London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202231045)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202231045

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

19 September 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:
1. The resident’s reports of a leak and the associated remedial repairs.
2. The resident’s reports of issues with heating and hot water in his property.
3. The resident’s concerns about ventilation in his property.
4. Reports of breakdowns to the communal lift for the building.
5. The resident’s reports of stolen mail and parcels from the building’s communal area.
The landlord’s complaint handling has also been investigated.

Background

The resident and his housemate have an assured tenancy with the landlord on a private rented basis from October 2022. The property is a two-bedroom flat on the fifth floor of a building owned by the landlord. The landlord has confirmed to the Ombudsman that it has vulnerabilities related to mental health recorded for the resident.
The following issues were reported by the resident throughout his complaint.
1. The resident reported a leak from the ceiling in his property around 23 October 2022 stating water was “going into his electrics”. The landlord attended made this safe the same day. A further report of a leak in his bathroom was made by the resident on 6 January 2023. The landlord found on 15 January 2023 repairs to the shower were required and that skirting boards and carpets affected by the leak needed to be replaced. In his complaint on 13 March 2023, the resident stated there was an ongoing leak in his property and damp and mould on his carpets. The landlord would repair the leak on 21 April 2023, replace the skirting boards on 8 June 2023 and replace the carpets on 22 December 2023. Its response to damp and mould on the carpets through this period is uncertain.
2. The resident reported no heating on 14 October 2022 and the landlord rectified this on 17 October 2022. The resident reported further issues with no heating or hot water on 21 January 2023 with a repair to allow temporary hot water usage completed on 5 February 2023. It completed a repair to his boiler on 3 March 2023 fully restoring heating and hot water. The resident stated in his complaint of 13 March 2023 he had a reduction in shower facilities and then was without heating and hot water for 2 weeks. The landlord in its stage 2 complaint response of 30 May 2023 said it had attempted to make appointments with the resident to resolve the issue, but he was not available.
3. The resident reported issues with extractor fans not working properly from 17 October 2022. In his complaint of 13 March 2023, he said that he had reported the issue when moving in, but it had not been addressed. The landlord confirmed in its stage 1 complaint response that it had referred the issue to a specialist contractor. Following this on 11, 24 and 26 May, the resident reported the lack of ventilation was causing the heat to be “unbearable” in his property. As part of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, an appointment was arranged for 8 June 2023 but not completed until 14 July 2023 to fit and install internal fans in the property. In correspondence with the Ombudsman the resident said the landlord offered temporary air conditioning and temperature-reducing film but later retracted this.
4. The lift was reported by the resident or other residents to have broken down on numerous occasions between 29 October 2022 and 24 May 2023. Repairs were completed within 1 month of reports being made. The resident did not raise this in his initial complaint of 13 March 2023. On 29 March 2023, the resident stated the “lift breaks every week” and he was “recently out of hospital” and finding it “difficult to walk 5 flights of stairs.” Further lift breakdowns were reported on 11, 17, and 22 April 2023. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 30 May 2023 confirmed it had completed a repair recently, but the lift was not functioning again “due to vandalism.” Following the stage 2 complaint response there were numerous reports of lift breakdowns and repairs between 28 June 2023 and 19 January 2024.
5. The resident reported post boxes were being broken into on 5 December 2022 with mail stolen. The landlord raised repairs to the post boxes on 23 January 2023. In its stage 1 complaint response of 28 April 2023, it confirmed it had “received authorisation to replace the current post boxes” and would “write to all residents to confirm.” The landlord made an error in raising the work which led to it being cancelled on 2 May 2023 and not reissued. On 18 August 2023 and 13 February 2024, it would confirm it could not get the funding to move the post boxes due to the “high costs.” There is no evidence of the landlord taking any further steps to resolve this issue.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 28 April 2023 in response to the resident’s complaint of 13 March. It apologised for the delays and difficulties faced by the resident. It said it should have completed repairs and communicated more swiftly and effectively. It offered total compensation of £385. This was £120 for inconvenience and distress, £120 for time and effort, £120 for lack of communication and £25 for its delayed stage 1 complaint response.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 30 May 2023 in response to the resident’s escalation request of 2 May. It told the resident he should raise damage to his belongings with its insurer and that this was outside of the complaints process. It offered further compensation of £865. This was £100 for service failure, £50 for continued lack of communication, £150 for inconvenience and distress, £75 for time and effort, £250 for right to repair and £240 as a goodwill gesture. Total compensation offered by the landlord was £1250.
The Ombudsman accepted the resident’s complaint for investigation on 25 January 2024. In correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident stated that he wanted the following issues investigated:
1. The lift was breaking once a week and due to his health, he found it difficult to climb 5 floors.
2. His ensuite bathroom had flooded, damaged the belongings in his bedroom and causing mouldy carpets. As a result of the flood his ensuite shower was unavailable for 2 months. He said his main bathroom and kitchen also flooded and could not be used.
3. He had no heating or hot water for 2 months during the coldest months of the year and had to stay in hotels or with friends.
4. His letterbox was repeatedly broken into, and his post was stolen. He said he was “assaulted and mugged” in the lobby and the landlord did not respond to police requests for CCTV or complete a welfare check.
5. He and his housemate had numerous health issues which were affected by repeated communication and contractor appointments. The landlord had not kept his property well maintained and safe and had disregarded his wellbeing.

Assessment and findings

The resident said that his health has suffered because of how the landlord handled his reports. Whilst we do not dispute the resident’s comments, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim against the landlord if he considers that his health has been affected by its actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if he wants to pursue this option. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience that the resident experienced due to how the landlord handled the situation involving his property.
In further correspondence with the Ombudsman the resident advised of an issue of being “assaulted and mugged” in the building lobby and the landlord failing to appropriately support him. It is unclear if the resident has raised a separate complaint about this. However, there is no evidence of the resident raising this prior to the completion of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, as it is believed to have occurred after this ended. As this is a separate issue to the complaint raised with the Ombudsman, this is not something that the Ombudsman can adjudicate on at this stage. The landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and provide its final complaint response to this aspect.
The resident has reported damage to his personal belongings. The landlord has directed the resident to refer a claim to its insurer on the matter. It is unclear if the resident has raised such a claim through the landlord or his own insurance policy. The Ombudsman is unable to consider complaints about insurance claims. This is because the insurance company is a separate organisation from the landlord and the landlord is not responsible for the insurer’s actions. The Ombudsman will however assess the standard of communication between the landlord and the resident on the matter. The Ombudsman is unable to determine liability as such matters require a legally binding decision, which the Ombudsman’s decisions are not.
The landlord investigated and responded to the resident’s concerns about a pest infestation of silverfish in his property. The resident did not raise this in raising his complaint to the Ombudsman or in further correspondence. As such this issue will not be assessed within this report.

The resident reports of a leak and the associated remedial repairs.

The tenancy agreement confirms the landlord is responsible for keeping in working order: all fixtures and fittings for sanitation and the supply of water. Its Repairs Policy confirms it is responsible for leaks from taps and any pipework. It asks residents to allow it entry at “reasonable hours” of the day and will give 24 hours’ notice for appointments.
Its Repairs Policy classifies emergency repairs as those where there is “immediate danger to the occupant or members of the public” and will attend within 24 hours. It will attend to emergency repairs in 4 hours to make the situation safe. It will complete all other repairs as “routine day-to-day” repairs within 25 calendar days. It will only redecorate following a repair where it has an obligation or in exceptional circumstances at its discretion.
The resident initially reported a leak on 23 October 2022, which was going into electrical switches. The landlord’s records show it attended on the same day in accordance with its policy and the repair was completed.
The resident reported a further leak in his bathroom on 6 January 2023, which he said was causing damp in both the property’s bedrooms. It is unclear what action the landlord took, but there is no evidence it attended in a timely manner. On 10 January it told the resident its contractor would be in touch directly, suggesting no action had taken place up to this point. The resident was frustrated with no contact and asked for an update on 13 January and was told the contractor would be attending on 15 January. The contractor confirmed to the landlord on 19 January that the shower needed to be refitted and mouldy skirting boards replaced.
There is no evidence of the repairs to the resident’s bathroom taking place for some time and the resident raised the “ongoing leak” and “damage to the property and mould” in his complaint on 13 March 2023. The landlord acknowledged the issue was outstanding internally on the same day. It said it would “look at the leak” when it “returned to inspect the shower.” The evidence shows it chased the contractor for the repair the same day. It is of concern it took a complaint from the resident for the landlord to chase this. Moreover, it failed to manage the resident’s expectations throughout this period and did not keep him updated.
There were errors with the landlord’s record-keeping on 15 March 2023 as it believed the contractor had attended and completed the repair. It contacted the contractor as they had raised a new job. The contractor confirmed it was not able to access the property so raised the job again. There is no evidence of the landlord updating the resident on the matter from this point. The landlord completed the repair for the leak on 21 April. From the initial report of 6 January This was the equivalent to 105 calendar days and exceeded the landlord’s policy by 80 days. The resident was left to manage the detriment and the impact of the leak throughout this period.
There were several remedial repairs reported as a result of the leak. This included rotten skirting boards, damage and damp and mould to carpets, and broken bathroom tiles. The landlord managed these remedial repairs as follows:
1. The skirting boards were reported as rotten and needed replacing on 19 January 2023. No work was attempted to replace them until 24 May, despite the leak having been repaired on 21 April. The landlord should have attempted to replace this in a timely manner after the leak repair, particularly as it needed to replace the skirting boards before it could replace the carpets. A contractor attended on 24 May, but the resident reported they did not attend with the correct materials. The resident was concerned he had to take a day off work for the appointment and the contractor was rude to him. The landlord would not acknowledge these issues in its stage 2 complaint response but there is no evidence it investigated the contractor’s conduct, and it did not apologise. The skirting boards were replaced on 8 June. It took 96 days in total and 31 days from when it fully repaired the leak. Both exceeded the landlord’s policy timescale of 25 calendar days.
2. Damage to the carpets was first reported on 10 January 2023 and on 16 January the resident said he was having to clean the carpet and use an air purifier. There is no evidence it responded to his concerns until 23 January when it said it would replace the carpets “the following week.” Due to delays in replacing the skirting boards, the carpet replacement was rescheduled on 25 May. The carpets were not replaced until 22 December 2023. This was equivalent to 244 days or 172 days from when it repaired the leak. Both exceeded the landlord’s timescale of 25 calendar days significantly. The resident stated in correspondence with the Ombudsman he was “forced to live with mouldy carpets for months” and this was accurate. There is no evidence that the landlord investigated the mould throughout this period and determined if it could complete any treatment before replacing the carpets. However, the carpets should have been replaced much sooner than the landlord did, which would have alleviated the mould issue.
3. The tiles behind the toilet were reported as broken on 11 April 2023. The landlord’s records incorrectly state the tiles were repaired on the same day. This was not completed until 17 May, taking 24 days to complete. This was within the landlord’s timescale for repair.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response apologised for the delay in resolving the leak. Its compensation offer of £385 was made across both the leak and post box issues and is assessed later in this report. This was also the case for the landlord’s compensation award in its stage 2 complaint response.
The landlord’s stage 2 response responded to the resident’s concerns about the leak caused to his belongings. It referred the resident to its insurer advising him to provide evidence. This was appropriate in ensuring a decision regarding liability for the damage could be made and if a claim could be made on the landlord’s insurance. The landlord would also offer compensation relating to the issue at both its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses. However, this was included with other issues, and it is unclear how the landlord has apportioned compensation to each issue. This is addressed later in this report.
In summary the landlord failed to act in accordance with its Repairs Policy for all the repairs required. It was delayed in assessing the leak between 6 and 15 January 2023. It failed to prioritise the repair and failed to consider the impact on the resident in an appropriate timescale. The landlord’s communication with the resident was inadequate and, on the instance, it did contact her it provided incorrect information due to inefficiencies in its record keeping. Its poor communication with its contractor and record-keeping only exacerbated the issue.
The landlord failed to rectify the leak and communicate over a prolonged period which caused distress, inconvenience, and deterioration in the landlord/tenant relationship. In all the circumstances of the case, a determination of maladministration has been identified. Compensation of £650 has been ordered as the landlord failed “promptly and effectively” to complete repairs. It failed to fully consider the time and trouble, anxiety, stress, and uncertainty it caused to the resident through its poor handling of the repairs to the neighbour’s property. Its offer of compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified by this investigation.

The resident’s reports of issues with heating and hot water in his property.

The tenancy agreement states the landlord will maintain working order of the supply for water, space heating and fixtures and fittings. Its Repairs Policy confirms it is responsible when there is “no hot water” and for communal heating systems.
The first instance of the resident reporting no heating was on 14 October 2022. The landlord’s records are unclear on what action it took, as the report shows as “cancelled” on 17 October 2022. The landlord’s record keeping is insufficiently detailed to allow the Ombudsman to accurately assess its handling of this report.
The resident reported a “loss of heating and hot water” on 21 January 2023. Loss of heating and hot water would not constitute an “emergency” under the landlord’s policy on its own due to there being no “immediate danger to the occupant”. However, given the report took place in January it is assumed temperatures were extremely cold and the resident would later confirm this in correspondence with the Ombudsman. The landlord did appropriately treat the report as an emergency attending the property on the same day. Its records show “no access” and it is unclear on the reason for this. Despite recording the issue as an emergency, the landlord did not attend to the property again until 23 January 2023. This was not in accordance with its policy of attending to make the property safe within 4 hours. It should have attempted this on 22 January, despite it being a Sunday if it believed there was “danger” to the resident.
On 23 January 2023 the contractor informed the landlord heating and hot water “should be running by 4 pm that day”. This was not the case, and the resident chased the continued lack of heating and hot water the next day. After speaking with the contractor, the landlord told the resident a part was needed and it “could be next week.” The resident chased the issue with the landlord on 26 and 27 January. However, the landlord did not chase the contractor until 2 February but was unable to reach them. The contractor attempted to attend the property on 4 February but there was “no access”. It eventually attended on 5 February and made a temporary repair to “allow hot water use”. It took 15 calendar days to complete this. This was not completed in a timely manner, and it is uncertain why such a temporary repair could not have been completed when it attended on 23 January 2023. Moreover, it could have arranged for temporary heaters to be provided on this date.
The contractor who attended on 5 February 2023 stated the “original engineer” needed to reattend to “assess what needed ordering.” This suggested the parts required to complete the repair were not ordered on 23 January and no further action had taken place to resolve the overall repair. Moreover, it suggests the landlord was not efficiently managing the situation and there was a breakdown in communication between it and its contractor. The contractor assessed this again on 10 February, finding the “hot water valve” needed “replacing.” The hot water valve on the boiler was then replaced on 3 March, restoring heating and hot water to the property. In total this took 29 calendar days to complete, exceeding its routine repair timescale by 4 days. Its inefficient management of the situation prolonged the discomfort for the resident and his access to heating or washing facilities.
The resident asked about whether he could be decanted from the property on 24 January 2023. The landlord discussed internally that it could only decant “social housing tenants” and its private rented sector team would need to decide. Despite chasing this on 26 and 27 January there is no evidence the landlord provided the resident with an answer. This caused uncertainty and inconvenience to the resident on what he should do. The resident would later say in his complaint of 13 March, that he had no heating or hot water during the “coldest months of the year.” There is no evidence from 21 January to 2 March of the landlord considering alternative measures to support the resident through this period, particularly due to his vulnerability. Alternative measures could have included providing the resident with temporary heaters, washing facilities and if it was unable to offer a decant. The landlord’s failure to consider these options caused further discomfort and distress to the resident, causing him to believe it was not taking the situation seriously. Its approach to support the resident’s vulnerability was neither “pragmatic or effective” as its policy suggests. The landlord’s approach to supporting PRS tenants and offering a decant is unclear, suggesting a gap in its procedure. It failed to take the opportunity to consider its approach as part of its complaint responses. As such a recommendation will be made for the landlord to consider the support available to PRS tenant when they are adversely affected by an outstanding repair.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response acknowledged no failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of no heating or hot water. It should have recognised the failings assessed above in this report to show it had appropriately assessed its handling of the situation. Its compensation award at stage 1 was not specified but suggests it was for the leak and post-box issues only. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for “unnecessary delays” which was appropriate. It said it could not clarify the reasoning for this as it “no longer worked with the contractor.” It offered further compensation across all issues which is assessed later in this report. The landlord’s stage 2 response and compensation offer should have considered the following:
1. It’s failure to manage its relationship with its contractor to ensure completion of the pending boiler repair. Its failure to do this prolonged the repair until the resident contacted the landlord about it. It did not communicate with the resident sufficiently whilst awaiting the repair to manage his expectations or update him.
2. It failed to respond to the resident on whether it could decant him to temporary accommodation. It also offered no alternative method of space heating or hot water whilst the resident was without these. This meant the resident had to manage without either during the “coldest time of the year.”
In summary the landlord took appropriate first steps to manage the resident’s reports as an emergency. Following this it failed to manage its relationship with its contractor and did not act in accordance with its Repairs Policy. This meant it did not attend to inspect the issue for 2 days, did not complete a temporary repair for 15 days and did not resolve the issue for 29 days. It failed to support the resident with his vulnerabilities and failed to act pragmatically or effectively. The discomfort to the resident was not considered by the landlord exemplified by its failure to offer alternatives for heating and hot water and confirm if it could offer a decant. The failings were exacerbated by the landlord’s insufficient record-keeping and communication.
The landlord in accordance with the occupancy agreement is required to keep in good repair space and water heating in the property. It failed to do so over a period which caused distress, inconvenience, and deterioration in the landlord/tenant relationship. In all the circumstances of the case, a determination of maladministration has been identified. Compensation of £500 has been awarded as the landlord failed “promptly and effectively” to complete repairs or enact temporary measures that might have reduced the detriment while the issue persisted. It failed to fully consider the time and trouble, anxiety, stress, and uncertainty it caused to the resident through its poor handling of the repairs to the property

The resident’s concerns about ventilation in his property.

The landlord’s Repairs Policy confirms at the point of let all its homes will meet its “void standard”. Once a property is let it will undertake repairs it is responsible for. This is for health and safety issues if non-repair would cause further damage or if the element needing repair is not in a functioning condition. Any repairs will be completed as “routine day-to-day repairs” within 25 calendar days.
The resident reported on 17 October 2022 his bathroom extractor fan was not working. The landlord stated internally on the same day it needed to call the resident regarding “multiple issues in the property”. The landlord said it could not raise repairs as the resident was in the “starter phase” and any issues “should have been done” before the resident moved in. However, in his complaint of 13 March 2023, the resident said he had “mentioned the issue when moving in “, which suggests it was an outstanding and ongoing issue. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of the standard of the property when let to the resident and is unable to further comment on this.
When the landlord became aware of the ventilation issue on 17 October it is unclear why it could take no action. Its Repairs Policy makes no mention of its inability to act due to a “starter phase”. There is no evidence of it taking action regarding the ventilation issue between 17 October 2022 and 13 March 2023 delaying the resolution of the issue for the resident. Despite him saying it had caused “health risks” and “discomfort”. It raised work to consider ventilation at the property on 13 March 2023. The evidence suggests this was only because of the complaint made by the resident.
In its stage 1 complaint response of 28 April 2023 the landlord said it had allocated the assessment of the ventilation issue to a “specialist.” It told the resident to “expect contact to confirm a suitable appointment.” The evidence suggests the landlord raised this the same day as its complaint response. It therefore took over 6 months to investigate the issues raised by the resident causing ongoing uncertainty, inconvenience and discomfort to him.
No appointment had been arranged by the specialist by the time the resident escalated his complaint on 2 May 2023. He told the landlord he had reported the issue “since moving in” and had been “told by many contractors” the ventilation was “not working.” It is believed the “contractors” were those attending for other work at the property. The resident reported on 11 May he wanted the temperature in his property due to the ventilation issue to be considered as part of his complaint. The landlord would duly include this in its complaint investigation. On the following day, it appropriately asked the specialist contractor to expedite its appointment. As a result, the contractor attended the property on 15 May.
On 15 May 2023 the specialist contractor raised a work order to replace the extractor fan in the bathroom due to power failure. It is unclear if the landlord managed the landlord’s expectations regarding scheduled work as he would chase an update on 24 May. On the same day, the landlord would confirm with the contractor it had the parts and had “pencilled in” the repair for 8 June. There is no evidence it informed the resident of this until 30 May, extending any uncertainty for the resident and prolonging the discomfort he stated he was suffering. It would later clarify the above details in its stage 2 complaint response of 30 May. Both its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses would fail to acknowledge its specific deficiencies in communicating with the resident and the delays in completing the repair.
On 26 May 2023 the landlord took steps to address the heat in the property, initially reported on 11 May. The resident said the “sun was on the property all day” and the heat was exacerbated by the building insulation and lack of ventilation. Its records show it believed the resident had only been previously speaking about issues in the communal area. This suggests errors in its record keeping as on 11 May it had added the “temperature in the property” to the resident’s complaint. The resident clarified on 26 May the issue was that he had no window in his bathroom and the air vent there was broken.
On 26 and 30 May the landlord suggested the resident use “portable air conditioning units”. Its surveyor said on 30 May there was a ventilation issue which was down to “how the building was created” and there “was nothing it could do about it.” It said as a result internally the resident needed to provide air conditioning units himself. There is no evidence to suggest it informed him of this at this time, failing to appropriately manage his expectations. It failed to respond to the specific issue of the reported high temperatures in the property in its stage 2 complaint response, despite assuring him it would on 11 May. This caused detriment to the relationship between the landlord and resident causing him concern over whether it was taking his concerns seriously.
The resident was still concerned about the heat in his property on 13 June and 21 June 2023. He asked the landlord if he could rent air conditioning units from it as he “could not afford to buy them” and temperatures had “increased to 35 degrees”. It is unclear if the landlord responded to the resident’s request. By 21 June the ventilation repair had not been completed. The landlord’s records show it was completed on 14 July 2023 with no explanation for why the scheduled repair for 8 June did not take place. In total the repair to the resident’s extractor fan took over 9 months to complete, causing uncertainty and distress to the resident throughout the period.
In correspondence with the Ombudsman on 26 January 2024 the resident said the landlord had previously offered him temporary air conditioning and temperature-reducing film for his windows. He said it later withdrew this offer without any further offer in its place. An order will be made for the landlord to complete an independent assessment of the property to consider whether any adjustments to the resident’s property can be made.
In summary the landlord failed to complete the repair to the resident’s ventilation unit in a “timely manner” as its Repairs Policy suggests. It should have completed any repair in 25 days but took over 3 months to raise the issue and then over 9 months to complete the repair. Its failure to complete this over a prolonged period caused inconvenience, distress and uncertainty to the resident over an extended period. The detriment to the resident was worsened by the landlord’s ineffective communication and failure to manage his expectations. Its approach to the resident’s concerns about the temperature in his property is unclear. It failed to address this point in its stage 2 complaint response as it promised and it is uncertain what its position is on the support it could offer to the resident on the issue.
In all the circumstances of the case, a determination of maladministration has been identified. Compensation of £300 has been ordered as the landlord failed “promptly and effectively” to complete repairs. The landlord offered total compensation across all issues, which is assessed further in this report. However, the landlord failed to fully consider the time and trouble, anxiety, stress, and uncertainty it caused to the resident through its poor handling of the repairs to the property. Further orders will be made for the landlord to consider the failings identified in this report.

Reports of breakdowns to the lift for the building.

The landlord’s Repairs Policy confirms it is responsible for repairing and keeping in good working order the passenger lifts in the building. Its policy confirms it will complete routine repairs in an average of 25 calendar days and emergency repairs will be made safe in 4 hours.
Between October 2022 and February 2023 there were reports from unspecified residents of the lift breaking down on a number of occasions. This was 29 October, 7 November, 5 December 2022 and 28 February 2023, where a resident was trapped inside. However, the evidence shows the landlord responded within its timescales to make temporary repairs to the lift. The resident did not raise the lift breaking down in his initial complaint of 13 March 2023. The first evidence of him raising an issue with the landlord was on 29 March 2023. In this report, he said the lift was breaking “each week” and due to recently leaving the hospital was finding it “difficult to walk five floors”. He asked for the issue to be added to his complaint. However, the landlord failed to take this step and did not respond to the issue in its stage 1 complaint response of 28 April 2023. This caused the resident to believe it was not listening to him or taking his concerns seriously. There is no evidence of the landlord considering a long-term solution to the numerous reports of the lift breaking down.
The resident raised his concerns in his complaint escalation of 2 May 2023 reporting that the lift needed services “every day” and people had been trapped in the lift. He said despite reports being made “for months” it had “not found adequate resolve.” On 17 May a contractor completed a repair to the lift to make it fully operational. However, it became “out of service” on 24 May due to “misuse and vandalism.” It arranged to repair it on 25 May, however, there is no evidence this was completed. In its stage 2 complaint reply, it confirmed the above sequence of events and said the outstanding repair was marked as “urgent”. It is unclear from the evidence when the landlord completed this repair.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response did not find an issue with its handling of the lift repair and as such offered no apology or compensation. It should have considered both for its failure to consider a long-term approach to the lift issues between October 2022 and April 2023. It should also have acknowledged its failure to communicate with the resident on the matter between 29 March and 29 May 2023.
After completion of the landlord’s complaints process there were further reports of the lift breaking down on 28 June, 5, 16, 20 July, 4, 12 August, 5, 10, 18 September, 5, 22, 27, 30, 31 October, 10, 25 November and 1 December 2023. This suggests its long-term fix to the issue was unsuccessful. The landlord’s records show it raised “insurance works” for the lift on 19 January 2024. It is unclear if this work has been completed and if it resolved the issue. However, the resident told the Ombudsman on 26 January the lift was breaking down “once a week”. He said having to walk 5 floors meant he had to have more “medical care, an MRI scan and physio.” As it is uncertain if a long-term solution to the lift breaking down has been found, the landlord will be ordered to complete an independent assessment of the lift if it has not already done so.
In summary the landlord completed temporary repairs to the lift in an appropriate timescale and was reactive to reports made. However, there is no evidence it proactively sought a long-term solution to the issue between October 2022 and April 2023 despite persistent reports of the lift breaking down and its awareness of the impact on the resident. It failed to address the issue in its stage 1 complaint response despite the resident asking for it to do this. The landlord’s long-term fix to the lifts in May 2023 is believed to have been unsuccessful due to the evidence of multiple, persistent further reports of breakdowns. An order will be made for the landlord to investigate this further and complete any appropriate necessary works if it has not already done so.
A determination of service failure has been identified as the landlord was appropriately reacting to the lift breakdown but failed to address the long-term issue for a period and failed to communicate to a sufficient standard. Compensation of £200 has been awarded to the resident as the issue was prolonged but the landlord had taken steps to try and resolve the issue.

The resident’s reports of stolen mail and parcels from the building’s communal area.

The tenancy agreement confirms the landlord will keep in repair common entrances, passageways and communal areas managed by it. It will repair or replace fixtures and fittings which it owns to ensure they are in a safe and functioning condition. It includes “pigeonhole mailboxes in communal areas” as an example of this.
The resident initially reported on 17 October 2022 that his letterbox had been “forcibly opened” and asked for the landlord to “change the mailbox and locks.” He raised on 26 October that he believed “other residents” were stealing his parcels from the communal area. The landlord told him on the same day it was “looking into a long-term estate improvement plan” and that “signage in street view” regarding parcels may be “attracting theft”. Although this managed the resident’s expectations of what may happen in the long term, it did not address how it would manage the situation in the short term.
It appropriately established with the resident on 4 November 2022 persons were entering the building by pressing the fire button on the building exterior. It took steps to rectify this the same day to remove all access to the fire button to anyone but the fire service. The landlord made a recommendation to ask all residents to be vigilant about who they let access the building. There is no evidence to suggest the landlord followed through on this. This is of concern as following through on this recommendation would not have required significant resource and might have had significant impact.
The issue persisted and the resident reported his post box was broken into on 5 and 7 December 2022. The landlord did not take further action until 10 January 2023 and 14 February 2023 when it arranged for a contractor to provide a quote to install “heavy-duty steel plate letter boxes” and assess if it could “securely store parcels”. There is no evidence of the landlord proceeding with any work following this and the resident would raise the “continuing theft of parcels” in his complaint of 13 March 2023. As a result of the complaint, the landlord restarted its assessment of the situation on the same day. It said internally it was “not sure if it had been picked up.” It is of concern that the landlord was prompted to take action only because of the complaint. Furthermore, there is no evidence on each occasion of the landlord suggesting the resident report the issue to the police in accordance with its ASB Policy.
On 23 March 2023 the landlord authorised improvements to replace the current post boxes with heavy-duty post boxes relocated away from the main communal door. It also stated residents could leave parcels at the local shop. It confirmed it would write to all residents to inform them and create a poster reminding residents not to leave parcels in common parts. This was effective action to tackle the problem reported by the resident. There were internal issues with the landlord the following day when the funding was declined in error and then re-raised the following day. The landlord cancelled the work on 3 April as it had raised the work on the “wrong codes” and stated internally it ”should not send the letter created on 23 March.” Confusingly it also stated internally that it should write to residents to explain the quotes “were extremely high and it would monitor the situation.” This suggested that it did not intend to go ahead with the work and contradicted its previous decisions on the matter.
To further confuse the matter in its stage 1 complaint response the landlord told the resident it had received authorisation to replace the current post boxes. It said it would write to all residents to confirm this and leave a poster in the communal area about parcels. This response disregarded the landlord’s internal communication of 3 April causing uncertainty to the resident and failed to effectively manage his expectations. It clarified internally on 2 May that due to raising the work on the “incorrect codes” it was then unable to access finances from the previous financial year. It confirmed it had not written to all residents as it had intended on 23 March.
The resident raised that his post and parcels were being stolen in his complaint escalation of 2 May 2023. He asked for compensation of £150 to replace stolen items. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response acknowledged the resident’s complaint and described events that had taken place in a timeline. However, it failed to offer any resolution or substantial response on this matter. In failing to do this it did not manage the resident’s expectations leaving him confused about whether its approach was resolution-focused. Its complaint response advised the resident about approaching its insurer for damage to his belongings for the leak issue. It should also have taken this approach with the reported stolen items to ensure its insurer could determine liability and consider awarding a claim. The landlord will be ordered to refer the resident to its insurer for the reported stolen items.
Following the completion of the landlord’s complaints process there is no further evidence of it taking further action on the resident’s concerns about stolen parcels and mail or that it corresponded with him about it. In August 2023 it placed temporary security on site who found unauthorised persons accessing the building. It again changed the access to the building “blanking the drop key facility.” He continued to report it was an ongoing issue to the Ombudsman in correspondence on 26 January 2024. An order will be made for the landlord to arrange an independent assessment of the communal area to consider what changes can be made to support the ongoing issue of stolen parcels and mail.
In summary the landlord was aware of the issue of stolen parcels and mail from 17 October 2022. Although it took appropriate steps to obtain quotes for the work it failed to take any further action to support the issue following this. It failed to complete the work due to an internal error occurring in one financial year and deciding the cost was too high in the following financial year. It failed to effectively manage the resident’s expectations throughout, giving him the impression it would still carry out the work in its stage 1 response when it was aware this was not the case. There was no communication with the resident outside of its complaint responses on the matter and its stage 2 response offered no tangible information on the issue. The resident should also have been directed to its insurer for items he reported as stolen.
In all circumstances a determination of maladministration has been identified. Compensation of £250 has been awarded to the resident as the resident failed to effectively communicate with the resident on its approach, failed to manage his expectations and consider the uncertainty and distress caused to the resident through its poor handling of the issue. Further orders will be made for the landlord to arrange an independent assessment of the communal area and refer the resident to its insurer for the reported stolen items.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s Complaints Policy confirms it is “committed to dealing with complaints fairly, responding in correct timeframes and ensuring improvements are made to prevent repeat complaints.” It believes customers should have a “positive experience” when making a complaint and its customer service should be “consistent and transparent.” Decisions must be offered at the “earliest possible opportunity” and “promises delivered without delay.”
The landlord’s complaints process has two stages. At stage 1 it will acknowledge complaints by the end of the next working day and provide its full response in 10 working days. At stage 2 it will acknowledge an escalation in 2 working days and provide its full response in 20 working days. It can extend either response timescale by a further 10 working days where agreed with the complainant.
The resident raised his complaint on 13 March 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day in accordance with its policy. On 24 March it told the resident it needed a further 10 days to reply due to a “heavy workload.” This was appropriate in managing the resident’s expectations. As such it should have replied by 10 April, but it did not do so, breaking the agreement it made with the resident. It also failed to respond to the resident’s request to chase the response on 27 March and 12 April causing uncertainty to the resident. It did not provide its full reply until 28 April, taking 33 working days to provide its response. Its response was therefore 13 working days beyond the timescale (with extension) in its policy. It did provide £25 compensation for this in its stage 1 reply.
The resident asked on 29 March 2023 for issues with the lift to be added to the complaint investigation. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged this request, and it did not respond to the issue in its complaint response. This caused frustration to the resident and concern it was not listening to him. As previously established in this report its response at stage 1 regarding work to replace post boxes was inaccurate and misleading. It advised the resident work would still be going ahead when it had been advised of the contrary.
The resident escalated his complaint on 2 May 2023 and the landlord acknowledged it the following day in accordance with its policy. It told him on 10 May it would reply by 30 May, which was within the 20-working day timescale in its policy for reply. The landlord’s complaint response was provided on 30 May the equivalent to 18 working days. The resident’s complaint escalation included concerns about parcels and mail being stolen. Despite referencing this issue in a timeline in its stage 2 complaint response the landlord failed to offer any response on the matter. This caused uncertainty to the resident on whether it was considering and looking to resolve the issue.
The landlord offered £25 for the delay in responding at stage 1. However, it offered no other acknowledgement in either its stage 1 or 2 complaint responses of any failures in its complaint handling. It should have acknowledged, apologised for and considered compensation for the following:
1. It also did not acknowledge that it failed to manage the resident’s expectations on when it would reply at stage 1.
2. It provided inaccurate and misleading information about its plans for the post boxes in the communal area at stage 1. It would not provide a further response on the matter at stage 2 despite the issue being raised further in the resident’s complaint escalation.
On 21 June 2023 the resident told the landlord he wanted to escalate his complaint to “stage 3”. There is no evidence the landlord responded to this point and should have done so to ensure the resident was fully aware of its complaints process. Its failure to do so caused confusion to the resident on what to do next.
A landlord’s complaint process enables them to identify issues and trends so it can take preventative action and learn from this. The landlord failed to adhere to its own Complaints Policy in its stage 1 response. Its inefficient communication and divergence from its policy at stage 1 caused uncertainty and inconvenience to the resident. Moreover, it failed to respond to all issues and acknowledge any failures in its complaints process causing further frustration and distress to the resident. A determination of service failure has therefore been made. To reflect the resident’s distress and inconvenience due to the landlord’s failures, £200 compensation has been ordered, £175 more than the £25 offered by the landlord. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance in relation to cases where service failure has occurred over a period with moderate impact on the resident throughout that period.

Overall compensation

It is essential for landlords to break down any offers of compensation so that a resident can understand to what extent it has acknowledged the impact of each individual failure The landlord awarded total compensation of £1250 during its complaints process. The award is broken down as follows:
1. It offered £385 at stage 1 as £120 for inconvenience and distress, £120 for time and effort and £120 for its lack of communication. It is believed its award was related to its handling of the leak issue and the post and parcels issue. It also offered £25 for its delayed stage 1 complaint response.
2. It offered £865 at stage 2 as £100 for service failure, £50 for continued lack of communication, £150 for inconvenience and distress, £75 for time and effort, £250 for right to repair and £240 goodwill gesture. It is believed its award was related to its handling of the leak issue, the heating and hot water issue and the post and parcels issue.
It was not clear therefore what elements of the £1250 offered related to its detriment caused by each of the issues listed above. As explained above, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s offer of compensation was not sufficient in either case. The Ombudsman has made the following awards of compensation to the resident:
1. £650 for the landlord’s delay and inefficient communication of the leak and associated remedial repairs at the resident’s property. It failed to consider the detriment to the resident and left him to manage the leak in his property for long periods. It failed to complete the remedial repairs particularly the carpets for a long period despite being aware of the mould growth and the inconvenience and detriment caused to the resident.
2. £500 for the landlord’s inefficient handling of the resident’s reports around heating and hot water. It left the resident for a period without access to heating or hot water, during winter months which the resident described as the “coldest time” of the year. It failed to consider alternatives to the lack of heating and hot water to support the resident.
3. £300 for the landlord’s inefficient handling of the resident’s concerns about ventilation in his property. It was delayed in completing repairs to the bathroom extractor fan leaving no ventilation in the bathroom for a prolonged period. It did not appropriately address the resident’s concerns with the high temperature in his property or the detriment caused to him.
4. £200 for its handling of reports of breakdowns to the lift. It reacted appropriately to each time the lift broke down but did not proactively search for a long-term solution for a prolonged period. It did not consider the impact this caused to the resident or his health.
5. £250 for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of stolen mail and parcels from the building’s communal area. Its communication was confusing and mismanaged the resident’s expectations throughout the complaints process. As a result, no resolution was found by the landlord to the issue, prolonging the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
6. £200 for the landlord’s complaint handling. It was delayed in providing its responses to the resident. It also failed to effectively and appropriately communicate with him.
7. The Ombudsman’s award of compensation as detailed above will also include the total compensation of £1250 offered by the landlord.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and the associated remedial repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with heating and hot water in his property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about ventilation in his property
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of reports of breakdowns to the lift for the building.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of stolen mail and parcels from the building’s communal area.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord shall carry out the following orders and must provide evidence of compliance within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. A senior member of staff from the landlord is to provide a written apology to the resident for the impact of the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £2100 compensation. Any additional compensation is to be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises of:
  1. £650 for the landlord’s delay and inefficient communication of the leak and associated remedial repairs at the resident’s property.
  2. £500 for the landlord’s inefficient handling of the resident’s reports around heating and hot water.
  3. £300 for the landlord’s inefficient handling of the resident’s concerns about ventilation in his property.
  4. £200 for its handling of reports of breakdowns to the communal lift.
  5. £250 for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of stolen mail and parcels from the building’s communal area.
  6. £200 for the landlord’s inefficient complaint handling.
  7. The Ombudsman’s award of compensation as detailed above will also include the total compensation of £1250 offered by the landlord.
3. The landlord is to carry out a review of why the failings identified by this investigation occurred and provide a report back to the Ombudsman and the resident on this. This should include:
  1. Its lack of consideration of the impact the situation had on the resident.
  2. Its lack of transparency with the resident in communicating the results of the action it was taking and management of the resident’s expectations.
4. Refer the resident’s claim for compensation for stolen items to its insurer or provide the resident with information about how to submit a claim.
The landlord shall carry out the following orders and must provide evidence of compliance within 8 weeks of the date of this report:
1. The landlord must carry out an independent inspection of the property and communal area and produce a schedule of works to remedy issues identified in this report. This includes:
  1. Assessing the reports of high temperatures in the property, particularly during summertime and if adaptations can be made.
  2. If it has not already done so it must complete an Inspection of the lift to ascertain whether a long-term solution can be found to the lift persistently breaking down.
  3. Further consider changes that can be made to the resident’s postal box and if work can be completed to make the receiving of mail more secure. It must also arrange for information to be sent regarding alternative secure locations to have parcels delivered if it has not already done so.

Recommendation

The landlord should consider its policy and procedure in supporting PRS tenants adversely affected by outstanding repairs in their property.