London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202214632)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214632

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

26 January 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s concerns about the condition of the bathroom walls and the quality of a repair.
2. The resident’s request for reimbursement of costs for repair work she had undertaken.
3. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The property is a 1-bedroom flat. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy started in September 2016.

Scope of investigation

Within the resident’s submission to this Service, she referred to leaks in October 2017, September 2018, and May 2020. Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member landlord within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matter arising.
With the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focussed on the period from November 2021 onwards, which is 6 months before the resident made a formal complaint. Reference to historic events is to provide context only.

Relevant policies, obligations, and laws

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of a property in repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties.
The landlord’s repairs policy states it will only redecorate following a repair where it has an obligation or in exceptional circumstances. It expects a resident to ask permission before carrying out any home improvement work. It confirms it is responsible for splash back bath/shower tiles, grouting, and silicone seals. It is also responsible for repairs to internal walls, plasterwork, airbricks, and vents (when cracked 5+mm or severely crumbled).
The landlord’s repair policy has the following repair timescales:
1. Emergency repair where there is an immediate danger to the occupant or members of the public – 24 hours.
2. Routine day to day repairs – at the earliest mutually agreed appointment.
The handbook titled, ‘your home and your maintenance responsibilities as a tenant’ states, “if you want to make any changes or improvements to your home (including drilling into walls or ceilings) then you must ask our permission.” It also says repairs must be reported promptly.
The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints policy. It aims to respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1. At stage 2, it aims to respond within 20 workings days. If additional investigation time is needed, a further 10 working days is available at both stages providing the resident is kept informed.

Summary of events

The resident informed this Service that she experienced leaks from the property above in October 2017, September 2018, and May 2020.
The resident said a repair to the ceiling beading was scheduled for 29 October 2021; however, an inspection took place instead.
It was recorded on the landlord’s system that a text message was sent to the resident on 18 November 2021. The resident said another assessment rather than a repair took place on this date and the repair was subsequently booked for 4 January 2022.
On 4 January 2022, the resident said the landlord filled the holes and cracks in the beading and repainted the area. The Ombudsman has not been provided with evidence to show what took place on 4 January 2022.
The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 10 April 2022 via its online complaint form. She said:
1. She was complaining about the repairs completed around 3 months ago. It was unacceptable how the repair was done. She provided photos of said repair.
2. She was concerned about the condition of the walls of the bathroom under the tiles.
3. She tried to clean the grout with professional chemicals, but the mould did not go.
4. No one had checked the condition of the wall after it was flooded at least 5 times within the past 4 years from the upstairs property.
5. She was worried the walls were rotten and hazardous, and wanted them inspected as soon as possible.
The resident received an automated acknowledgement the same day. The message said if it was an emergency, or she needed assistance urgently to call the customer service centre. The phone number was provided.
The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the resident contacted the customer service centre to raise an emergency repair request.
The landlord called the resident on 11 April 2022. Its records from the call said the resident discussed arranging her own contractor. It issued its stage 1 response the same day and said:
1. It had raised a repair request to investigate the resident’s report of mould and asked for its sub-contractor to contact the resident as soon as possible. It provided a direct contact number for the sub-contractor.
2. It arranged for a tiler to inspect the tiles. The earliest appointment available was on 1 June 2022.
3. The resident was responsible for the internal decorations, and it provided a copy of a booklet explaining the resident’s responsibilities. It offered a £75 decorating voucher as a gesture of goodwill.
4. If the resident wanted to arrange her own contractor, she would need to go through the landlord’s home improvement process and she would be responsible for any further repairs/replacement of the tiles throughout the duration of her tenancy. It provided a link to the home improvement request form.
5. It would monitor the complaint until the repairs had been completed.
On 11 April 2022, the resident emailed the landlord and said according to its website she did not need written consent for tiling. She asked the landlord to clarify its position. The landlord responded the same day to confirm if she wanted to replace the tiles herself, she needed to complete the home improvement form on its website.
The home improvement form has the following disclaimers:
1. I will be responsible for the repair and the upkeep of the improvement.
2. I agree that any cost and expenses incurred will be borne to myself.
3. I agree to cover all costs associated with the works, including any surveyor’s fees that may be required during and after completion.
The landlord said the home improvement form was submitted by the resident on 13 April 2022. A copy has not been provided to this Service.
The resident’s contractor invoiced her on 18 April 2022 for £1284. The works described were removing old tiling, tiling, materials, and plasterboard.
The resident contacted the landlord on 20 April 2022. She said:
1. She had not heard back following submission of her home improvement form.
2. Considering the hazardous situation and urgent need for repairs, in addition to her experience of previous repair work, she had the bathroom repaired.
3. She provided photos of before and after.
4. She asked for reimbursement of £1284.
The landlord called the resident on 27 April 2022. It said as she used her own contractor to carry out the retiling repair in the bathroom, without permission and not following the correct procedures, a surveyor would need to assess the work.
The surveyor attended on 28 April 2022. The surveyor said that tiling had been carried out by resident and the toilet, floor and bath taps had been replaced. The landlord would only be responsible for the basin, basin taps, bathtub and the fan which were original.
The landlord issued a revised stage 1 on 4 May 2022. It summarised the previous response and said:
1. Following the inspection on 28 April 2022, the surveyor said the bathroom wall tiling, flooring, toilet, and bath taps had been replaced. As such, the resident would be responsible for any future repair or replacement of these items.
2. The landlord would continue to repair the bathroom basin, basin taps, bathtub (excluding taps) and extractor fan.
3. The resident did not allow the landlord sufficient time to process the home improvement application, or to assess the tiling. As such, it would not reimburse the works carried out by her private contractor.
4. As part of the home improvement process, it was the resident’s responsibility to solely fund the works, and not something the landlord would reimburse or contribute to.
The resident escalated her complaint on 11 May 2022. She said:
1. She does not agree that it was a home improvement case. She considered it an emergency as the walls under the tiles were rotten due to the water leak, creating mould and damage to the property. She also said it was a health hazard.
2. She had reported the bathroom flood in October 2017, September 2018, and May 2020 but the property had not been inspected.
The landlord escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2 on 12 May 2022. It advised the resident that there was a backlog, and she would be contacted when the complaint was allocated.
The resident chased the landlord for an update twice in June 2022. She was updated in July 2022.
The landlord contacted the resident on 10 January 2023 to confirm the complaint was allocated at stage 2. The landlord discussed the complaint with the resident via telephone on 11 January 2023.
The stage 2 response was issued on 23 January 2023. The landlord summarised the chronology of events and the stage 1 response. It said:
1. It did not fail in its provision of service to the resident and had adhered to its obligations as a landlord.
2. As the resident did not allow the landlord sufficient time to process the application for home improvements or assess the tiling, it would not reimburse the invoice from the resident’s private contractor.
3. It offered £160 compensation comprised of:
  1. £120 for the delay responding to the complaint.
  2. £40 for the resident’s time and effort.
The resident referred her complaint to this Service on 26 January 2023. She said the work completed by her contractor was limited to that stated in the invoice. She said her contractor did not replace the taps, toilet, or flooring and she had evidence these were replaced prior to April 2022. This evidence has not been provided to this Service. It is unclear whether this has been shared with the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this, the Ombudsman investigates whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the bathroom walls and the quality of a repair

In line with general practice and the resident’s responsibility handbook, the onus was on the resident to report repair issues affecting their property for which the landlord was responsible.
The resident said she considered the repair to be an emergency due to the potential hazard to her health. However, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that she contacted the customer service centre to report an emergency repair when prompted to do so after submitting an online complaint form.
Following the resident’s report of mould within a property, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to conduct an inspection to understand the extent of the problem, the probable cause, and decide an appropriate course of action or whether a specialist damp survey was required.
The Ombudsman recognises the landlord acted with an appropriate level of urgency to arrange for a specialist to investigate the mould. It told the resident the inspection would take place as soon as possible and provided the contact number for the specialist so the resident could follow up if she required.
The resident’s complaint to the landlord focused on the condition of the wall beneath the tiles. The work order raised regarding this asked the contractor to investigate the resident’s bathroom tiles and assess the damage caused from a previous leak. This was fair and reasonable.
The Ombudsman notes the landlord offered the resident £75 in decorating vouchers in response to her concerns about the quality of a repair that it had recently undertaken following a leak to the property. Although the resident was responsible for internal redecorations under the repairs policy, it would have been more appropriate for the landlord to examine the works it had completed and check if they were of an acceptable standard. Although it is possible this would have been reviewed as part of the damage assessment, the Ombudsman is of the view that consideration of the previous repair should have been specified within a work order. This would have demonstrated that the landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously, thus improving the landlord/resident relationship.
Although the above is considered a failure in service, it did not have a significant impact on the substantive issue or adversely affect the resident. This is because the resident arranged the repairs herself shortly after and the work orders were cancelled. Nonetheless, the Ombudsman has made a finding of service failure to recognise the landlord’s omission.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for reimbursement of costs for repair work she had undertaken

Prior to carrying out any alterations to a property, the resident was required to gain permission from the landlord. Records indicate the landlord advised the resident of the process on at least 3 occasions, verbally and in writing. This information was also contained within the landlord’s repair policy and the handbook referenced in paragraph 8. As such, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord fairly explained its position to the resident.
This Service has not had sight of the landlord’s home improvement policy. The Ombudsman reviewed the weblink provided by the landlord regarding home improvements. This information is in the homeowner section of its website. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to review how this information is presented to assured tenants online. Nonetheless, the evidence available demonstrates the landlord made the resident aware that permission was required for home improvements and that she would be liable for any costs incurred.
If a resident decided to proceed with repairs independently and incurred repair costs, they would need written confirmation that the landlord agreed to reimburse said costs in advance, otherwise they cannot rely on the landlord refunding any expenditure. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord agreed to the costs contained within the invoice from the resident’s contractor.
Whilst it is a fundamental part of the Ombudsman’s role to consider whether a landlord has acted appropriately, this will often necessitate consideration of how the residents own actions may have contributed to the situation. This is an example of the Ombudsman’s independent and impartial role in practice, as this Service considers the conduct of both parties and the impact on the substantive issue.
The landlord said the home improvement form was submitted on 13 April 2022. The resident’s invoice was dated 18 April 2022. The Ombudsman notes 15 April 2022 and 18 April 2022 were bank holidays. This demonstrates the landlord did not have a reasonable amount of time to action the repairs or consider the home improvement form.
The Ombudsman is not questioning the reasons why the resident did not wait for the landlord to inspect the damage or for a response from the home improvement team. The Ombudsman appreciates the resident was concerned about the condition of her bathroom and the presence of mould. Nonetheless, the landlord would not typically be accountable for the costs incurred by the resident because she chose to carry out the repairs through a private contractor, without informing or giving the landlord a reasonable chance to do so.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The resident complained on 10 April 2022. The stage 1 response was issued on 11 April 2022, with a revised stage 1 on 4 May 2022 following a surveyor’s inspection. The complaint was escalated on 11 May 2022. The stage 2 response was issued on 23 January 2023, 36 weeks later.
The landlord failed to follow its complaint policy which resulted in a protracted process. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) is applicable to all member landlords. It specifies a stage 1 complaint should be finalised in 10 working days, with no more than a further extension of 10 working days. A stage 2 complaint should be finalised within 20 working days, with a further extension of 10 working days if required. These time frames should not be exceeded without good reason. The Code serves to illustrate that this complaint was kept open for an unreasonable duration at stage 2.
It is evident the resident took time and trouble chasing the landlord and contacting this Service for help getting a final complaint response. The landlord’s actions here were not reasonable and caused inconvenience to the resident.
Under the dispute resolution principles, it is good practice for a landlord to evidence learning from a complaint. The Ombudsman expects a landlord to identify learning points and outline specific actions to ensure similar service failures will not occur in the future. At stage 2, no learning was identified, despite the landlord apologising for delays and offering compensation. The Ombudsman is minded that the landlord should have done more to reference specific learning from the resident’s experience to improve its future complaints handling.
The landlord acknowledged its shortcoming in its complaint handling, apologised for it, and made an offer of redress. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance would consider an offer of £160 compensation appropriate where there has been a failure that, “may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant”. The offer of £160 compensation for the landlord’s handling of this complaint and the resident’s time and trouble is therefore reasonable, as issuing a stage 2 response sooner was unlikely to have had a significant impact on the overall outcome.
The amount offered to the resident considering the landlord’s failure was reasonable and in line with what the Ombudsman would expect in such circumstances.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the bathroom walls and the quality of a repair.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for reimbursement of costs for repair work she had undertaken.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord acted appropriately by raising work orders to investigate the reports of mould and the condition of the bathroom. However, it would have been reasonable to include a review of the previous repair within its work order. This would have improved the landlord/resident relationship and demonstrated that the landlord took the resident’s concern seriously.
The landlord provided information on several occasions about seeking permission for home improvements. The landlord was therefore not responsible for the costs incurred by the resident because she chose to carry out the repair works through a private contractor without permission from the landlord or any agreement over costs.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response outside of its published timeframe, and the timeframe expected under the Code. However, the landlord recognised the impact this had on the resident. It apologised and offered appropriate redress.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to contact the resident to discuss her comment that the bathroom taps, flooring, and toilet were replaced prior to April 2022. The landlord must ascertain which party replaced these items and confirm its position regarding its future repair responsibility over these items.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above order to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

It is recommended for the landlord to pay £160 compensation to the resident if it has not done so already.
It is recommended for the landlord to review how its webpage and form for home improvements is presented to assured tenants as opposed to homeowners.
The landlord should let us know its intentions in relation to the above recommendations within 4 weeks of the date of this report.