London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202229958)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229958

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

24 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 handling of the resident’s reports of defective windows.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s:
1. Communication.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 2007. The property is a 2-bedroom, 2-storey maisonette on the ground and lower ground floor of a 4-storey house. She lives in the property with her family.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 16 November 2010 about the condition of the windows and the impact the issue was having on her family.
On 29 November 2013, the resident emailed the landlord in relation to damp and mould and the poor service she had received since 2008. In relation to the windows, she said that an operative attended her property in October 2008 to adjust the bay windows. In the process of removing them they put their thumb through the wood as it was rotten. The operative told her that he would include on his report that the landlord needed to replace the window. She had emailed the landlord’s surveyor on 14 November 2008 with photographs of the disrepair. She wanted to know why the landlord had not carried out the work to the windows.
An operative told the resident in 2020 that her windows had to be replaced as soon as possible because they were no longer repairable.
On 21 May 2021, the resident emailed the landlord regarding issues she was having with damp and mould in her property. In relation to the windows, she said:
1. There was constant condensation affecting the windows in the property. It had become so bad the previous year that the window frames were rotten.
2. She had purchased a product to put on the frames to stop the wood from falling out.
3. The operatives that had attended her property had continually told her that the windows needed to be replaced.
4. She said she would be grateful for any help and a resolution to the problem.
On 5 July 2021, the landlord asked the resident to send it photographs of her windows. On the same day the resident sent the photographs showing the rotten and mouldy window frames.
The landlord raised an order in April 2022 for the windows. A contractor supplied a quote, but the landlord declined the quote. It then raised an additional order with another contractor in June 2022.
On 6 September 2022, the resident called the landlord requesting an update on the windows. It had told her in June 2022 that it required more than 1 quote before it could approve the work. She was supposed to have received a phone call within 1 month, but it had not contacted her.
The resident called the landlord on 20 September 2022. She said she had been waiting for a call since June 2022. She was aware it had now received 2 quotes. She asked for someone to call her with an update.
The resident called the landlord on 28 September 2022 to make a complaint. She said the condition of the windows was causing the property to be very cold. She could not afford the additional energy costs to keep the property warm. She wanted someone to call her back to discuss the windows.
The landlord acknowledged her complaint on 29 September 2022. It said when it had investigated her complaint, it would contact her to discuss its findings and send a written response by 11 October 2022.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 11 October 2022. It said:
1. It had more than one work order open for the windows in the resident’s property. One of the contractors had submitted a quote but the quote had never been authorised. It had an outstanding work order with another contractor which was waiting to be progressed.
2. Once the supervisor had selected the contractor it would chase them to have the work carried out as quickly as possible.
3. It apologised for the length of time it had taken to have the repairs carried out and for the lack of communication from it, and the contractors.
The resident emailed the landlord on 14 October 2022. She told the landlord she was unhappy with the stage 1 response and wanted her complaint taken further. She said:
1. The current issue with the windows had been going on since 2020, but she had been making complaints as far back as 2013.
2. She had confirmation in May 2022 from the landlord that it needed to replace the windows and that they had scheduled them for replacement. The landlord had received 2 quotes but had done nothing further.
3. The cold weather season had started. She could not effectively heat her home due to the poor condition of the windows throughout the property. She had huge gaps in the front windows and fungus growing on the frames.
4. She had 2 children under 5, and a 12-year-old who had a complex cardiac condition, which means she struggles with temperature regulation. The resident had informed the landlord of her daughter’s condition when she was born in 2010.
5. The resident was frustrated and confused as to why the landlord was unable to provide a date or even a timescale for when it would replace the windows.
6. She was still waiting for the thermos-board to be fitted that had been recommended by the damp survey in 2021.
On 26 October 2022, the resident called the landlord. She asked for an update on the email she had sent on 14 October 2022 regarding the replacement of the windows.
The landlord’s records show it called the resident on 30 October 2022. There were no call notes in the record.
On 12 January 2023, the resident called the landlord. She said she was frustrated that she had no contact or information on the windows. It had not informed her of the outcome of the meeting regarding the windows that had taken place on 28 October 2022.
The landlord called the resident on 22 February 2023 to acknowledge her stage 2 complaint.
The landlord emailed the resident on 10 March 2023 to provide an update on her complaint. It said:
1. It had contacted the area surveyor and asked for an urgent response on which contractor would be attending her property to carry out repairs to the windows. It acknowledged it had caused unacceptable delays in repairing the windows.
2. It apologised for the continued delays and expressed its understanding of the frustration this had caused her.
3. It confirmed it had escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 23 February 2023. The complaint was being reviewed, it would then be passed to a customer relations officer who would contact her.
4. It was unable to say when the stage 2 officer would contact her due to the backlog of escalation requests it had. It advised she could contact the Ombudsman.
The resident contacted us on 4 May 2023 to say she had not received a stage 2 response. We advised that she contact the landlord and request a resolution within 10 days.
The resident emailed the landlord on 4 May 2023. She said she had escalated her complaint on 23 February 2023 and had not heard anything since 10 March 2023. She expected to hear from the landlord within 10 days with a resolution.
The landlord responded on the same day. It apologised for the ongoing delay. It said her complaint was with the customer relations team and that it would be in touch with her as soon as her complaint was allocated. It apologised for the delay and the inconvenience this had caused.
On 8 June 2023, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord and requested that it provide its stage 2 response to the resident within 25 days.
The landlord called the resident on 9 June 2023. She informed it that she had wooden windows that were rotten and that they had been an issue for a number of years. It had promised it would replace her windows in May 2022. She was aware 2 contractors had visited and provided quotes, but she had heard nothing since. The landlord sent an email confirming the conversation and said it would provide a response by 13 July 2023.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 13 July 2023. It listed the following points:
1. It had contacted her on 10 March 2023 to inform her that it had contacted the contractor for an update on when they would be replacing the windows.
2. The resident had contacted it on 4 May 2023 for an update on her complaint. It told her the complaint was with the customer relations officer who would contact her shortly. It apologised for the delay. Due to a backlog of complaints her stage 2 complaint had not been allocated until June 2023.
3. It was going to replace her windows under its planned works scheme. It would need to apply for planning permission before the windows could be replaced.
4. The planned works team had advised that all budgets had been allocated for that year. Her windows were on the planned works list for the financial year beginning 2024. It could not guarantee this timeframe.
5. It apologised as it understood the delay in replacing the windows had impacted her family.
6. After reviewing her complaint, it recognised the level of service she had received was not the high standard it expected. It should have managed the repairs and its communications more effectively.
7. In recognition it offered £1490 compensation comprised of:
  1. £100.00 for its complaint handling and the delay at stage 2.
  2. £200.00 for her time and effort bringing the matter to its attention and her continual request for updates.
  3. £150.00 for its failure to keep the resident updated.
  4. £1040.00 for the distress and inconvenience associated with the continued expectation that the windows would be replaced imminently – between May 2022 – June 2023
The resident brought her complaint to us on 14 July 2023.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 11 March 2024. It said it was planning to carry out a validation survey of her property. The survey would allow it to gather evidence on the condition of her property to schedule planned works over the coming 3-5 years. It had appointed a contractor who would contact her to arrange an appointment and explain the next steps in the process.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has reported that the cold conditions created by the defective windows exacerbated her children’s health conditions. The Ombudsman does not dispute this, however, we are unable to make a determination about the causal link between the landlord’s actions and any health impact. A determination relating to damages caused to her children’s health is more appropriate for the courts. The resident has the option to seek legal advice if she wishes to pursue this. Nonetheless, the Ombudsman has considered the overall actions of the landlord and any distress and inconvenience that it may have caused as a result of any of its failures.
The resident began contacting the landlord about the condensation and draughts affecting her windows in 2010 but has not previously raised a formal complaint. She indicated that the landlord carried out some work to address the issues, but they were never resolved. It would appear that there has been a gradual deterioration of the condition of the windows over time that led to the landlord deciding in 2021 that they needed to be replaced. Due to the evidence available this report will only consider the issues from 2021.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of defective windows.

The resident’s tenancy agreement requires the landlord to keep the exterior and structure of the resident’s property in repair.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy confirms it is responsible for maintaining the exterior and structure of the property. This includes the window frames, sills and replacing any rotten sections. The policy states the landlord is responsible for undertaking repairs to items that have become defective to the point that:
1. There is a health and safety issue that presents a risk of harm.
2. Non repair would cause further damage to the home.
3. The element needing repair is no longer in a functioning condition.
The landlord has a component renewal/referral procedure. The procedure states that any component scheduled for planned replacement that is presenting immediate health and safety hazards should have routine repairs carried out to make the home safe.
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a duty on the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. Section 9A of the Act creates a legal duty to ensure the property is fit for human habitation before and during a resident’s occupation.
The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by the Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Rotten and defective windows can give rise to the following hazards:
1. Damp and mould growth.
2. Excess cold.
3. Falls between levels.
4. Falling elements.
The principle underlying the HHSRS is that any residential premises should provide a safe healthy environment for any potential occupier or visitor. To satisfy this principle, a dwelling should be free from both unnecessary and avoidable hazards.
The homes standard of the Regulator for Social Housing requires landlords to meet each standard in the UK government’s decent homes guidance. Under the guidance a property will fail the reasonable state of repair condition if it has old windows in need of major repair. The landlord has recognised its understanding of this obligation in its programmed planned maintenance policy.
The Ombudsman has not been able to identify the exact sequence of events in this case, due to the lack of evidence. From the evidence supplied by the resident it is clear that the landlord was on notice as far back as 2010 that the windows were in disrepair.
It was clear by July 2021 that the windows needed to be replaced. The landlord accepted this and began the process of obtaining quotes to begin the work. Its internal notes show that it, “declined the original quote because it was too expensive and should have been referred to its major planned works team. However, the information was never forwarded to the planned works team.” This led to the window replacement being missed out of the capital works scheduled for the following year, which caused a significant delay. This was a failure.
In its stage 1 response on 11 October 2022 the landlord clearly stated they were working on having the windows replaced as soon as possible. It repeated this message in an email on 10 March 2023. It then changed its position in its stage 2 complaint response in July 2023 telling the resident the windows had been put on planned works list for 2024. We now know that the landlord’s latest communication on 11 March 2024 advised her the work would be completed within the next 3 to 5 years. This continual and unreasonable change of position has led to the resident having her expectations raised and lowered repeatedly, which has caused ongoing distress and frustration.
It is reasonable for landlords to schedule major works such as replacing multiple windows in a property to manage their budgets. However, it is not reasonable to leave windows in an advanced state of disrepair in the interim period. The landlord failed to undertake repairs to the windows to remove the immediate hazards they presented. Prior to issuing the stage 2 response the complaint handler sent an internal email. In it they asked, “would it be possible to do some temporary works to make the windows more weatherproof.” There is no evidence the landlord responded to or considered the reasonable request. Not conducting the required make safe repairs was a failure to comply with its own policies, the resident’s tenancy agreement and its legislative obligations. The landlord told the resident in 2020 that her windows were beyond repair and needed to be replaced. This would question whether it was ever appropriate to place the windows on a list for future works, when the need to replace them was immediate.
It is understandable that the resident was frustrated with the landlord’s handling of her concerns, as it had given her mixed messages on a number of occasions over a prolonged period of time. She had repeatedly informed it of the adverse impact the windows were having on her life. This included the negative impact on her children’s health, which she attributed to the draughts, and the financial impact on her due to the heat loss through the windows. The landlord has shown that it was aware of her daughter’s heart condition. However, it has not shown any evidence that it considered the vulnerabilities in the resident’s family in its repairs decisions, as required by its vulnerable residents policy. The failure to consider the vulnerabilities and to modify its approach was unacceptable.
In its stage 2 response the landlord awarded £1,045 for the resident’s distress and inconvenience caused by the continued expectation that it was going to replace the windows in 2022-2023. This amount was reasonable for that specific aspect. However, it did not consider the distress and inconvenience associated with the wider adverse impact the deteriorating windows were having on her and her family. The ombudsman has made an additional award of compensation to cover the period from 2021 in recognition of the landlord’s failure to undertake repairs and the impact on the resident.
Overall, it is the Ombudsman’s decision that there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the disrepair and planned replacement of the resident’s windows.

The landlord’s communication

The Ombudsman expects landlords to have in place, apply and monitor their own communication key performance indicators, to ensure residents are responded to as required. This helps deliver clear, effective and timely communication, which is essential to an effective repairs and complaints handling process.
There is extensive evidence throughout this case of the resident having to chase updates on the works. She regularly called the customer care team who then raised tasks for officers connected to the case to call her, but this did not happen. The landlord told the resident in June 2022 that it would update her within the month about the windows, but it never did. She then called on 6 and 9 September 2022 asking for an update. The call handler raised both calls internally, with a request to call the resident. She did not receive any return calls and had to make a complaint before someone got in touch with her. It is unreasonable that she had to make a formal complaint to force her landlord to communicate with her.
After receiving her stage 1 complaint response the resident sent an escalation email to the landlord. She received no response to the email and had to contact the landlord again on 26 October 2022 asking for a response. She called the landlord again on 21 November 2022 for an update, the landlord did not return her call until 30 December 2022. She called it on 12 January 2023 for an update, but again nobody called her back until a further request on 22 February 2023.
The resident experienced inconvenience and took extra time and trouble to contact the landlord on numerous occasions. The lack of response added to the frustration and distress she experienced. The landlord apologised for its communication failings and offered £200 compensation for the resident’s time and trouble and £150 for its recognised failures. Its offer of compensation is reflective of the distress and inconvenience caused by its communication failures. We consider the offer to be reasonable redress. But for these steps the Ombudsman would have found maladministration in the landlord’s communication.

Complaint handling

The landlord has a 2 stage complaints procedure. It commits to acknowledging stage 1 and 2 complaints within 2 working days from receipt. It states that it will provide responses at stage 1 within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days. If it needed more time, it would explain why and write again in a further 10 days.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 11 October 2022. It apologised for its lack of communication and for the delay in replacing the windows. It did not give any reason for the extended delay and did not provide an ongoing communication plan as required by its policy. This left the resident frustrated and was a missed opportunity by the landlord to resolve the complaint at the earliest opportunity.
The resident emailed the landlord on 14 October 2022. She said she was dissatisfied with the stage 1 response and wanted her complaint taken further. The landlord has not shown any evidence that it recognised this email as an escalation. After chasing the landlord for a response it acknowledged her stage 2 complaint on 23 February 2023, 92 working days after her escalation request. This delay was unreasonable.
On 14 July 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 response, 273 days after the resident had escalated her complaint. This significant delay was outside the timescales of the landlord’s procedure and the requirements of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). This delay was unacceptable and prolonged the resident’s dissatisfaction and her ability to escalate her complaint to the Ombudsman.
The stage 2 response listed a number of communications. However, it significantly left out the resident’s email on 14 October 2022 when she had told the landlord she wanted to take her complaint further. The resident contacted it again on 22 February 2023 asking for the second time to escalate her complaint, which it recorded as her escalation request. The landlord’s account is inaccurate and evidence of poor record keeping.
In the resident’s escalation email on 14 October 2022, she referred to thermo-board that had been recommended during a damp and mould inspection of her property. However, there is no evidence to show the landlord responded to this aspect of the resident’s complaint. The Code requires landlords to respond to all complaint points, failing to do so leaves residents feeling unheard. In her discussion with us she has confirmed this work remains uncompleted, which is unacceptable.
When there have been errors or mistakes, the Code requires landlords to acknowledge this and to take action to put things right. This includes providing explanations or reasons detailing why things went wrong. The landlord did not do this. It told the resident there were going to be further open-ended delays but failed to provide an explanation why. It did not give any reason to detail why it had changed its position from that outlined in its stage 1 response. It also failed to explain why it had not replaced the windows in 2022 when it said it would. The landlord’s response caused further distress and frustration and failed to put things right for the resident.
The landlord offered £100 compensation for the delay in its complaint handling. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this amount was not enough to compensate for the delay, or the additional failures highlighted above. Overall, it is the Ombudsman’s decision that there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the replacement of the windows in the resident’s property due to disrepair.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the failings in its communication.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks from the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident from the Chief Executive for the failures detailed in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £3,850, less any money already paid. It must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against arrears. It is comprised of:
3. £3,000 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble associated with the landlord’s handling of the defective windows in the resident’s property.
4. £350 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble associated with the landlord’s communication.
5. £500 for the distress and inconvenience associated with the landlord’s complaint handling.
6. Provide the resident with a timeline for when it will be installing the thermo-board recommended in its damp and mould inspection.
By the 31 August 2024 the landlord is ordered to replace all defective windows in the resident’s property.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within the time limits specified.