London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202211737)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211737

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

20 May 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

  1. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s response to an electrical consumer unit in her property catching fire.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy, which started in February 2010. She lives at the property with her children (the youngest of whom was an older teenager at the time of the incident).
  2. The resident reported an electrical unit fire on 8 January 2022 (a Saturday). The resident has explained that her son had noticed smoke coming from the consumer unit, there had then been an “explosion” and visible flame, at which point the power cut, and her family had evacuated the house and called the fire brigade. The resident has explained that the fire brigade arrived within three minutes, contained the smoke, and subsequently the electric distributor attended and cut off the supply to her home as a safety precaution, which left her without heating or power.
  3. The landlord and resident’s accounts of the events of 8 and 9 January 2022 vary slightly. The resident said she called the landlord’s customer service line on the night of the fire, and waited two and a half hours for it to answer. She said that the landlord told her it would not attend that night, but would attend in the morning. The landlord has explained that it did ask its contractor to attend within four hours of the repair being raised on 8 January 2022, but the contractor did not accept the job that had been raised to it and “failed to attend”. 
  4. The landlord’s records show that its contractor advised it that it tried attending on 9 January 2022, but could not gain access to the property. It reattended in the afternoon, gained access, and identified what parts would be needed for the repair.
  5. Both parties are in agreement that the resident’s electric company attended to fit a temporary meter on 9 January 2022, and asked the landlord to send an electrician to re-connect the electric supply. The landlord has confirmed that it asked its electrical contractor to attend.
  6. The resident chased attendance from the landlord after several hours, and said that the contractor attended at approximately 9pm. The contractor advised the resident and the landlord that it could not repair the meter that day, because it did not have the required parts.
  7. The landlord’s contractor advised it that the “electrical burning” had been caused by “loose terminal connections in the consumer unit and not with the meter installation”.
  8. The resident has explained that her family were left in the “cold and dark” after the contractor’s visit. The resident and landlord spoke in the evening, and the landlord offered the family alternative accommodation in a hotel. The resident has explained that she refused this offer because it was “so late in the evening” and she was “drained”, and the landlord’s call centre noted that she told it she was “going to work” and so “could not decant” (move out temporarily). The landlord said its out of hours team advised the resident to “contact the main office regarding the parts required and the ongoing work needed to the meter” (understood to mean when normal service resumed after the weekend).
  9. The resident said she contacted the landlord again on 10 January 2022, which was a Monday, and after initially saying it would attend within four hours, it later advised her that it would attend on 13 January 2022, at which point she said she “went ballistic”. She has explained that the landlord did make another offer for her family to be accommodated in a hotel, but she declined this after being told she would need to be at her property the next morning to allow access, and that her family would need to check out by 11am.
  10. Both parties have confirmed that the landlord’s contractor attended and re-connected the electric supply on 11 January 2022.
  11. On 27 January 2022 the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. She said she had “repeatedly” told the landlord there was a problem with the electrics in her house, over “years”. She had expected the landlord to offer her family “alternative accommodation” whilst the power supply was cut off. The resident asked for “full financial compensation” for the fire and the “psychological trauma” it had caused.
  12. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 28 January 2022, and:
    1. Advised her that the matter of psychological trauma fell outside its complaint process. It advised her that this would instead need to be dealt with by its insurance team, and explained how she could submit a claim to it;
    2. Confirmed that it would not investigate issues older than six months, and would review “incomplete or outstanding maintenance issues” as far back as “early 2021” rather than the start of her tenancy;
    3. Noted that the resident had told it she had “high utility bills for gas and electric”, and asked the resident to supply it with evidence of these;
    4. Noted that in addition to her complaint about its handling of the electrical safety issues, the resident had reported outstanding “defective drainage work”, “un-level drainage pipe work”, and mice in her property.
  13. The landlord arranged an appointment to inspect the gas pipes on 3 February 2022, which it then rearranged to 4 February 2022 at the request of the resident. The landlord’s contractor confirmed that the gas pipes were found to be safe and the boiler was running “as it should”.
  14. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 22 February 2022. It explained the timeline of events following the electric fire, and committed to arrange a visit from its maintenance surveyor regarding the repairs issues the resident had raised about pipework. It said it had arranged for its pest control specialist to attend, and that it could not assess the resident’s concerns about her utility bills without seeing evidence and an explanation about why the resident felt it was liable (responsible) for these. It acknowledged that the resident had experienced delays and inconvenience in its response, and offered her £120 compensation for this. It offered the resident £240 compensation for the loss of cooking facilities across four days.
  15. On 4 March 2022 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2, and explained that she disputed some of the facts of the case. The resident said she wanted “further compensation” and confirmed she was “in the process” of contacting its insurance team to make a claim. The resident supplied utility bills to the landlord dating back to 2019, along with a report from the electric company regarding its visit on 9 January 2022, which she said had identified problems with the wiring of the meter. She explained she could not afford to pay the fire service for a copy of its report.
  16. The landlord confirmed to the resident that it had escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 15 March 2022, and told her that it could not provide “clear timescales” for a response to be issued, due to “extremely high volumes of stage two escalations” and “high work loads”.
  17. The resident approached this Service in September 2022, after the landlord advised her it was still “dealing with a backlog” of complaints, and was “unable to advise when she will be allocated a stage 2 officer”.
  18. The landlord spoke to the resident on 28 February 2023, as part of its stage 2 complaint investigation. It told her it would issue a stage 2 response by 28 March 2023.
  19. The landlord issued its stage 2 response letter to the resident on 4 March 2023. It apologised for the delay in completing the stage 2 investigation, and acknowledged that its level of service during the power outage had fallen short. It advised the resident that it had decided to implement training for its staff, and revised its offer of compensation to a total of £700, made up of:
    1. £50 for the late stage 2 response;
    2. £120 for distress;
    3. £120 for inconvenience;
    4. £100 for time and effort;
    5. £20 for the missed appointment;
    6. £50 for failures under the right to repair rules;
    7. £240 for loss of power over four days (for six adults).
  20. The landlord reminded the resident that she would need to submit a claim for personal injury or health matters to its insurance team, and explained again how to do this.
  21. It asked the resident to supply it with utility bills so that it could consider “reimbursement”.
  22. During its discussions with the resident about her stage 2 complaint in March 2023, the landlord agreed to inspect a light fitting she was concerned about. It explained that because she had changed the fitting, she would be responsible for the maintenance, but it could install a “basic” light fitting if it found any problems with the wiring. The resident agreed to this arrangement.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident has explained that she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s offer of compensation, and that she felt she should have been compensated more for the distress her family experienced during the fire.
  2. We acknowledge that the resident found the central incident involving the fire to the electrical consumer unit very upsetting, and that she felt the landlord had shown a lack of “care” in its response. We do not issue decisions as to whether residents’ health has been affected by the actions (or lack of) by a landlord, and it is appropriate that the landlord has directed the resident to its insurance team to make a claim regarding personal injury. It acted reasonably in reminding the resident of this throughout the complaint period.
  3. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s responses demonstrated a full engagement with the matters the resident had raised, and that it understood its responsibilities in relation to the safety of the resident’s family.
  4. We are satisfied that the landlord’s policies do allow for temporary accommodation where properties do not have power supplies connected, and costs towards food where cooking facilities are unavailable. Its repairs policies set out provisions for emergency repairs to be attended within appropriate timescales. The landlord has explained that in this case, its contractor did not accept and attend the first emergency appointment on 8 January 2022, and there were delays to it offering temporary accommodation on 9 January 2022.
  5. The landlord acknowledged at both complaint stages that its service had not been to the expected standard, and apologised for this. At stage 2 it identified appropriate additional learning to be taken from the case, and confirmed that it would implement training for its staff.
  6. The landlord put appropriate steps in place to address the ongoing concerns the resident had raised regarding pests, and the overall electrical safety in the property. The evidence we have seen shows that the cause of the fire was quickly identified as loose connections in the consumer unit, and that this was repaired, with some parts replaced. The landlord’s repairs records, which do date back to the start of the resident’s tenancy, support its assessment that it had responded to the reports it had received from the resident regarding electrical issues. It would have been helpful if the landlord had clearly commented on the overall repairs history in its complaint responses, to offer the resident reassurance that it had understood and looked into her concerns. The landlord acted reasonably in arranging for additional inspections in response to her complaint, which was something the resident had requested as part of her suggested complaint resolution.
  7. The resident was concerned that her utility bills were too high, which she suspected could be because the supply was connected to a neighbouring property. The landlord requested that she send in bills to evidence this, which the resident did, but it did not appear to accept these as evidence once it investigated the complaint at stage 2. It was not clear why this was, and it asked the resident to supply copies of her statements again in its stage 2 response, so that it could consider a “reimbursement”.
  8. The root cause of the resident’s concern was that her utilities were not connected properly, which the inspections of the gas pipes and the electric wiring did not find to be the case. The bills that we have seen show that the resident was using a pre-payment meter, and the landlord could have assisted her better if it had reviewed these during its complaint investigation and offered her advice as to how she could investigate different energy tariffs. It should also have been clearer that there were no problems found with the connection of her energy supplies. 
  9. The landlord took a year to respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. The resident could have been saved unnecessary worry if the landlord had carried out its stage 2 investigation, and the associated actions it took to resolve the complaint, in a more timely way. It should look to avoid unreasonable delays in its complaint handling in future, and it has advised us and the resident that it has taken on more staff to achieve this.
  10. The landlord has acknowledged its failings in this case. The resident’s distress is understandable, and the landlord could have done more in terms of addressing her concerns, in particular when she provided her utility bills and by looking at the history of repairs to the property. However, during its consideration of the complaint it has recognised failings in its service, apologised, offered compensation, explained how it would learn from the issues in this complaint, and inspected the property. Taken altogether, these actions, in our opinion, constitute reasonable redress to put things right in this case.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, the landlord has offered a level of redress which, in our opinion, has resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend that the landlord contact the resident to discuss her utility bills and any support or advice it can offer with affordability. This could include the support it sets out on its web page on the cost of living: https://www.lqgroup.org.uk/cost-of-living.