London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202316572)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316572

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

16 August 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about the security and condition of the block, anti social behaviour (ASB), repairs needed to the emergency door releases, and fire safety signs.

Background

The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a flat on the third floor of a block comprised of similar properties.
The resident had historically reported anti social behaviour (ASB), theft of post, loitering and rubbish left in communal areas, and drug usage, in November 2021. She raised similar concerns in communication with the landlord via her MP in February 2022. Her reports related to young people gathering in the communal hallways and stairwells, drug usage, graffiti, fire hazards, a lack of security due to unknown individuals being let into the block and having key fobs, a lack of CCTV or police patrols as the landlord had previously suggested, stolen post, individuals sleeping under stairwells and the condition of the carpets and communal play area. The landlord responded to the resident’s MP at the time with a list of its intended actions.
In April 2023, the resident reported an individual using an e-scooter in the communal hallways and leaving tire marks on the carpet. They had been asked to stop repeatedly and she was concerned that her child would be injured if they did not brake in time. The individual and their friends charged the e-scooters in the communal hallways which was a fire hazard. She said she had reported the ongoing issues multiple times and was dissatisfied with the time she had spent reporting ASB, theft of parcels, dirty carpets, and drug use in the building. She asked that the emergency locks on the fire doors were fixed so that they could not be opened and used other than in an emergency. She also asked that a letter was sent to residents. She believed that if regular checks were completed the issues would have been resolved and said that if these were not resolved she would be approaching the Ombudsman.
The landlord’s records suggest that a letter was sent regarding use of e-scooters, and that the landlord emailed the resident in response on 27 April 2023. The landlord has not provided records confirming this.
The resident raised a complaint on 20 July 2023. She said she had previously complained about ASB, general disrepair, theft, and poor communication from the landlord. She had some email communication from a staff member, but they had not dealt with the issues other than to send a block letter about the use of e-scooters. She said she had sent an email to her MP asking them to escalate the matter further and attached a copy. The Ombudsman has not seen this communication; however, it is understood that her concerns related to those previously reported.
The landlord’s records show that the resident had initially agreed for a new neighbourhood housing manager (who had recently been appointed) to investigate her concerns as a query rather than a complaint to allow them the opportunity to resolve them.
The complaint was raised formally on 1 August 2023 due to the resident’s reports of a lack of communication or action. The landlord responded at both stages of its complaints process between 1 September and 17 November 2023.
Within its responses, the landlord:
1. Confirmed the actions it agreed to take. This included:
  1. Looking into the possibility of installing socket covers to stop e-scooters being charged in the hallway. It confirmed that if the resident was able to identify the culprits, it may be able to enforce action as this would be a tenancy breach.
  2. Agreeing to place a dummy camera by the post boxes to deter people from taking post or parcels. It suggested that real cameras may need to be put up but residents in the block would need to agree to this due to a monthly charge. It added that it would discuss what it could do in relation to non-residents having fobs to access the building.
  3. Agreeing to send a letter to residents in the block, advising them not to give key fobs to non residents, and reminding them that they would be in breach of their tenancy if they were found to be using drugs. It confirmed that enforcement action would be taken if the culprits were identified as this was a breach of tenancy.
  4. Determining what it could do about the carpets as they had previously been cleaned but marks from the e-scooters remained.
2. Said it was unable to lock the communal doors as they were fire doors but it later confirmed that a repair had been carried out to the locking mechanism on the second-floor emergency exit on 9 November 2023.
3. Said it had communicated the resident’s additional concerns about the fire safety signs being worn and would keep in communication with the neighbourhood housing lead until the issue had been resolved. It apologised that this concern was not addressed sooner.
4. Initially apologised that the service received did not meet the resident’s expectation and for any distress and frustration caused. It later apologised that the resident felt her ASB concerns were not managed or taken seriously and assured her that her concerns would be addressed with care, caution, and respect. It acknowledged that communication should have been managed more effectively. It hoped that implementing the actions it had agreed to would resolve her concerns and was happy that the case seemed to be resolved.
5. It said it had provided feedback to relevant staff, and staff members involved had been interviewed, training had been provided, and that they would reflect on their performance.
6. It offered the resident a total of £180 compensation, comprised of £60 for the distress caused by a loss of communal service or facility, £60 for the time and effort she had spent in pursuing a resolution, and £60 for poor complaint handling.
The resident contacted the landlord on 17 November 2023 and said the staff member managing her concerns had left the business and the issues outlined had not been addressed. She lived on the third floor and the break release lock for the emergency door on her floor had not been repaired. She, along with other residents, had installed their own dummy camera to deter thefts due to a lack of action by the landlord, a block letter was never sent, and e-scooters were still being charged in hallways as no covers were installed. She said she would accept the compensation and hoped that the issues would be addressed by the landlord.
The Ombudsman has seen no further evidence of communication between the resident and the landlord following this. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman for investigation in January 2024 and said things had got worse and multiple residents had complained due to a lack of action. She also raised concern that the landlord had said it would be removing the communal fire alarm and was worried about the safety of the block.
The resident informed the Ombudsman in August 2024 that she had been visited by the landlord within the last month to discuss her concerns and the complaint. She said that the landlord had put up fire safety signs, but the other actions had not been completed. She confirmed that there were still thefts within the building and problems with security. She said that the landlord had suggested that it was looking into a new security access system, but she had heard nothing further.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In her initial communication with the Ombudsman, the resident expressed concern about the ineffectiveness of community police officers. This Service considers complaints about landlords and cannot review or comment upon the actions of the police. The resident may wish to contact her local police force and/or the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) to obtain further guidance concerning the complaint about the police.
In her recent communication with the Ombudsman, the resident has also raised concern about the landlord’s decision to remove the communal fire alarm in the building. As this did not form part of the complaint made to the landlord under consideration, the Ombudsman is unable to adjudicate on this matter at this stage. This is because the landlord needs to be given the opportunity to confirm its position in relation to this concern. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, she may wish to raise a separate case with the Ombudsman.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about the security of the block, ASB, repairs needed to the emergency door releases, and fire safety signs.

It is evident that the resident has reported issues involving ASB, stolen parcels and post, drug usage, loitering, use of communal power sockets and the condition of the communal areas to the landlord since at least 2021. Despite the landlord confirming a list of actions it would undertake to the resident’s MP in March 2022, the resident needed to continue to report similar issues in April 2023.
She noted within her complaint that her concerns related to problems she had already raised involving ASB and drug usage, post being stolen, unknown individuals accessing the building, and the condition of the carpets, as well as the emergency fire escape door release mechanisms, the use and charging of e-scooters in the communal corridors and fire safety signs being worn.
Within its responses, the landlord acknowledged that its communication should have been managed more effectively and that its service was below standard. It also acknowledged the delay in issuing its response at stage 1 and apologised for any frustration, inconvenience and time and effort spent. It offered a total of £180 compensation.
As part of this investigation, the landlord was asked to provide information relevant to the case and actions taken in response to the resident’s concerns. The landlord submitted information to the Ombudsman on 10 July 2024, but failed to provide relevant evidence regarding the actions agreed in its responses to the resident. While the actions agreed by the landlord in response to the resident’s reports of problems within the block were reasonable and may have gone some way to address the resident’s concerns, there is ultimately no evidence to confirm the actions took place as agreed or that there was any follow-up communication. The resident has confirmed that a block letter was sent to residents regarding e-scooters following her reports in April 2023 (prior to her complaint), however, this is the only confirmed action.
It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. The onus would be on the landlord to provide documentary evidence showing how it satisfied itself that the agreed actions had been completed.
This is a significant failing as there is no evidence that the resident’s concerns have been addressed to date. This is especially of concern given the length of time these matters have been ongoing and that the resident made the landlord aware that the actions had not been carried out on the same day of its final complaint response on 17 November 2023. As such, it has not demonstrated that it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously, or with “care, caution, and respect” as it said it would in its stage 2 complaint response. The ongoing delays in acting on the resident’s concerns is likely to cause additional frustration which has been taken into account within the orders made below.
The landlord acted fairly by acknowledging complaint handling delays at stage 1 and the time and trouble the resident had spent pursuing her concerns due to its communication failings. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have handled the resident’s complaint formally in July 2023 when it was first raised given that it was not the resident’s first request for action. The landlord has recorded that the resident agreed to cancel the initial complaint to allow a new neighbourhood housing lead to investigate. It is understood that the neighbourhood lead was not involved in the case prior to this. However, as part of a formal complaint, the landlord would have had the opportunity to investigate what had happened previously, and identify any failings, whilst confirming the actions it would take moving forward to avoid any additional delay to the resident.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response on 1 September 2023 set out what it would do in response to the resident’s concerns but it failed to provide any timescale for its actions or reassurance to her. This was likely to have contributed to the resident feeling she needed to take her own action in installing a dummy camera in the communal area with other residents.
In addition, it failed to adequately acknowledge the length of time the resident had been reporting the issues or assess its handling of her concerns in the period leading up to her initial complaint, including the actions it had or had not taken as agreed in the past. Given the length of time the issues had been ongoing, the Ombudsman would have expected to see evidence that the landlord was proactive in its response.
As an example, in response to her concerns regarding the charging of e-scooters in the communal hallways, the landlord said, at both stages, that it would “look into the possibility” of installing socket covers to the communal sockets. There is no evidence to confirm that the landlord subsequently delivered on this proposal. In addition, it had previously advised the resident’s MP in March 2022 that it would liaise with its cleaning contractor to ensure that the isolator switch for the communal sockets was deactivated when they were not on-site cleaning.
The resident’s reports suggest that the communal sockets were not deactivated when not in use by its cleaners and there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord had reviewed the history of the actions taken or confirmed its position to the resident. In addition, it said that it would discuss what action could be taken in relation to non-residents having fobs to the building, but subsequently failed to confirm whether it had looked into the matter or explained the outcome.
The landlord’s ASB policy lists drug usage, communal area misuse, and criminal behaviour (including theft) as matters that would be recorded as ASB. Each type of ASB is categorised as personal, environmental, or nuisance. The landlord has advised this Service that no ASB cases were opened following the resident’s reports, despite her concerns relating to drug usage, use of communal areas and theft. The landlord offered no explanation to the resident as to why the issues were not being investigated as ASB.
It is acknowledged that the landlord may have been limited in the actions it could take where the perpetrator was unknown, and it was reasonable for it to confirm that it would be able to take further action if the person responsible for using drugs or using an e-scooter in the communal area was identified. However, the landlord’s policy does not state that an ASB case would only be opened where a perpetrator is known. This should not have prevented the landlord from treating the matters reported as ASB, communicating clearly with the resident, providing support to gather evidence, canvassing for witnesses to support it in taking action, or liaising with third parties such as the safer neighbourhood team (who it had suggested had been involved previously) for advice or support.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response on 17 November 2023 reiterated the actions it had agreed to take within its initial response without assessing whether any of the agreed actions had been progressed. The landlord said it was happy that the issues seemed to be resolved on the basis that the resident had accepted its initial offer of compensation, without evidencing that any of the agreed actions had been taken.
This was also 2 months following its initial response and it failed to acknowledge any delay in the agreed actions being carried out. It should have also confirmed when it intended to complete the agreed actions. This would provided some reassurance to the resident that it was taking her concerns seriously. The response also apologised that the resident “felt” her ASB concerns were not managed or taken seriously without acknowledging the delay in acting on her concerns since its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord’s response was likely to make the resident feel frustrated given the length of time she had been reporting the issues and the lack of action taken.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response also referred to a repair that had been completed to the emergency exit door on the second floor of the building. The landlord has confirmed to the Ombudsman that the resident’s property is on the third floor of the building. The resident reported on 17 November 2023 that the break release locking mechanism to the door on her floor had not been repaired (meaning that the door was insecure and could be accessed from either side). This is a significant security concern, and no evidence has been provided to confirm that the landlord has remedied the issue.
In its submissions to the Ombudsman in July 2024, the landlord provided the same repair reference detailing a repair to the second floor on 9 November 2023. It also provided its communal repair records which do not make reference to any additional repair to the mechanism on the resident’s floor. This demonstrates a failure to fully engage with the substance of the resident’s complaint and was likely to add to her frustration and concern regarding building safety.
The landlord acknowledged some failings in its communication with the resident, but it failed to fully account for the length of time the issues had been ongoing, the reasons for delays in its communication, or provide reassurance as to when it would complete the agreed actions. Its records were poor, and it has failed to provide evidence to confirm that any of the actions it agreed to had been carried out.
It is evident that there was a lack of oversight over the issues raised by the resident which was contributed to by changes in staff members. Staff turnover is somewhat outside of the landlord’s control. However, the landlord should have systems in place to ensure that accurate records are left of actions agreed to and taken so that any new staff members are able to make an informed decision about the next steps. In addition, it should have systems in place to ensure that actions agreed as part of a complaint response are monitored through to completion. The failures were likely to cause additional inconvenience to the resident who needed to repeat her concerns.
In summary, the Ombudsman has found maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s complaint about the security and condition of the block, anti social behaviour (ASB), repairs needed to the emergency door releases, and fire safety signs. It has provided no evidence to confirm that any of the actions agreed in its communication to the resident were carried out, however, the resident has told us that the fire safety signs have been replaced. It also failed to engage with the complaint matters or adequately review the history of the resident’s concerns to fully acknowledge any failings or take adequate steps of learning from the complaint. Overall, its offer of £180 compensation is not considered proportionate in view of the failings identified and several orders have been made below for the landlord to act on.
The Ombudsman published a special report on the landlord in July 2023. Several recommendations were made in the report in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling, record keeping, and handling of repairs and ASB. This followed themes of repeated failures in its interactions with residents, inadequate action, and missed opportunities found in our casework.
The landlord has and continues to work with the Ombudsman in response to the recommendations and many of the service improvements made may not have been in place at the time of the resident’s complaint. In view of this, the Ombudsman has not made any specific learning orders regarding its overall record keeping, handling of ASB, or communication within this report.

Determination

In line with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s complaint about the security and condition of the block, anti social behaviour (ASB), repairs needed to the emergency door releases, and fire safety signs.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to write to the resident to apologise for its failings. The apology should come from a senior member of staff.
Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to pay the resident £580 compensation. This is comprised of:
1. £180 as previously offered through its complaints process, if this has not yet been paid in full.
2. £400 in recognition of the inconvenience caused, and time and trouble spent by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failings.
Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to assign a senior staff member to act as a point of contact for the resident, investigate her concerns, and monitor agreed actions through to completion.
Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to:
1. Contact the resident to discuss her concerns and confirm if the same issues are ongoing. It should arrange to meet her to discuss these in person if she wishes. Alongside any additional issues raised by the resident, it should consider:
  1. Use of communal power sockets.
  2. Thefts from the building.
  3. The security of the building, including the front entrance and insecure fire exit doors.
  4. Drug usage in the building.
  5. The condition of the carpet.
2. Inspect the fire exit door on each floor to determine whether the mechanisms work as intended and each door is secure. It should arrange repairs where needed.
3. Write to the resident to set out its understanding of whether the previously agreed actions were completed and provide a plan of action as to how it intends to address her ongoing concerns. It should provide the expected timescale for each action and commit to revisiting the action plan at regular intervals.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within the specified timescales.

Recommendations.

It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident about her concerns related to fire safety and the removal of fire alarms in the communal areas. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, she may wish to raise a separate complaint via its complaints process.
It is recommended that the landlord assess its records and determines how many other residents in the block have also reported similar issues. It should ensure that relevant updates are provided to residents that have raised concerns regarding the actions that are due to be taken.
The landlord is to confirm its intentions in relation to the above recommendations within 4 weeks.