London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202222733)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222733

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

12 April 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s request for her windows to be replaced.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a 2 bedroom, second floor flat. The property is owned by the landlord. The tenancy started in February 2021. There are no known health vulnerabilities.
The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 30 September 2022. She was unhappy that her windows would not be replaced until the following year. She was aware that the landlord had applied for planning permission and work could not start until this was granted. She felt it was taking too long to obtain the permission.
The landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s complaint the same day. Its stage 1 response advised that as she lived in a conservation area it required planning permission. It said it was sorry that she needed to raise a complaint and explained that the time to secure permission was out of its control.
The resident escalated her complaint on 30 September 2022. She reiterated her understanding that planning permission could be resolved faster. The landlord acknowledged her escalation request the same day.
On 22 December 2022 the Housing Ombudsman Service wrote to the landlord on the resident’s behalf. We instructed it to provide her with a stage 2 response and complete its internal complaints procedure (ICP). We set a deadline of the 13 January 2023.
On 6 January 2023 the landlord provided the resident with its stage 2 response. It advised that it had applied for planning permission but its planned works programme had been postponed. It advised she would receive a letter when this work was rescheduled. It apologised and offered the resident £70 compensation (£20 for her time and effort raising a complaint and £50 for the delay in it providing a stage 2 response).
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response and lack of information about the rescheduled planned works programme. Her complaint became one we could formerly consider on 23 March 2023.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint, we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine the complaint by reference to what is, in our opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.

Response to the resident’s request for her windows to be replaced

There is evidence that the resident requested the landlord replace her single glazed windows in March 2021. She said she believed the government were providing grants for this work. While the resident had reported specific repairs of loose flooring and a roof leak, there is no evidence that she reported any disrepair concerns for the windows. It was therefore reasonable that this request was not undertaken and she was advised of its planned works programme.
On 7 September 2021 the resident requested help from her local MP. This was specific to a flooring and roof complaint. While this does not form part of this investigation, we note that the resident described to the MP that her windows would shake. She said this would happen when she walked on her loose flooring. While the landlord undertook the flooring repair, there is no evidence that she reported any window disrepair to the landlord. It is therefore reasonable that the landlord would not be in a position to inspect or repair something, if required, without being informed.
On 12 July 2022 the resident requested information from the landlord. She asked when the windows would be replaced. The landlord informed her work was scheduled as part of its 2022 to 2023 planned works programme.
The landlord has a standard operating procedure. This is used for what it describes as ‘renewing components.’ When a resident requests replacement windows, its staff should check its systems. When the component is already scheduled for planned replacement, staff should advise the resident that they will be contacted during the current financial year to begin the works. If there are immediate health and safety hazards, then routine repairs should be raised to make the home safe.
There is evidence that the landlord followed this process. It informed her that work was scheduled for 2022 to 2023. It also informed her how to report a repair if there were problems with the existing units. There is no evidence that the resident reported any disrepair relating to the windows. Therefore, based on the evidence available to us, the landlord’s actions were appropriate and in line with its procedures.
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA 1985) places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. This includes window frames. This obligation is acknowledged by the landlord within its repairs policy.
Under the Decent Homes standard a property is considered in a reasonable state of repair if certain criterions are met. However, if key components of a dwelling, such as windows are old and, because of their poor condition need replacing or a major repair, it would fail to meet these criteria.
As there are no reports of any disrepair, it was reasonable for the landlord to continue to work from its assessment that the windows were due to be replaced as part of its planned works programme. Therefore, there is no evidence that the landlord breached its obligations under the LTA 1985 or the Decent Homes standard.
On 6 December 2022 the landlord responded to the resident. She had raised points unrelated to this complaint. However, within her communication she said that her neighbours windows had been replaced. The landlord explained that all properties were assessed individually and it would only replace windows if they were in an unrepairable condition. The landlord asked her to report any concerns with her windows and request that an operative attend her property if required.
There is no evidence that the resident reported any disrepair concerns. The landlord advised her of its procedures to report a repair if required and explained that it would contact her in writing about dates for its planned works programme. This was appropriate and in line with its procedures.
While there is no evidence that the landlord failed to respond to any reports of window disrepair, there is evidence of poor communication. The landlord’s programmed maintenance policy states that it will communicate information on programmed works to relevant teams and residents. However, the resident continued to request information about the rescheduled works. This continued beyond the landlord’s stage 2 response of 6 January 2023.
In January 2023, there is evidence that the team responsible for the planned works programme acknowledged that it schedules had changed. It discussed internally that budgets and conservation issues had caused delays. The resident’s windows, and other identified properties would be prioritised for the 2023 to 2024 financial year. While it is not uncommon for planned works to be rescheduled, the landlord failed to communicate this with the resident at this stage. This resulted in her time and trouble to chase for updates. This was not appropriate and not in line with its policy.
Considering the evidence that no disrepair was reported, it is reasonable that the delayed window replacement caused minimal detriment to the resident. It is noted that the landlord says it informed the resident that works had been rescheduled for September 2023. However this only happened after its stage 2 response and after acknowledging an “oversight on its part.” This oversight was that no letters had been sent to resident’s.
The landlord acknowledged this failing within its internal communication. Its stage 2 response offered £20 compensation to recognise the resident’s time and effort. The landlord apologised, explained that works had been postponed, and advised it would write to her when work had been rescheduled. While this was reasonable, it did not demonstrate learning. The landlord did not explain what action it would take to prevent similar communication failures happening in the future.
Within our evidence request to the landlord in April 2024, we asked whether the windows had been replaced. The landlord’s response advised that it had been issued a planning decision in October 2023. The resident’s windows had been included on its 2024 to 2025 programme. While this is reasonable, the landlord did not provide evidence that it had informed the resident. Therefore, an order will be made to ensure that it has communicated its rescheduled planned works programme to the resident.
Therefore, we find service failure with the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for her windows to be replaced. There was time and trouble involved to obtain information that should have been communicated with her.

Complaint handling

The landlord has been the subject of a recent systemic review by the Housing Ombudsman Service, under powers granted by paragraph 49 of the Scheme. The report was published in July 2023 and is available on our website. The landlord’s complaints handling was identified as part of this special investigation.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. A stage 1 complaint is acknowledged by the end of the next working day and a response provided within 10 working days. A stage 2 complaint is acknowledged within 2 working days and a response provided within 20 working days.
If the landlord is unable to provide responses within those timescales, it will explain the reason for the delay to the resident and provide its complaint response within a further 10 working days.
The resident raised her complaint on 30 September 2022. The landlord acknowledged this complaint and provided a written response the same day. This was appropriate and both actions in line with its complaints policy.
The resident remained dissatisfied that the landlord was unable to provide her with a precise replacement date at this stage. She escalated her complaint the same day. It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged this request in line with its complaints policy.
However, at stage 2, the landlord should have provided a response within 20 working days and by 28 October 2022. It was not appropriate that the landlord missed this deadline. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the landlord communicated with the resident. It failed to inform her of any delays and failed to agree an extension date. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with its policy.
While it is unclear whether the resident chased the landlord directly for a stage 2 response, this failing caused the resident time and trouble to bring her complaint to the Ombudsman.
We wrote to the landlord on 22 December 2022. It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged our request to issue a stage 2 response by 13 January 2022. There is evidence that the landlord treated this instruction urgently, investigated the resident’s complaint, and provided a response on 6 January 2023.
It is not disputed that the landlord failed to provide a stage 2 response within its published response timescales. In its stage 2 response it apologised for the delay and offered £50 compensation for its failings. This demonstrated the landlord taking steps to put things right.
The resident remained dissatisfied that she had not been given a precise date the windows would be replaced. While this would understandably have been frustrating, the landlord’s response apologised and explained that the works were being rescheduled. It further explained that it would write to her once its schedule had been planned. This information was later provided informing her work was scheduled for September 2023. Furthermore, its letter reiterated how to report a repair if the resident’s windows required attention. No repair request was received.
The Ombudsman’s view is that the delay in its stage 2 response was relatively short and did not result in any significant detriment to the resident. It offered an apology and repeatedly encouraged the resident to report any disrepair. No reports were received.
Therefore, the landlord’s offer of £50 for its acknowledged complaint handling failure is considered by the Ombudsman to be reasonable redress.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for their windows to be replaced.
In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the matter of the landlord’s complaint handling failure.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
1. Pay the resident £70 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £20 offered at stage 2, if not already paid.
  2. A further £50 for the resident’s time and trouble caused by the landlord’s communication failures within its response to the resident’s request for her windows to be replaced.
The landlord is ordered to write to the resident, setting out its position and amended planned works programme. Its communication should repeat the process of reporting any concerns regarding window disrepair.
The landlord is ordered to review its staff training needs. This is to ensure all relevant officers provide residents with timely communication updates in accordance with its programmed maintenance policy.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders.

Recommendations

The landlord should reoffer the £50 complaint handling compensation from its stage 2 response if it has not already paid this.
If it has not already done so via its response to the special report, the landlord is encouraged to consider refresher training around its complaint handling and the importance of providing timely responses in line with its policy.