London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202213502)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213502

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

30 September 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:
    1. the resident’s repair to his boiler; and
    2. the subsequent complaint.

Background

  1. The resident occupies a property under a fixed term assured shorthold tenancy that commenced on 30 April 2018. The property is a ground floor flat with one bedroom. The resident notified this service that he has a mental health condition.
  2. The resident reported that his boiler was not working to his landlord on 1 February 2021. He said that the boiler had left him without heating or hot water and that he had been unable to stay on the property because it was too cold. Between 1 February 2021 and 8 August 2022, the resident reported his boiler was not working on at least 12 occasions. The landlord arranged 5 appointments to fix the boiler which was repaired on 17 August 2022.
  3. In the meantime, the resident called the landlord on 9 August 2022 to raise a complaint about the way it had handled the repairs because of the delay, and appointments being missed by operatives, and he asked for compensation for the loss of amenities. It acknowledged his complaint and called him on the same day.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 19 August 2022 and apologised for the delay in its repair services. In recognition of the resident’s frustration, it offered him £360 compensation. The resident declined this offer and requested an escalation on the same day because he felt the compensation did not address the length of time of the delay.
  5. The landlord issued its final response on 22 August 2022. It said that the boiler had been repaired and apologised for the delay. It also said that it had incorrectly calculated the compensatory payment at stage 1 and offered £720 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience, loss of service as well as for his time and effort. The resident remained dissatisfied and referred the complaint to this service.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s boiler repair.

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy details that emergency works will be attended to within 24 hours to lower the immediate risk and any follow-on repair will be completed at the earliest mutually convenient appointment. It also states that routine day-to-day repairs aim to be completed in an average of 25 calendar days.
  2. The resident first reported his boiler was not producing heating and hot water on 1 February 2021. He went on to report the issues he was experiencing with his boiler a further 11 times before a permanent fix was found. He also notified the landlord on 4 January 2022 that he was no longer staying in the property because it was too cold and because of other issues within the property.
  3. The resident told this service that because of the length of time the boiler remained unrepaired, he stayed with family and friends which ultimately led to increased stress on his support network and made it difficult for him to access support for his mental health. This was due to his support networks living further away from where his practitioner appointments were taking place. The resident told this service that he had told the landlord that his mental health had deteriorated to such a point that he wanted to take his own life. This, he feels, is the only reason the landlord went on to fix the boiler repairs.
  4. The Ombudsman was not provided with the relevant repair assessments, meaning that it is unable to determine the landlord’s assessment of the boiler or its proposed repair schedule. There is no evidence that the landlord tried to mitigate the impact of the loss of amenity to the resident. Additionally, there is no evidence that the landlord considered the resident’s mental health vulnerabilities in its approach, even though it had noted on its repair logs that he was vulnerable.
  5. The landlord made 5 appointments to fix the boiler between 2 February 2021 and 17 August 2022. All the scheduled appointments were within 1-2 days of the reporting dates. However, the evidence shows 6 reports were not actioned, although it is noted these reports were made via text to an officer’s work mobile rather than through its website or telephone contact centre.
  6. The landlord resolved the boiler repair on 17 August 2022. The landlord took 562 calendar days to permanently resolve disrepair that led to the intermittent loss of heating and hot water. Whilst the resident was not without heating or hot water for the entirety of this period, there was an unreasonable delay in offering a full and effective repair, for which the landlord was responsible.
  7. It would have been fair and reasonable for the landlord to have identified a recurring theme with the boiler reports and to mitigate the resident’s loss of amenity through the provision of temporary heaters or considering further support through its decant policy. Had the landlord resolved the recurring issues with the boiler within a reasonable time, this would have mitigated the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the subsequent complaint.

  1. In its stage 1 acknowledgement to the resident, the landlord listed the scope of the complaint as “missed appointments, boiler repair and compensation”. When it issued its stage 1 response it only detailed ‘boiler repair’ and apologised for the “delays and difficulties experienced with repair and maintenance services.”
  2. The landlord’s complaint procedure states that a decision must detail all aspects of the complaint and offer an escalation to stage 2 in writing. The Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”), states that a complaint handler must consider all information and evidence carefully.
  3. Although the resident complained to the landlord about operatives missing appointments, it did not provide its investigation findings or rationale about this part of the complaint. The landlord did not provide details relating to its appointments. The evidence reviewed as part of this investigation was provided through the resident’s appointment confirmations.
  4. The Ombudsman expects landlords to have adequate records to rely upon to be able to address complaints and learn from outcomes. Reviewing the appointment confirmations would have enabled the landlord to have responded to all the complaint issues raised. As it did not, the landlord failed to properly consider the complaint and the impact on the resident.
  5. As the landlord’s findings were not fully explained, the breakdown of the compensation awarded was unclear and did not fully recognise the impact on the resident. This also meant the landlord could not learn from outcomes.
  6. A clear and reasoned complaint response is important to ensure that residents feel their concerns have been taken seriously and thoroughly investigated. The Ombudsman would expect that the response would have detailed the nature of the inconvenience, distress and time and effort that it offered compensation for.
  7. Additionally, the response did not offer an escalation to stage 2 of the complaints process. This was a failure to comply with the Code.  Although the resident was aware of his right to escalate his complaint, the Ombudsman expects escalation rights to be included in all complaint responses.
  8. When the resident escalated his complaint, he told the landlord that he was unhappy with the compensation offer. This was because he felt that the length of time the issues with his boiler had been ongoing had not been considered. In its stage 2 response, the landlord did address the primary reason for the complaint, namely the length of time the repair remained outstanding. Although the response included a compensation review, it did not provide enough detail to demonstrate its offer of compensation was fair in all the circumstances.
  9. Overall, both complaint responses issued to the resident were unclear, and unspecific and did not provide sufficient detail of its findings or how it calculated the compensation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s boiler repair.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s subsequent complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to, within 28 days of the date of this determination:
    1. write an apology to the resident specifically acknowledging the failures found as part of this investigation into the resident’s boiler repairs.
    2. pay the resident £1,200 compensation to recognise the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the time taken to fully repair the boiler from 1 February 2021 to 17 August 2022 (18 months). This takes into account that part of the period was winter months and issues with the appointments. This replaces the landlord’s offer.
    3. £150 for the failures identified with its complaint handling.
    4. provide this service with evidence of compliance with the above orders.