The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202307643)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307643

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

29 July 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Reports of draughts from the bedroom windows.
    2. The complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The resident’s tenancy began in December 2019. She occupies a 2-bedroom house with her partner who has cancer. The resident advised she has health conditions including fibromyalgia.
  2. Around March 2020 the resident reported that the bedrooms’ window frames were rotten and falling apart. She added that they were draughty and water was coming through them. Between April and August 2020, she continued to report issues with the windows. She said she was told the landlord’s contractor would overhaul the windows. The landlord said there was an outstanding job raised for these windows but the appointment was delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic and its contractor would come back to her with a new appointment.
  3. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord around August 2020 about the delays in replacing the windows after having reported the issue earlier in the year. She said they were not fit for purpose and the frames and ledges were rotten and the glass loose. In February 2021, the landlord fitted new uPVC windows in both front and back bedrooms. Subsequently, in April 2021, the resident reported that there was a draught coming from these newly installed windows. The landlord advised that it would not be able to book a repair for an inspection due to a limited service as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. On 12 August 2021, the resident asked the landlord to inspect the windows which its contractor did on 2 September 2021. Its contractor attended again in October and November 2021.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 1 December 2021. It said that following the installation of the new windows on 5 February 2021, its contractor provided it with a report saying the windows were fit for purpose and in good working order, and that its contractor attended on various occasions in 2021 to address her concerns regarding the draught.
  5. Dissatisfied with this response, the resident asked to escalate her complaint on 8 December 2021. She said that while the contractor had attended her property a few times, the draughts persisted. She said if the landlord would not take action, she would arrange for an independent contractor to look at the condition of the windows. On 22 December 2021, the landlord inspected the windows and found they were in working order and the only draught was coming from the trickle vents. They said these vents were necessary to allow air flow and prevent condensation but could be closed by the resident. They explained that, even when closed, they would by design still allow a certain amount of airflow.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 (final) response on 12 April 2023. It said that new windows were fitted and that its contractor had attended on 3 separate occasions to check the windows. They advised all were left in working order and there were no draughts detected from the sealed units. It said that following the resident’s reports that the new windows were still draughty, it arranged for its supervisor to attend and found the windows were in working order and the only draught was coming from the trickle vents. It acknowledged that the resident felt there should be no draught in a property from the windows; however, the trickle vents were necessary and were standard on all uPVC fitted windows to allow airflow and prevent condensation. It added it had checked the windows on a number of separate occasions and found that they were in full working order. It offered compensation of £150 for the delay in responding at stage 2 and £50 for the time and effort bringing the complaint to the landlord.
  7. In the resident’s referral to this Service, she disputed that the draughts were coming from the trickle vents and asserted that the windows were not fitted properly. She said she had higher heating bills due to this and said she was unable to use the back bedroom. As a resolution, the resident wanted a separate, independent evaluation by a surveyor, the landlord to resolve the draught issues, and for further compensation for distress and inconvenience and to reflect additional heating costs.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of reports of draughts from the bedroom windows

  1. Under its repair policy at the time, the landlord was responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior of the home, including windows. For emergency works, where there is an immediate danger to the occupant or members of the public, it would attend within 24 hours. For routine day-to-day repairs, it would aim to complete the repair at the earliest mutually convenient appointment. On receiving reports of draughts, the landlord should have carried out an inspection in good time and established the best approach for resolving any issues. The landlord should also endeavour to keep the resident updated, notifying them of progress and any delays.
  2. Following the resident’s reports of draughts in April 2021, the landlord acted fairly by promptly explaining that it would not be able to inspect as of now due to a limited service. It had previously explained in 2020 that it was implementing an emergency-only repairs service because of the COVID-19 pandemic.  Subsequently, the resident asked in August 2021 if the landlord could inspect the windows for draughts. The landlord acted reasonably by promptly arranging for its contractor to inspect the windows. Its contractor attended in early September 2021 and found that the windows were installed properly and were in working order. However, the resident still reported issues with the windows. In response, the landlord again acted reasonably by carrying out a further two inspections on 29 October 2021 and 12 November 2021 which again confirmed the windows were fit for purpose. In this case, the landlord demonstrated that it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously by carrying out multiple inspections in response to her reports.
  3. It is of concern that the landlord did not provide the Ombudsman with its contractor report referred to in its stage 1 response. Although the landlord provided its repair logs, some of the inspections mentioned in its formal responses did not feature in these logs. In line with our recent spotlight report “On the record: Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management” of May 2023, the landlord should have a robust record keeping system to ensure appropriate recording and handling of repairs to ensure delivery of its operational service. In this respect, a recommendation has been made.
  4. In December 2021, the resident acknowledged that the contractor had “been out a few times” and there is no dispute that a number of inspections and visits took place to inspect the windows. However, the resident expressed concern that, despite the contractors’ visits, there were still draughts which she wanted resolved. From the resident’s complaint, the extent of the draughts is unclear; however, the resident stated that the draughts were worse in the back bedroom. While accepting that some draughts came in from the trickle vents, in her view there was an excessive amount of draughts.
  5. The resident’s escalation request of 8 December 2021 continued to express concerns with draughts and said that a contractor taking photographs could not demonstrate draughts. She added she would get an independent contractor to look at the condition of the windows and would invoice the landlord. In response to this, the landlord acted fairly by again attending the property on 22 December 2021. The supervisor who attended subsequently advised in January 2022 that there was no draught or problem with the windows. There was however a slight draught as would be expected from the trickle vents.
  6. In the landlord’s submission to this Service, it said the draughts reported in the bedrooms were coming from the trickle vents and that these were necessary and standard on all uPVC fitted windows to enable air flow and to prevent condensation. The landlord added that the resident may close such a vent and it would still allow the necessary airflow. The landlord acted fairly by inspecting the windows, at the resident’s request, a number of times. From the evidence, it appears the landlord checked the bedroom windows on around four separate occasions and each time found they were in working order and that no further work was required.
  7. While the Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s comments that, in her view, the draughts were not related to trickle vents, the landlord was entitled to rely on the opinion of its contractor and its supervisor. In the landlord’s final response, it appropriately advised that from its inspections it had not found draughts from the sealed units. It added it only found a draught coming from the trickle vents which were necessary for airflow. Furthermore, the landlord recognised that the resident did not want any draughts in her property, but provided a reasonable and clear explanation regarding the function of the trickle vents. It added that these were standard on all uPVC fitted windows and that this was likely the reason for the reported draughts.
  8. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of draughts was satisfactory. It inspected the windows following the resident’s reports and each time it was found that they were correctly fitted and that any draught the resident experienced was due to the trickle vents which were needed to allow airflow into the property. The landlord clearly explained this in its stage 2 response to the resident.
  9. The Ombudsman recognises while an inspection was carried out by a landlord supervisor in December 2021, it is not clear if they carried out a thorough inspection as the landlord has not provided this Service with a copy of inspection reports. This inspection was key as prior inspections were caried out by the contractor that installed the windows. To ensure that a thorough inspection was carried out and to provide reassurance to the resident, it is recommended that the landlord arranges for a surveyor to attend and inspect the windows again.
  10. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she explained her partner has cancer and is undergoing treatment. She stated that adequate heating is essential for their condition and expressed concerns about the costs of heating the property, particularly in the winter months. The landlord’s records show a vulnerability flag on her account dated 15 December 2023. This was after the landlord’s final response in April 2023. The Ombudsman has not seen any correspondence between the resident and landlord pertaining to the health of her partner. As it is unclear if the landlord is fully aware of the vulnerabilities of all occupants of the household, a recommendation has been made below. Additionally, in light of the resident’s comments about heating costs, a recommendation has been made below.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

  1. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints procedure. The landlord aims to issue a response within 10 working days at stage 1, and within 20 working days at stage 2. If the landlord is unable to respond within these timescales, it will write to the resident to explain why and provide the response within a further 10 working days.
  2. From the landlord’s records it is not entirely clear whether the resident raised a complaint about draughts from the new windows, which again likely indicates issues with the landlord’s record keeping. It is reasonable to conclude that such a complaint was raised in around November 2021. However, the landlord’s final response stated that a complaint was logged on 14 October 2020 and it appears that the two separate issues were wrapped into one complaint reference. This was inappropriate: the earlier complaint related to issues with the resident’s old, wooden windows while the later complaint related to draughts from the replacement windows, and the two complaints should have been dealt with separately. Although this was a shortcoming on the part of the landlord, it did not affect the overall outcome for the resident.
  3. Following the resident’s request to escalate her complaint on 8 December 2021, the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 12 April 2023. This was over 300 working days after the escalation request and the landlord acted contrary to its complaints policy timescales. In addition, there is no evidence the landlord notified the resident of any delay as required by its policy. The landlord stated it provided updates to the resident that her stage 2 complaint would be reviewed on 1 March 2022 and 25 August 2022, but the Ombudsman has seen no evidence of these updates. The landlord missed several opportunities to respond to the resident’s complaint earlier and these delays would have caused frustration to the resident who would have likely felt the landlord was not taking her concerns seriously.
  4. The landlord should have sought to keep the resident updated about her complaint regularly, but it failed to do this and as a result the resident had no effective or open dialogue with the landlord. While the landlord acknowledged this in its final response and made an attempt to put things right by offering a total of £200 for its complaint handling failures, this remedy, in the Ombudsman’s view, did not adequately reflect the distress of the significant delays at stage 2. Furthermore, this Service notes that the landlord apologised for a delay at stage 1. While it unclear what the length of this delay was, this was another complaint handling failure that would have delayed getting matters resolved. In view of this, an order has been made below to put things right for the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of draughts from the bedroom windows.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Order and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 28 calendar days of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the complaint handling failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident a further £75 for the failings in its handling of the complaint.
  2. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Ombudsman within the timescale set out above.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should:
    1. Carry out a further inspection of the windows in the bedrooms. It should also provide copies of the window inspections reports since the start of the tenancy to both the resident and the Ombudsman. The landlord must report back to us within 28 calendar days from the date of this report so we can monitor compliance with this recommendation, where appropriate.
    2. Review its record-keeping practices to ensure appropriate recording, handling of and responses to complaints and delivery of operational service and consider, if has not done so already, implementing a Knowledge and Information Management Strategy.
    3. Ensure that a vulnerability flag on the resident’s records reflects all occupants’ health conditions.
    4. Contact the resident to discuss costs of heating and where appropriate make referrals to relevant external agencies for support or financial assistance.