London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202221313)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202221313

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

24 August 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 response to concerns about:
   1. the suitability of a new hand wash basin installed in the property;
   2. water damage caused by a slow leak resulting from the hand wash basin installation, and;
   3. complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident has lived in a 3 bedroomed house since 2005. She has an assured tenancy agreement with the landlord.
3. The resident reported a crack in her wash hand basin to the landlord. The landlord advised the cost of this repair was likely to be recharged to the resident, which she accepted, and the repair was organised.
4. While the operative was at her property, the resident alleges she complained the new basin was too shallow and too low, it is alleged the operative said a new basin and pedestal would be ordered and fitted. Once the basin had been used a slow leak was discovered. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord once she discovered this and when she became aware the basin was not being replaced.
5. The landlord did not uphold the complaint but acknowledged service failures and made an offer totalling £100, made up of £30 for inconvenience, £20 for time and effort, and £50 for the delayed complaint response. The resident remains dissatisfied and brought her complaint to this service.
6. The resident would like a deeper and larger wash hand basin to be fitted.

Assessment and findings

7. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only 3 principles driving effective dispute resolution:
   1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes;
   2. put things right, and;
   3. learn from outcomes.
8. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the leaseholder. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.

The suitability of a new hand wash basin installed in the property.

9. The tenancy agreement states the resident must make good any damage to fixtures and fittings caused by her and to pay any associated repair costs incurred by the landlord. The landlord’s repairs policy states it will carry out rechargeable repairs if a lack of repair would cause damage to the property.  The landlord’s component renewal procedure states prior to approval any renewal request needs to be inspected by a supervisor and then authorised by the team manager.
10. In line with the tenancy agreement and the repairs policy the landlord agreed to carry out the repair and the resident agreed to the recharge.
11. The resident complained the new basin was too shallow and too low, the landlord advised it was a standard size. The landlord confirmed the basin has been set on the same pedestal and meets the splash back tiles at the same height as the previous basin. This service has not seen any evidence to support either position, but it is accepted, while the landlord should try to ensure replacements are like for like, this is not always possible. The landlord has provided a basin which is in a reasonable standard of operation. Therefore, this service finds the landlord has fulfilled its obligation.
12. The resident alleged she was promised a new basin by the landlord’s operative. The landlord has no record of this conversation, and in line with its component renewal procedure the operative would not have the authority to agree to this. This service acknowledges this may have been frustrating for the resident as she believed she was waiting for a replacement, however as no evidence has been provided to show the agreement of a new basin, this service is unable to determine this point.
13. Through its stage 2 response the landlord correctly advised of alternative routes the resident could take to obtain a larger basin, if it was necessary for a medical condition she could apply under the aids and adaption request, or she could supply and fit her own basin.
14. The landlord has complied with its obligations by completing the repair raised by the resident. This service is satisfied there is no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the suitability of the new basin.

Water damage caused by a slow leak resulting from the hand wash basin installation.

15. The landlord’s repair policy states its commitment to delivering a reliable, operationally excellent service. The policy also states it will carry out an emergency repair within 24 hours in circumstances where there is immediate danger to the resident or members of the public. The landlord’s compensation policy states it can consider reimbursement where the resident had no choice but to pay for something because of its inaction, delay, or negligence.
16. When the resident called to report the repair, she was told an operative would attend before 5pm, rather than within the stipulated 24 hours. This caused the resident to chase the appointment as no one had attended at nearly 5pm, at which point she was told it was being passed to the out of hours team and someone would be there within 24 hours. The operative arrived at approximately 11.45pm.
17. The repair was categorised as an emergency and was completed within the prescribed 24 hours, meaning the landlord met its obligations.
18. It is reasonable to accept the resident would find this communication failure frustrating especially when the slow leak was caused by the mistake of a valve not being fully tightened during the fitting of the new basin. This service acknowledges, though errors can occur, it does mean the resident did not receive a reliable, operationally excellent service.
19. Through the complaints process the resident advised the landlord there was water damage to the skirting boards. In its stage 2 response the landlord stated it reviewed photographs but could not identify any issues. This service has not been provided with the photographs and acknowledges the resident has carried out the skirting board replacement during the time taken for the landlord to progress her complaint. In line with the compensation policy, reimbursement is something the landlord should have considered further.
20. This service finds there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the water damage from the slow leak.

Complaint handling

21. Through the landlord’s complaints policy, it commits to respond to the stage 1 complaint within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days. If it is unable to meet these time limits it will explain why and write to the resident in 10 working days. The policy states if the resident wishes to escalate their complaint to stage 2, the landlord will do this without delay.
22. There were 2 separate complaints, in the first the landlord met both timeframes. According to its policy the landlord will escalate the complaint without delay, however it took nearly 3 months to escalate the second complaint. Once accepted the landlord provided its stage 2 response on 31 October 2022, 160 working days from the initial escalation request.
23. The resident chased the outcome of her escalation request on 4 occasions and was provided with 2 complaint acknowledgements. The resident was clearly unhappy about the delay which compounded her existing dissatisfaction.
24. The delay in the stage 2 response was unacceptable. The landlord accepted this service failure in the stage 2 response and made an offer totalling £100, made up of £30 for inconvenience, £20 for time and effort, and £50 for the delay.
25. In accordance with the Scheme, this service finds the landlord did not adhere to its complaints policy however it has provided reasonable redress to the resident for the service failure in its complaint handling.

Determination

26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to concerns about the suitability of a new hand wash basin installed in the property.
27. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to concerns about water damage caused by a slow leak resulting from the hand wash basin installation.
28. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord with regard to its complaint handling.

Orders

29. The landlord is to pay the resident £50 to reimburse for the replaced bathroom skirting boards. If the resident can evidence further expenditure, the landlord is to consider reasonable reimbursement for this.
30. The landlord is to confirm compliance with this order to this service within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

31. The landlord is to reoffer the resident the £100 payment detailed in its stage 2 complaint response if this has not already been accepted.