London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202308819)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308819

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

19 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of repairs following a leak to the bedroom.
2. Reports of repairs to the windows.
3. Reports of recurring boiler failures resulting in loss of heating and hot water.
4. Reports of pest infestations.
5. Concerns about bare concrete floors in the property.
6. Reports of missed appointments.
7. Associated formal complaint.

Background

The resident is the assured tenant of a ground floor flat, situated in a grade 2 listed retirement complex, owned by the landlord. The landlord has recorded that the resident is vulnerable and in poor health.
The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord, via this Service, on 23 August 2023. She reported that there was water damage in the bedroom, caused by a leak from the flat above. She stated that the bedroom floor was bare concrete, she had repeated mice infestations, the windows required repairing or replacing, and there had been a number of issues with the boiler and heating.
In its stage 1 response on 7 September 2023, the landlord outlined repairs raised and completed for each of the resident’s repairs concerns. It asked her to confirm the type of pest infestation she was experiencing and offered support in relation to carpeting in the bedroom.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 3 October 2023, via this Service. She reported that there had been missed appointments in relation to the leak as well as other service requests. She repeated her previous concerns in relation to the windows, heating, pest infestations, outstanding repairs to the bedroom, and bare flooring in her home.
In its stage 2 response on 10 October 2023, the landlord repeated its stage 1 response and provided a further explanation for each of the resident’s repairs concerns. It offered £100 for time and effort, £200 for distress, £200 for inconvenience, £80 for missed appointments, and £60 for complaint handling, totalling £640 in compensation.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to this Service. She wanted the landlord to undertake a further inspection of pest infestations, provide suitable flooring in the property, investigate her reports about the heating, further inspect and repair the bedroom wall, apologise for the missed appointments, and review its offer of compensation for the inconvenience and distress caused.

Scope of investigation

In the resident’s communication with this Service, she advised that the situation, and outstanding matters, were affecting her health and causing distress. This Service can consider any inconvenience or distress caused, as a result of any service failure by the landlord. However, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health, nor can it calculate or award damages. Ultimately this would be a matter for the courts.
In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she raised concerns about the communal flooring outside her front door. She stated that a section of flooring had been taken up, approximately a year ago, it had been left uncovered and she believed it to be a hazard. It is noted that the landlord has provided a separate stage 1 response regarding this issue.
In accordance with paragraph 42(a) the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. As the issues with the communal flooring has not completed the landlord’s complaint process, we are unable to consider this matter further at this time. A recommendation is made for the landlord to contact the resident to consider escalating the complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process.

Assessment and findings

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

Reports of repairs following a leak to the bedroom

The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will undertake emergency works that occur out of hours within 4 hours. The out of hours service will be to make safe and lower the immediate risk. Follow on repairs will be completed at the earliest mutually convenient appointment, and routine repairs within an average of 25 calendar days.
The landlord’s repairs records of 16 August 2023 referred to the bedroom ceiling being blown and to make it safe. Further records of 1 September 2023 refer to a reported leak from the ceiling. A repairs order was raised on 6 September 2023 for plaster and decoration to the bedroom ceiling, which showed as complete on 14 September 2023.
In its stage 1 response the landlord referred to its repairs records and a reported leak on 1 September 2023. Its notes confirmed that the leak, in the flat above, was repaired the same day. Its operative attempted to visit the resident’s home the same day but was unable to gain access to assess for repairs. It offered to coordinate another visit and asked the resident to provide available dates.
The landlord’s response was appropriate in acknowledging that the leak had been repaired the same day. However, while offering to co-ordinate a further date for the inspection, it missed an opportunity to telephone the resident, and agree a suitable date prior to its response. This would have prevented further delays and distress to the resident.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord again confirmed that the leak had been resolved. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in addressing the issues following the leak. It also stated that:
1. It had asked the supervisor and surveyor to attend and inspect to assess any required work. The inspection had taken place, and it was waiting for confirmation to confirm the next steps.
2. It referred to its telephone conversation with the resident on 4 October 2023, acknowledged that the situation had a detrimental impact on her health, for which it apologised. It provided its insurance details if she felt it necessary to make a personal injury claim.
3. It had arranged for the bedroom to be plastered and painted on 12 October 2023.
4. It offered compensation of £100 for time and effort, £200 for distress, and £200 for inconvenience.
This Service’s dispute resolution principles are, be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. The landlord’s response was appropriate in apologising for the delays, of 41 calendar days, and failure to complete repairs in line with its repairs policy timescale of 25 calendar days. It also acknowledged the detriment caused to the resident and offered compensation. Its offer was in line with this Service’s remedies guidance for maladministration, in the range of £100 to £600. This Service, therefore, finds that the landlord has made an offer of redress, prior to investigation, which satisfactorily resolves the resident’s complaint about reports of repairs to the bedroom following a leak.

Reports of repairs to the windows

The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for insecure windows, window frames and sills, sash window cords, weights, fasteners and lifts. It is noted that the property is grade 2 listed and has sash windows.
In the resident’s complaint she stated that she was struggling to open the sash window in her bedroom as she no longer had the strength to do so.
The landlord’s repairs records showed that it had attended on 9 occasions between 20 September 2021 and 21 October 2023 to ease the bedroom window. The records referred to finding no fault with the window but that it was too heavy for the resident to open.
In its stage 1 response the landlord apologised for issues with the windows in the resident’s home. It confirmed its major works team had planned to complete a major refurbishment which was due to start in January 2024. An officer from the team would be in touch over the next few months to confirm details of the work. It asked her to let it know if any urgent repairs were required.
The landlord’s records demonstrated that it had responded on each occasion to the resident’s reports about window repairs. Its response was appropriate in providing details about the refurbishment of the windows. It would have been helpful, however, to have telephoned the resident to ascertain whether she had any urgent repairs.
In its stage 2 response the landlord repeated that it planned to complete a major refurbishment of the windows commencing 2024. However, after speaking with the resident on 4 October 2023, she had reported having trouble opening the windows. It had asked an operative to attend to see if it could implement anything that would help with the issue in the meantime. A carpenter would attend to inspect the windows on 21 November 2023.
This Service empathises that it would have been distressing for the resident, to be unable to open her bedroom window. However, the landlord demonstrated that it had responded to the resident’s reports on each occasion, in line with its repairs policy. It had found no defects or remedial works required. It appropriately advised that the windows were due for refurbishment in 2024, and arranged to visit to see if it could find a solution in the meantime. This Service, therefore, finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of window repairs.

Reports of recurring boiler failures resulting in loss of heating and hot water

The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for all types of heating systems to ensure residents have ready access to heating and hot water.
The landlord’s repairs records showed that a new boiler was fitted on 7 January 2022. Records also showed that:
1. On 23 March and 4 April 2022, the resident reported that the boiler was making noise at night and rattling which was preventing her from sleeping. This was addressed in a stage 2 complaint on 10 June 2022.
2. On 29 June 2022 the resident reported having no heating. Repairs were completed on 30 June 2022.
3. On 30 June 2022 the resident again reported having no heating and repairs were completed on 1 July 2022.
4. On 22 July 2022 she reported the boiler making a loud noise and the landlord attended the same day. She reported the same issue on 5 September 2022 and the landlord attended the same day.
5. On 24 November 2022 she reported no heating and hot water. The notes stated that the landlord had been unable to gain access.
6. On 17 February 2023, the resident reported no heating, and the landlord attended the same day.
In its stage 1 response the landlord stated that the last reported boiler fault was February 2023. It had received no reports since that time. Prior to this date it noted a leaking radiator valve in December 2022 and a fault with the boiler in November 2022. It asked the resident to confirm whether there was a current fault with her heating and hot water and it would be happy to arrange an appointment.
The landlord’s response was appropriate in that it had checked its repairs records for reported faults. It would have been helpful to have contacted the resident to ascertain whether she had a repair at the time, rather than asking her to confirm this in its response letter.
In its stage 2 response and following its telephone call with the resident on 4 October 2023, it stated it was happy to learn that there were no issues with the heating at the time. It advised her to contact its customer service centre should any new faults arise and provided the contact telephone number.
The landlord’s response was appropriate. It demonstrated that it had checked with the resident to see if there were any current faults with her heating and hot water system. The evidence also demonstrated that the landlord had attended, within its repairs policy timescales, on each occasion the resident reported faults. This Service, therefore, finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of recurring boiler failures resulting in no heating or hot water.
It should be noted that in her recent communication with this Service, the resident has advised that the radiators in the kitchen and spare room do not work. She also reports that her property is cold, and she uses additional resources to keep warm. A recommendation is made for the landlord to contact the resident in relation to this.

Reports of mice infestations

The landlord’s website, under its homes and maintenance responsibilities, states that it will deal with pests in all internal and external communal areas that it manages directly. It will deal with all tenanted homes where there are rat infestations. It will also deal with mice reports if residents have been unsuccessful in dealing with the issues themselves or where there is evidence of a wider infestation in a block.
The landlord’s repairs records demonstrated that the resident had reported mice infestations in her home, and rat infestations in the communal garden, on 22 occasions between 1 August 2013 and 17 August 2022. In correspondence between the landlord and contractor on 26 August 2022, the contractor stated that it had found no evidence of mice in the resident’s home. There was no disturbance of the tracking dust or evidence of bait trays being touched. It was an old building, and while the resident had stated she could hear mice in the walls, there was no evidence of mice in the resident’s home. Records showed that the last report was 15 May 2023 and the landlord attended on 22 June 2023 to reports of a mice infestation.
In its stage 1 response the landlord stated that its records showed that it had undertaken treatment for mice in May 2023. Since then, it had received no further reports. However, it would be happy to arrange for pest control to attend and investigate if the resident confirmed the type of infestation.
The landlord’s response was appropriate having investigated its repairs records and offering a further inspection. It would have been helpful to have telephoned the resident to confirm the type of infestation and arranged an appointment prior to its response.
In its stage 2 response the landlord referred to its stage 1 response and request for the resident to confirm what type of pest she had in the property. It could not see a response. However, following its conversation with her on 4 October 2023, she confirmed that she believed there to be mice in the walls. It had raised an order for its contractor to contact her directly to schedule an appointment.
The landlord’s repairs records demonstrated that it raised an order on 3 January 2024 for its pest contractor to attend, which was completed on 31 January 2024.
This Service empathises that it would have been distressing for the resident to hear mice in the walls. While we do not dispute the resident’s assertions, the evidence demonstrated that the landlord had attended to each report, over a period of time, and found no evidence of mice in the property. The landlord’s response was therefore appropriate in raising a new inspection to take place to address the resident’s concerns. This Service, therefore, finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of mice infestations.

Concerns about bare concrete floors in the property

The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for kitchen and bathroom floor coverings. Residents are responsible for floor coverings such as carpets in all other rooms. Its homes and maintenance responsibilities booklet on its website also confirms the residents responsibility for carpets.
In its stage 1 response the landlord stated that the resident had lived in the property since September 1996. As part of its maintenance obligations, it could assist with kitchen and bathroom flooring, however, it was the resident’s responsibility to organise all other floor coverings. It offered to arrange for an officer to visit to discuss any assistance it may be able to offer, which may be helpful if she was experiencing financial difficulties and was unable to purchase essential items such as carpets.
The landlord’s response was appropriate and in line with its repairs policy. It made a reasonable offer to try and support the resident.
In its stage 2 response the landlord repeated its response from stage 1. It stated that it had arranged for an operative to visit to see if there was any assistance it could offer.
In the resident’s communication with this Service, she advised that a friend had arranged for a bedroom carpet and the matter was resolved.
The landlord’s response was appropriate and in line with its repairs policy, and it appropriately offered support. This Service finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the residents reports about concrete floors in the property.

Reports of missed appointments

The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will award £20 for failing to keep an appointment without at least 24 hours notice.
In its stage 1 response the landlord apologised for making appointments and repairs which had not been honoured. It recognised this caused frustration for the resident and inconvenience. It asked the resident to provide dates of the missed appointments, it would be happy to reschedule these, and award compensation for the dates it let her down.
The landlord’s response was appropriate, however, it would have been helpful to have telephoned the resident to discuss the missed appointments. It could also have reviewed its repairs records to identify any failings.
In its stage 2 response the landlord apologised again for the inconvenience caused. It had not received a response in relation to the dates but had awarded a payment of £80 to cover 4 missed appointments. If the resident provided any additional dates, it would reconsider the amount.
As the resident had not specified the number of missed appointments the landlord’s response was reasonable in the circumstances, and in line with its compensation policy. This Service, therefore, finds that the landlord has made an offer of redress, prior to investigation, which satisfactorily resolves the resident’s complaint about missed appointments.

Associated formal complaint

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Complaints are acknowledged within 5 working days. Stage 1 complaints are responded to within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 23 August 2023, acknowledged by the landlord on 24 August 2023, in line with its complaint policy timescale of 5 working days. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 7 September 2023, 11 working days later, and 1 working day later than its complaint policy timescale. The delay was not significant, and the impact was therefore minimal.
The resident escalated her complaint on 3 October 2023, acknowledged by the landlord on 5 October 2023 in line with its complaint policy timescale of 5 working days. It responded on 10 October 2023, 5 working days later in line with its complaint policy timescale of 20 working days. It offered £60 for its complaint handling delay.
The landlord’s responses were in line with its complaint policy timescales, with a minor delay of 1 working day. Therefore, its offer of compensation of £60 was more than reasonable in the circumstances. This Service, therefore, finds that the landlord has made of offer of redress, prior to investigation, which satisfactorily resolves the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated formal complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the residents:
1. Reports of repairs to the windows.
2. Reports of mice infestations.
3. Reports of recurring boiler failures resulting in loss of heating and hot water.
4. Concerns about bare concrete floors in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress, prior to investigation, which satisfactorily resolves the resident’s:
1. Reports of repairs following a leak to the bedroom.
2. Reports of missed Appointments.
3. Associated formal complaint.

Recommendations

The landlord should update the resident on the window refurbishment programme and provide a timescale for when the windows will be replaced, as outlined in its stage 1 and 2 responses.
The landlord should contact the resident to discuss the communal flooring. It should take appropriate measures to ensure that the uncarpeted area is made safe with temporary flooring until the matter can be resolved. It should also consider whether the resident wishes to escalate her complaint to stage 2.
The landlord should contact the resident with regard to the radiators in the kitchen and spare room which the resident advises are not working. It should consider inspecting the property to assess the heating to ensure it is providing adequate heat.