London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202314354)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314354

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

21 February 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 letting a property to the resident without a carbon monoxide (CO) alarm.

Background

  1. Throughout the case, the resident and her partner have corresponded with the landlord. For the purposes of this report both are referred to as ‘the resident’.
  2. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since December 2022. The property is a new build 3-bedroom house. She lives there with her 3 children and partner.
  3. On 14 December 2022, the landlord’s engineer uncapped the gas at the property. They carried out a gas safety check and issued a gas safety certificate. The engineer did not identify any faults with the boiler and classed it as safe to use.
  4. On 3 January 2023 the resident telephoned the landlord and reported having headaches. She asked if the property had a CO alarm. During the call it told the resident that CO alarms were fitted in the property.
  5. The landlord visited the property on 27 June 2023 to install a CO alarm. The resident denied them access as she believed there were already CO alarms in the property. She called the landlord the same day to report the visit and explain that she had been told 7 months ago that there was a CO alarm in the property and wanted an explanation.
  6. Having realised there had been no CO alarm in the property for the duration of her tenancy, the resident contacted the landlord to make a complaint on 30 June 2023. An engineer installed a CO alarm and carried out a gas safety check on the same day. The landlord’s gas safety certificate did not list any faults. Both the cooker and boiler were classed as safe to use.
  7. In its stage 1 response on 4 July 2023, the landlord said:
    1. It had attended and installed CO alarms in the property on 30 June 2023.
    2. It apologised that it had not identified the absence of the CO alarm sooner. It acknowledged it should have identified the absence of the CO alarm on a number of occasions, including:
      1. During the voids inspection.
      2. When the gas was recommissioned.
      3. During the call with the advisor on 3 January 2023.
    3. It acknowledged that it should not have assumed there was a CO alarm in the property. It should have raised a job to ensure the alarm was in place.
    4. It had since listened to a recording of the call with the advisor and highlighted the importance of taking nothing for granted, especially where health and safety was concerned. It had notified its health and safety team about the matter to assess future training needs.
    5. It acknowledged the resident had complained about headaches and advised it could not pursue liability claims through the complaints process. It provided the details and instructions for contacting its insurance provider.
    6. In view of its findings, it offered £1,260 compensation, broken down as follows:
      1. £200 for time and effort.
      2. £280 for distress.
      3. £280 for inconvenience.
      4. £250 for right to repair/Loss of working CO alarm.
      5. £250 for service failure.
    7. It intended to offset the payment against the resident’s current rent arrears in line with its policy.
    8. If the resident was not satisfied with the response, she could escalate her complaint.
    9. It offered a free service for residents experiencing financial difficulties. The service provided confidential advice on rent, council tax and benefits, and could consult with these departments on the resident’s behalf.
  8. The landlord emailed the resident on 10 July 2023, asking if she accepted the stage 1 response and the compensation it had offered. She responded in an email on 10 July 2023 with the following points:
    1. If the landlord offset the compensation against her rent arrears, her account would be in credit.
    2. She wanted the landlord to reconsider the distress element of compensation it had awarded and increase it above £40 per month.
    3. She reminded the landlord that her family had suffered headaches and raised concerns about CO2 leaks but felt they had not been listened to.
    4. She acknowledged it had considered this in the complaint. However, she believed if she or her children had suffered injury their claim would have been in the hundreds of thousands.
    5. If the landlord was not prepared to reconsider the compensation she would consult with her solicitor.
    6. She understood her right to have the complaint escalated to stage 2.
  9. In its response on 12 July 2023, the landlord said:
    1. It confirmed it would add the full amount of compensation as a financial adjustment to the resident’s rent account.
    2. If the account moved into credit in the future she could apply for the money to be refunded.
    3. It had reviewed the compensation award with a senior member of staff. It found the amount to be fair and in line with its policy and procedure.
    4. If she remained unhappy then she could escalate the complaint.
    5. It advised the stage 2 process usually completed within 20 working days. However, it had a backlog of cases, which could mean the process took longer than expected.
  10. The landlord emailed the resident again on 20 July 2023 to ask if she had had a chance to speak to her solicitor about the compensation, and how she wanted to proceed. The resident contacted this service on the same day advising that the landlord had refused to escalate the complaint. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord asking it to provide its stage 2 response within 25 working days. The landlord then provided its stage 2 acknowledgement letter to the resident the same day (20 July 2023).
  11. On 8 August 2023 the landlord sent its stage 2 response to the resident. The response summarised the history of the complaint and included the following additional points:
    1. It understood the resident’s reasons for escalating the complaint were:
      1. The compensation offered at stage 1 was not sufficient. She wanted this to be reviewed and increased.
      2. Offsetting the compensation against the rent arrears only benefitted the named tenant and not the other occupiers. She believed all occupants should receive compensation to reflect the distress caused.
      3. Concerns that CO leaks had been missed, leading to headaches.
    2. Following contact from the Housing Ombudsman on 20 July 2023, it had escalated the complaint to stage 2.
    3. Its compensation process was designed to set things right and restore the complainant to the place they were in prior to issues occurring. It awarded compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to all members of the household.
    4. As part of its review of the complaint it had considered the compensation offered. It confirmed the compensation was in accordance with its policy.
    5. The resident felt that the heating engineer who attended the property on 27 June 2023 should have known the property did not have a CO alarm and should have advised her of this. If this had happened, she would not have refused access. The landlord advised that when a contractor is refused access, all they can do is report this to the landlord to be followed up.
    6. It apologised that the resident had felt her concerns about headaches had been dismissed. However, it pointed out that it had given details in its stage 1 response for its insurance company, should she want to pursue a personal injury claim.
    7. In the circumstances it was satisfied it had appropriately considered the complaint and that it had reached a fair outcome, which concluded its stage 2 process.
    8. It confirmed its offer of compensation as £1,260 and advised it would offset this amount against the rent arrears.
  12. The landlord paid the compensation into the resident’s rent account on 10 August 2023. The resident was unhappy with the stage 2 response and asked this service to investigate her complaint on 22 August 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has complained that her family suffered headaches during the period when the property was without a CO alarm. The Ombudsman does not dispute this, however, this service is unable to make a determination about the causal link between the missing CO detector and the headaches. An investigation of any impact on the resident’s health is best suited to the courts and/or an insurance claim.

The missing CO alarm

  1. The Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm (Amendment) Regulations 2022 came into force on 1 October 2022. These regulations required the landlord to ensure any room containing a fixed combustion appliance was equipped with a CO alarm. As the landlord let the property to the resident without a CO alarm, it was therefore in breach of this legislation. It should have carried out a pre-tenancy check to ensure the CO alarm was in place.
  2. It was concerning that the landlord made assumptions regarding the presence of the CO alarm. Given the resident reported headaches, it would have been reasonable for it to investigate the resident’s concerns, regardless of whether they believed the CO alarm was present or not.
  3. When considering complaints, the Ombudsman applies this service’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  4. On 27 June 2023, after the resident became aware the alarm was missing and realised the advice she had been given on 3 January 2023 was incorrect, she informed the landlord. However, it was not until 3 days later, when the resident complained, that it attended and fitted the new alarm. This was another missed opportunity for the landlord to take action to investigate the situation.
  5. In its complaint responses the landlord correctly acknowledged it had missed a number of opportunities to identify the missing alarm. It apologised for this and also for making an assumption that the alarm was in place during the call on 3 January 2023. This was an appropriate and proportionate response which recognised the impact of its delay on the resident.
  6. The landlord’s 3-day timescale for actioning the installation once it became aware the alarm was missing was reasonable.
  7. In terms of learning from outcomes, the landlord reviewed the call with its call handler to highlight what action they should consider in the future. To prevent the risk of the same thing happening again, it flagged the issue to the wider organisation by bringing it to the attention of the health and safety team. This was an appropriate response. The Ombudsman would have found maladministration but for the steps taken by the landlord to put things right.
  8. The Ombudsman finds the landlord made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the absence of a CO alarm in the resident’s property. This determination is made in view of the actions taken by the landlord to put things right for the resident. It took action within a reasonable time to install the CO alarm and initiated measures to prevent recurrence. It acknowledged and apologised for its errors throughout the process and made an offer of compensation, which is reflective of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  9. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will partly or fully offset a compensation payment against any debt owed to it by a resident, including rent and service charge arrears. It is the Ombudsman’s position that compensation awarded by this service should be treated separately from any existing financial arrangements between the landlord and resident and should not be offset against arrears. If additional compensation had been awarded as a result of this investigation, the landlord would have been ordered to pay it to the resident as a distinct payment. In the circumstances, since a finding of reasonable redress has been made, the Ombudsman accepts that the landlord acted in line with its policy and does not require any further action.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in relation to it letting the property to the resident without a CO alarm.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should review its policies and procedures to ensure it is complying with the legislation surrounding CO alarms.