landlord to take over 10 months to repair a leak. Based on the concerns being raised by the resident, it would have been appropriate to consider the leak as affecting their health and safety. Therefore, according to its policy we would have expected the landlord to treat the leak as an emergency repair. Instead, the landlord advised the resident that it could not give out any information about the repair to the leak “due to GDPR”. We think it was unreasonable for the landlord to cite GDPR as the reason for not giving out information. Data protection laws are designed to prevent the inappropriate sharing of personal information. Dates of scheduled repair works is not personal information. We would encourage the landlord to reflect on the explanation it gave to the resident and consult with its Data Protection Officer to ensure that staff understand when it is unable to provide information to residents.
The landlord’s failure to treat the repair to the upstairs flat with the proper urgency led to the damage in the resident’s flat. However, the landlord did not make any effort to contain or prevent this damage. When the resident asked the landlord to repair the paintwork damaged by the leak, the landlord said this was the resident’s responsibility, although it would repair it as a “goodwill gesture”. As the landlord did not treat the repair with the urgency it should have, we consider that the landlord was responsible for repairing the paintwork. This is also the case within the landlord’s compensation policy:

“In the case of damage to customer decorations, we will carry out reasonable redecoration or provide decoration vouchers for the customer to carry out the restitution work themselves, if they prefer.”

We also consider that the landlord was responsible for any other damage caused by the leak, and costs incurred as a direct result of the leak.

The landlord did accept some responsibility for the delay, offering £355 in compensation during the complaints procedure. According to the landlord’s compensation policy, the following should have been considered in their determination:
1. “Where we fail to complete repairs for which we are responsible to agreed response times and not advised customers of any exceptions e.g. structural or supply chain issues, identification of asbestos (not applicable to leaseholders and shared owners except those in the Defects Liability Period).
2. “Where we fail to deal satisfactorily with repairs that are our responsibility, and the customer is continuing to live in poor conditions longer than is reasonable.
3. “Where our negligence with carrying out day-to-day repairs has caused damage to the customer’s home and/or belongings, we will assess each case individually – in most circumstances we would expect the damages to be dealt with by the customer’s home insurance although we may consider discretionary compensation.”
The Housing Ombudsman publishes guidelines for landlords on considerations when offering redress. This includes:
1. Length of time that a situation has been ongoing.
2. Frequency with which something has occurred.
3. Severity of any service failure or omission.
4. Number of different failures.
5. Cumulative impact on the resident.
6. Resident’s particular circumstances or vulnerabilities.

The guidance also says that landlords “must consider whether any statutory payments are due, if any quantifiable losses have been incurred, the time and trouble a resident has been put to as well as any distress and inconvenience caused.”

The landlord seems to have only considered distress and inconvenience, as well as statutory payments. The landlord’s policy did not provide indicative levels of payment it would consider depending on the severity or impact of the failing. There is no indication the landlord considered the resident’s increased heating costs, length of time the situation was ongoing, or the cumulative impact of different failings.
We do not believe that the amount offered by the landlord, fully considered all of the aspects it should have and therefore was not a reasonable offer of redress. Based on the evidence available, we would consider the failing to be serious and the impact on the resident to be severe. We can find no mitigation for the landlord’s inaction following the leak being reported. As such we have made a finding of severe maladministration.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been a finding of severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s flat. This is because it did not treat an uncontrolled leak with the urgency it should have, and failed to consider the damage to the resident’s flat or the impact of this damage on the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

It is hereby ordered that the landlord pay £1200 to the resident, inclusive of the £355 previously offered. This is made up of:
1. £500 for distress and inconvenience caused by the damage.
2. £400 for the length of time the resident had to chase the landlord for repairs.
3. £300 for loss of enjoyment of the property as a result of the damage.
The landlord should reach out to the resident to establish what increased heating costs were incurred as a result of the leak. It should compare utility bills for the period covered in this complaint against similar periods in previous years. It should then pay compensation based on the excess usage over the period of the complaint.
The landlord should offer to repair any outstanding damage caused by the leak, if any remains, and confirm to this service what has been completed.
The landlord should apologise to the resident for matters dealt with in this complaint. It is suggested that the apology come from the Chief Executive.
The landlord should evidence compliance with these orders within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord should review it repairs policy to ensure that reasonable timescales are included for routine repairs. This review should consider the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on repairs, found on our website.
The landlord should review its data protection policy to ensure that GDPR is not cited inappropriately as a reason to not share relevant information with residents.