London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202212868)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212868

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

30 November 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s concerns about the glass balconies near his home.
2. The subsequent complaint.

Background

The resident is a shared owner under a lease that commenced on 3 May 2016. The property is a one-bedroom ground floor flat.
The development has a series of glass balconies that line the upper floors of the outer flats. Some of the glass balconies are directly above gardens and entrances to the development. The resident’s property has an entrance with a pathway directly in front of the doorway to his property and a communal path that leads underneath some of the glass balconies, which are situated to the right of the resident’s entrance.
On 27 April 2020, the landlord reported that a glass panel of the development spontaneously shattered. In response it instructed a contractor to erect scaffolding around the affected properties and the associated balconies whilst investigations took place into the cause of the shattering. The landlord commissioned specialist surveyors to assess and report on the cause of the spontaneous shattering and undertake a risk assessment for preliminary and long-term risks.
The landlord also undertook its own site risk assessments and identified that further scaffolding was needed for balconies above two floors that were situated over entrances. By 17 September 2020 all the balconies on the development had netting and scaffolding erected as a preventative measure.
Between 29 May 2020 and 30 March 2021, the landlord issued 6 letters to residents on the development which explained its investigations and intended actions; as well as supplying monthly newsletters to resident’s updating them of the investigations and intended progress.
The resident raised his concerns about health and safety measures in or around January 2022, however he said he did not receive a response. His concerns were:
1. health and safety concerns as no scaffolding or netting had been erected over the entrance to his property
2. there was scaffolding over some entrances without balconies above
3. for his safety should one of the glass balconies to the right of his home spontaneously shatter.
On 1 August 2022, the resident complained to the landlord that it had not responded to his concerns. On 16 September 2022 the landlord responded, after the involvement of this service. The landlord’s response stated: “I have addressed your complaint at stage one of our complaints procedure and am writing to uphold your complaint”. The email then also stated: “I have been contacted by the Housing Ombudsmen regarding your recent complaint. I can see by our records that no repair has been raised for the balcony glass, neither have there been any previous complaints regarding this matter”.
The resident escalated his complaint on 20 September 2022, as he felt the matter has not been investigated or considered properly. He received a further informal response from the landlord on the same day which partly upheld his complaint because of the delays experienced. It did not uphold the substantive complaint about the lack scaffolding over his home. It offered the resident £40 for the delays in relation to its complaint handling.
The resident escalated his complaint again on 21 September 2022 and on several occasions after this. The landlord’s final response was issued on 4 December 2022. It partly upheld his complaint and apologised for its poor communication, the delays in responding to his query and the subsequent complaint. However, it did not uphold the resident’s complaint on the substantive issue of the health and safety precautions relating to the lack of scaffolding above the entrance to his home.
In addition to the apology the landlord offered £440 to the resident during the formal complaints process. This was calculated as:
1. £40 offered for the delays at stage 1
2. £50 offered for the delay in escalating the complaint at stage 2
3. £250 in recognition of all communication and delays experienced during this period
4. £100 in recognition of any distress experienced including the time and effort in bringing the complaint.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s concerns about the glass balconies near his home

The landlord was made aware of that the glass balconies were spontaneously shattering on the resident’s development on 24 April 2020, 15 May 2020, and 20 June 2020. In response the landlord attended the developments within 24 hours of the reports. This was appropriate.
It erected scaffolding and safety netting onwards from 26 May 2020 to 26 June 2020 to balconies two stories up and those backing onto the main road. Between 12 September 2020 and 17 September 2020 all balconies were scaffolded and netted across the developments. All the balconies were replaced and signed off in February 2023 and no further incidents of shattering occurred between July 2020 and November 2020.
The Ombudsman considers that the landlord acted in accordance with its repair responsibilities by making safe the balconies most at risk by erecting scaffolding to the first and second levels across the development and later to all the balconies. Therefore, no fault can be found in how the landlord approached the initial safety planning measures.

The landlord’s consideration of the risk

The landlord commissioned various reports about the balconies. The advice relevant to the resident’s concerns was provided by specialists on the following dates:
1. 16 July 2020 – the report recommended netting as a protective measure against further failures and additional testing to find the cause of the spontaneous shattering.
2. During this time and after this report the landlord erected scaffolding and netting as a preventative measure over targeted balconies on the development. This was appropriate as it was consistent with the specialist advice it had received.
3. On 11 March 2021- a glass specialist stated that:
  1. balconies over the garden area carried a medium risk of injury
  2. balconies directly over publicly accessible streets carried a high risk of injury
  3. the glass panes were designed to break in a specific way as opposed to ‘clumping’ meaning that the specialists indicated that superficial damage was likely as opposed to greater injury
  4. the landlord should consider building a canopy to catch the bulk of any falling fragments.
The landlord carried out a review of the scaffolding at the development on or around 21 April 2021. At the same time, it addressed the residents’ concerns about how to let extra light into their homes and maintain safety whilst the scaffolding was in place.
The landlord concluded from the expert reports that 1% of then panels across the estate could fail over their lifespan. It said that 12 specific balcony panels were identified as existing with the same type of those that shattered. These balconies were checked during September and October 2022 as well as scaffolding and netting erected previously to ensure these were contained.
The Ombudsman considers that the above demonstrates the landlord consulted experts and considered the safety planning to mitigate the risk to its customers, including the resident. That was appropriate in the circumstances.

The landlord’s communication with the resident

The Ombudsman expects landlords to respond to reasonable requests for information both accurately and in a timely manner.
The resident was concerned that he had been treated different to other resident’s because there was scaffolding erected above entrances, other than his own, which did not have balconies directly above them. The landlord explained to this service that the scaffolding was erected to deal with an unrelated fire safety concern and not the glass shattering.
The Ombudsman can find no evidence that the resident’s property was treated differently to other properties across the development in relation to the spontaneous shattering of the balcony panels. However, the failure to communicate the reason for the alternative scaffolding to resident is a service failure. This would have exacerbated the resident’s concerns that he was not being protected to the same extent as other resident’s.
The resident queried the health and safety measures in place as early as June 2022. However, there is also evidence that the resident was unhappy with the presence of scaffolding to the rear of his property in July 2022.
The landlord explained to the resident that the reason scaffolding was not placed above his entryway was because the balconies were to the right of his property and not directly over it. Additionally, there is evidence of the landlord signposting the resident to a newsletter providing an update on the landlord’s investigations.
The landlord also said at the time the scaffolding had not been erected over the resident’s entrance because there had been no instances of shattering panels near his property. This was incorrect as a panel had shattered into a garden of a property close to his home. Although it does appear that scaffolding was placed in the resident’s garden, this service can not be certain of the reason for this.
Nevertheless, the inaccuracy of this information would have caused the resident to question the landlord’s rationale about the safety measures in place because it did not seem to be aware of all the locations of the glass panels that had shattered. It is clear the resident felt that he was being treated differently to others across the development and that is understandable.
The resident felt he was not given the same protection as other residents in the same position as him. That is to say properties without balconies directly above them who had the benefit of scaffolding. Although the balconies were in place for a different reason (fire safety), the resident was not informed of this at the time. So, it is understandable the resident felt that he was being treated differently to others across the development.
The Ombudsman considers that the response to the resident’s specific concerns were delayed. The response itself was reasonable having consideration to the context of the surveyor’s recommendations and the risk assessments carried out. However, given the context of the communications to the resident, the scaffolding placement above other indirect entrances and inaccurate information provided about the location of the shattered glass, it was clear that the resident’s concerns were not answered fully. This caused ongoing uncertainty and distress to the resident and is a service failure.
The landlord did, however, offer £440 compensation to the resident. £250 of this was for the way it communicated with him during this period. The Ombudsman considers the £250 offered to be fair to recognise the impact of its poor communication.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy states that:
1. stage 1 complaints will be acknowledged in no longer than 5 working days
2. stage 1 complaints will have a written decision in 10 working days of logging the complaint
3. stage 2 complaints will have a final written decision within 20 working days of the request to escalate.
The resident first raised a formal complaint on 1 August 2022 in a joint email to the landlord and the developer. Under its policy, the landlord ought to have provided its stage 1 complaint response no later than 15 August 2022.
In the absence of a response, the resident approached this service for further support. On 16 September 2022, this service instructed the landlord to provide its stage 1 complaint response.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 16 September 2023 which was 34 working days after the resident raised his complaint. The landlord said that it had not received a formal complaint from the resident until this service contacted it. Between 4 August 2022 and 15 September 2022, the resident chased the landlord for a formal response on 8 occasions. This was not appropriate, as it was not consistent with the landlord’s complaint handling policy.
At stage 1 the landlord apologised for any trouble caused, however it also said that it had not received any reports of repair or complaint from the resident.
The Ombudsman considers the stage 1 response was inadequate and confusing. It was not sufficiently clear about what it had investigated or why the complaint was being upheld.
The resident escalated the complaint on 20 September 2022 because he felt that the landlord had not fully considered the breadth and context of his complaint. He also requested clarity on the stage of the complaint. The landlord responded the same day:
1. it apologised that it had not answered his complaint sooner as it thought that ongoing discussions with a staff member had progressed and dealt with his query
2. it said that the resident had not accepted the explanation provided by the staff member and apologised for the lack of formal response
3. it explained that scaffolding was erected over the balconies in the block that were directly over entrances as a preventative measure and that there were no instances of failure to those balconies in the resident’s block which is why it had not been erected for the balconies close to the resident
4. the decision to remediate all the balconies had commenced and to do that it required access to the resident’s home
5. it apologised for the lack of formal response and offered £40 for this and its poor communications.
The evidence shows that the landlord regarded this to be a formal response at stage 1. However, the response fails to encompass the necessary elements as set out in the Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) for complaint responses because it did not detail:
1. the complaint stage
2. the complaint definition
3. the decision on the complaint
4. the reasons for any decision made
5. details of how to escalate the matter.
Although the evidence shows that the resident was communicated with by another staff member about the health and safety measures in place between 29 June 2022 and 17 August 2022, it also shows that the resident was seeking a formal response alongside these communications. These requests were put in writing and clear, and the landlord had told the resident that his concerns were passed on to senior management on 17 August 2022. However, there is no evidence that this happened. The Ombudsman considers this was a missed opportunity to deal with the resident’s concerns formally at an early stage.
The resident requested a further escalation on 21 September 2022. He made that request on a further3 occasions alongside seeking to confirm the stage of his complaint. He felt that there were inaccuracies in the response.
The landlord passed the complaint to another member of staff on 26 September 2022 who tried to call the resident. However, the resident had already stated on 4 August 2022 that he required a response in writing. The Ombudsman considers this was a failure of the landlord to consider the resident’s preferences for contact.
On 19 October 2022 the landlord said it would be responding again at stage 1 as it would like the opportunity to share its findings. The landlord then assigned the complaint to a different member of staff to respond to the resident at stage 1. This was inappropriate as the landlord had already provided its stage 1 response and it should have escalated the complaint to the next stage of its complaint process.
This service also contacted the landlord requiring them to escalate and formally respond to the resident at stage 2. It then acknowledged the resident’s complaint at stage 2 on 22 November 2022 and started its investigations internally.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to be able to identify and handle complaints in a timely manner, without the involvement of this service. The landlord provided its complaint responses at each stage, only after instruction to do so from this service, which should not have been necessary.
The landlord’s final response was issued on 4 December 2022 and stated:
1. there was no risk to the resident’s health and safety
2. a query/complaint was not raised until late August 2022
3. its statement that there had been no incidents of shattering balconies by the resident’s home was incorrect. However, it had taken adequate actions and safety measures
4. it was sorry for:
  1. its communications and responses by members of staff at stage 1
  2. attending his property unannounced
  3. the delay in responding at stage 2
  4. giving incorrect information about shattered glass near his home
The Ombudsman considers that:
1. the landlord did not respond to the resident in the timeframes set out in its policy and the Code
2. it failed to communicate any delays in communicating its responses
3. it failed to escalate his complaint and provide him with simple information such as the progress of his complaint and the respective complaint stage
4. it did not respond to the entirety of the resident’s complaint as it did not address the differences in the scaffolding erected over some entrances.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. This caused the resident additional distress and inconvenience as well as the time and trouble of chasing the complaint.
Having considered all the evidence, this service believes that the £40 offered to account for the delays at stage 1 is insufficient to address the failures found during this investigation for this part of the complaint process.
The Ombudsman considers that an additional £150 would be sufficient to recognise the full impact of the landlord’s failures on the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress in relation to its handling of the resident’s query about the glass balconies near his home.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to, within 28 days of the date of this determination:
1. Offer the resident an apology for the failures identified in this case.
2. Pay the resident an additional £150 for the impact of the failings identified in its complaint handling. This is in addition to any payment already made to the resident during the complaint process.
3. Pay the resident the £440 offered during the complaint process if it has not already done so.
4. Provide this service with evidence of compliance with the above orders.