London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202203890)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203890

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

14 June 2023

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 recurring leaks at her previous home.
2. Move to another home due to disrepair issues.
3. Complaints.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident was an assured tenant of a two-bedroom maisonette from March 1992 and moved to another property in November 2021 due to disrepair. The resident has told the landlord that she has mobility issues and mental health conditions including anxiety. The landlord is a housing association which owns and manages both properties.
Under the terms of the tenancy agreement and duties under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for repairing the structure and exterior of the property and keeping installations for sanitation and water and electricity supplies in working order. This means the landlord is responsible for resolving water ingress and leaks, and repairing any installations damaged by such.
Landlords are required to look at the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System 2 (HHSRS). HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards. Sanitation, drainage, damp and mould, and protection from falls are potential hazards that can fall within the scope of HHSRS.
The landlord’s repair policy says that it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours and routine repairs at the earliest mutually convenient appointment. It says that it will consider the vulnerability of residents when diagnosing repairs specifically where “the defect is putting the resident at risk because of their physical or mental health”, and that it will escalate priority in such cases.
The landlord has a separate vulnerable residents’ policy which sets out how it will identify vulnerabilities and respond to the needs of vulnerable residents. It says that it will keep a record of vulnerabilities and refer residents to support organisations where needed. The landlord’s website says it has a safeguarding policy, which has not been seen by us, and that all its “people “complete safeguarding training.
The landlord has a two stage complaints process which says it will respond to stage one complaints within 10 working days and stage two complaints within 20 working days. The landlord has a separate compensation policy which provides for discretionary compensation to be paid where there has been service failure. The compensation policy also says that the landlord “will” make home loss payments to residents if they are moved from their homes permanently due to “major works”.
The landlord has an allocations policy and an operating procedure which set out how it manages temporary and permanent home moves. Like its compensation policy, the landlord’s allocations procedure says that home loss payments are applicable where resident’s are required to move permanently due to major works and, also that it will notify residents of how to claim.
On 23 March 2020, the UK government announced a national lockdown due to covid-19. This was eased from June 2020 when schools and non-essential retail outlets re-opened. The government introduced new restrictions from 22 September 2020 and a second full national lockdown came into effect from 5 November 2020. Restrictions were lifted slightly over Christmas, but there was a third national lockdown from 6 January 2021. Although schools re-opened on 8 March 2021, the “stay at home” order remained in place until 29 March 2021. On 19 July 2021 most legal limits on social contact were removed in England and the final closed sectors of the economy reopened.
During the covid-19 pandemic the landlord operated interim service delivery arrangements. From 31 March 2020 it operated a critical and emergency only repair service responding, by appointment, to issues where there was a risk of harm to a person or property. The landlord did not carry out routine repairs during the period when government restrictions were in place.

Scope of investigation

The resident told the Ombudsman that there was a history of leaks in her former home from 2011 and that, whilst repairs had been done multiple times, they did not resolve the problems. She explained that over the years she had suffered damage to her home and belongings because of the various leaks, and that other flats in the block had been similarly affected.
The landlord’s evidence regarding the repair history dates from 2013 and shows it attending to various reported leaks from 2015. However, the landlord acquired the building during the resident’s tenancy and it may be that leaks prior to 2013 were reported to the previous landlord.
The repair history shows that from July 2019 a leak from the resident’s flat was coming through the ceiling of the flat below. It shows that the landlord attended both flats several times but suggests the issue was ongoing until at least 5 May 2020.
The historical leaks have not been included in this investigation due to the elapse of time and because no evidence has been seen of prior complaints made to the landlord about them. Similarly, issues affecting other flats in the block have not been investigated as they have not been brought to the Ombudsman. All references are provided for context only.

Summary of events

On 28 February 2020 the resident reported that rainwater was coming in above her lounge window. The evidence shows that the resident also raised a complaint as she was dissatisfied that the repair appointment offered was not until 20 May 2020. She told the landlord that the leak was damaging her blinds and flooring, and that she was disabled and had mental health issues. The resident asked the landlord to respond to the leak as an emergency repair. The landlord responded saying it that there were two outstanding repair orders regarding the leak. It said that it had brought the appointment to repair the window forward to 15 May 2020 and that its contractor would be in touch to arrange an appointment to investigate whether the roof was leaking.
The resident reported water coming through her bathroom ceiling from the flat above on 29 April 2020. The landlord raised a repair order with its repairs team which is marked as completed the same day.
The resident emailed the landlord on 1 May 2020 saying that the leaks through her bathroom ceiling and above her lounge window were continuing. She also referred to a continuing leak from her flat into the one below. The evidence suggests that the landlord intended to conduct an inspection on 5 May 2020. Whilst it is not clear what the outcome of the inspection was, the landlord raised an order on 15 May 2020 with a contractor to investigate a “possible” leak causing the water ingress to the lounge.
On 20 May 2020 the resident reported that water from the flat above was coming through an extractor fan. She told the landlord that she was disabled and worried she was going to slip due to the water on her bathroom floor and concerned that the water may be contaminated as it was brown. The resident also said that she intended to make a disrepair claim. The landlord raised an order for the fan to be made safe the same day and arranged for its contractor to inspect both the resident’s flat and the one above on 26 May 2020. The order noted that the leak was uncontainable.
Between 28 May 2020 and 1 August 2020, the resident chased the landlord multiple times to try to progress the repair of the leak from the flat above. No evidence has been seen of a response by the landlord but internal emails suggest it was having difficulty in contacting the resident of the flat above.
The evidence suggests that a roof repair to resolve the leak above the resident’s lounge window was done on 28 July 2020.
On 10 August 2020 the resident reported damp and mould in her bathroom and the landlord raised an order with its damp contractor to assess the situation. The order noted that “leaks may have been rectified but walls still showing damp/crumbling”. The resident chased the landlord on 27 October 2020 when she had not heard from the contractor.
The resident made a formal complaint on 15 November 2020 about the continuing leak in her lounge saying the repair earlier that year had not resolved it. She said that her floor was wet and dangerous and that she was disabled. The landlord called the resident and acknowledged her complaint by email the following day saying it would respond by 26 November 2020. The landlord recalled its roofing contractor to attend again to the leak and chased its damp contractor.
The landlord provided its stage one response to the resident’s complaint on 23 November 2020. It said that its contractor would be in touch to arrange an appointment for the roof repair and that its damp contractor was due to assess the damp and mould on 26 November 2020. Subsequently the damp contractor rescheduled its appointment to 3 December 2020 and the landlord chased its roofing contractor to schedule an appointment for the roof repair.
On 3 December 2020 the resident sent the landlord a video of the leak above her lounge window saying that she wanted compensation for her damaged blinds and flooring. The landlord replied that she could contact its insurance team if she did not have her own insurance. The order for the roof repair was marked as completed on 14 December 2020.
The resident emailed the landlord on 22 December 2020 to say that the contractor had attended but been unable to inspect the roof and the leak in the lounge was continuing, causing plaster to fall off the wall. She made a further online complaint on 27 December 2020 saying that she was awake at 3.30 am trying to contain six leaks through her ceiling and that no one was responding to her. The landlord’s repairs team attended on 29 December 2020 to reseal the lounge window.
The resident emailed the landlord at 1:45 am on 22 January 2021 saying she was again awake trying to contain five leaks. She said that issues with leaks had been going on since 2012 and was making her ill. The landlord’s repairs team attended the same day and the landlord chased its damp contractor for its assessment report. The damp contractor said it had been unable to contact the resident to arrange removal of the mould and an appointment was scheduled for 10 March 2021.
On 3 February 2021 the resident chased progress and the landlord advised that an appointment had been scheduled for 12 February 2021 to repair brickwork thought to be causing the leak in the lounge. On 4 February 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to ask for the mould removal appointment to be postponed until the leak had been resolved.
The resident contacted the landlord on 15 February 2021 saying that the repairs team had not been able to inspect the brickwork as scaffolding was needed. She said she was frustrated that various contractors had attended but the leak was not resolved and it was affecting her mental health. The landlord said it had already raised an order with another contractor following the repair team’s report.
The resident chased the landlord on 10 March 2021 asking when the roofing repair would be done and saying the damp contractor had not attended the previous day. Although the order for the roof repair was marked as completed on 25 March 2021, the evidence suggests further work was needed.
The resident chased again on 2, 4 and 6 April 2021 saying that no work had been done and the stress was making her ill. The landlord escalated the resident’s complaint and called the resident on 9 April 2021 to advise that the contractor would arrange an appointment with her.
It is not clear from the evidence when the roof repair was done but on 1 June 2021 the landlord spoke to the resident and she confirmed that the leak had not come back since the last repair. The landlord offered £750 compensation for the delay in the repair, distress and inconvenience.
On 15 June 2021 the resident reported that water was leaking from the flat above into her bathroom again. It was uncontainable and she was worried that her bathroom ceiling would collapse. The landlord’s repairs team attended the same day to make the ceiling safe but was not able to gain access to the flat above to stop the leak. Later that day, the fire service attended, forced entry to the flat above and turned off the water supply. However, the leak continued to come through the resident’s ceiling and light fitting. The landlord’s repairs team attended again disconnecting the light fitting to make it safe.
The following day the resident called the landlord saying that water was still coming through the bathroom ceiling and she had slipped on the wet floor injuring herself. The call handler completed an incident report and made colleagues aware that the resident was vulnerable and had fallen, recommending that access to the flat above was needed urgently to resolve the issue. Although the landlord’s contractors attended several times, they did not gain access to the flat above and did not stop the leak.
The resident also contacted the complaints officer on 18 June 2021 about the leak from the flat above saying she was worried that the water was contaminated as it was brown. The complaint officer advised that the resident’s complaint was about the leak in her lounge which had been resolved, and that she should continue to speak to maintenance staff about any new issues. The resident also said that she felt the compensation offered was not sufficient considering the cost of her damaged belongings. The complaints officer notified maintenance colleagues of the resident’s call saying the resident was extremely dissatisfied with the lack of progress.
The leak through the bathroom ceiling continued and by 21 June 2021 the landlord was considering moving the resident out temporarily as it had not established the cause of it. At some point the resident was moved into a hotel but the landlord told us that it did not have the exact date of this or the date that the resident moved back to her home. The resident told us she was in the hotel for approximately six weeks.
The landlord emailed the resident on 24 June 2021 increasing its offer of compensation for the leak above her lounge window to £2,000. The resident refused it saying it was not sufficient to cover her losses and that she intended to take legal advice. The landlord escalated her complaint to stage two of its process and said it would respond within 20 working days.
On 4 July 2021 the resident made a further online complaint about the leak coming from the flat above. She said this was the third time that this had happened and she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the issue. The resident said that she had been moved to a hotel temporarily but had since been told that she would not be able to return to her home as major repairs were needed. She had been offered a flat but would need to wait four weeks for it to be repaired and she could not afford to continue paying for her hotel stay. The resident said she was diabetic and not being able to cook food was a problem. She said that she was “broken” and had contemplated suicide.
The resident complained again on 8 July 2021 saying that she and her children had been decanted to a hotel where they had no access to cooking or laundry facilities and no access to drinking water. She said that she had spent £650 so far on laundry and not been reimbursed. The resident said she had moved back to her home, despite its disrepair, and found that her gas credit had run out and that she was disabled and had mental health conditions. The landlord raised orders to clean the bathroom and reinstate the light and smoke alarm, and the repairs were completed by 10 July 2021.
The resident emailed the landlord on 26 July 2021 saying that water was coming in above her lounge window again. The landlord said it had recalled its contractor and raised repair orders which were marked as completed on 23 August 2021.
Between 19 August 2021 and 15 September 2021, the resident contacted the landlord at least six times chasing reimbursement for her expenses whilst she had been decanted and for responses to her complaints. The landlord’s notes say that on occasions the resident was crying and saying that her mental health was suffering. The landlord called the resident on 22 September 2021 and its notes say that it paid the resident her “decant costs” and would progress her rehousing case.
On 29 September 2021 the landlord raised a further repair order regarding the leak from the flat above.
The resident chased her complaint again on 12 October 2021. The landlord emailed her apologising that her complaint escalation had not yet been allocated.
On 1 November 2021 the resident moved to another property owned by the landlord. Subsequently the landlord paid the resident £1,010 compensation for the delays in repairs at her former home.
On 21 January 2022 the landlord contacted the resident about rent arrears for her former home. The evidence shows the landlord acknowledged that the resident had moved due to disrepair but was unclear whether this was temporary or not. On 9 February 2022 the landlord concluded that the move was permanent and called the resident on 23 February 2022 to arrange the return of keys. It is not clear from the evidence when the landlord received the keys but a note dated 23 May 2022 says that they had been collected from the resident.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint about the leak above the lounge window at stage two of it is process on 26 April 2022. It provided its response on 24 May 2022 saying:
1. It was sorry that it had not been able to resolve the ongoing issues with leaks at her former home and acknowledged the stress and discomfort this had caused.
2. It was sorry for the delay in responding to her complaint and acknowledged this had caused her frustration and inconvenience.
3. It had updated its records regarding her medical conditions and vulnerabilities.
4. It was not able to consider a liability claim through its complaint process and she could make a claim directly to its insurance team.
5. It offered £2,760 compensation which was the £2,000 offered at stage one with an additional £400 gesture of goodwill, £60 for missed appointments and £300 for the delay in responding to her complaint at stage two. The compensation would be credited to her rent account to offset her arrears.
The resident responded the same day saying she was dissatisfied with:
1. the amount offered which she felt did not reflect the impact on her over many years.
2. the landlord’s decision to credit her rent account as she had previously been told the compensation would be paid to her.
3. The handling of her move to her current home as she had difficulty in gaining access, was still waiting for keys to the back door, and had not been shown how to use the heating.
4. The handling of her repair issues and complaint which had left her exhausted and mentally broken. She said she had felt useless and, at times, suicidal.
The landlord responded saying that the issues regarding her rent payments and move were not part of the complaint and that she had completed its complaint process. The resident contacted this Service on 26 May 2022 saying she remained dissatisfied.
Following the end of the complaints process, the resident and landlord exchanged emails regarding the £2,760 compensation that had been credited to the resident’s rent account for her former home. The resident wanted the credit reversing and for the landlord to stop charging rent for her former tenancy.
The resident made a further online complaint on 28 June 2022 about the handling of her complaint at stage two. The landlord responded confirming that she had completed its process and it would not revisit her complaint issues. It said it would chase the reversal of the rent credit.
On 7 July 2022 the landlord ended the resident’s tenancy for her former home and adjusted the rent account to remove the arrears that had accrued from her moving out on 1 November 2021.

Assessment and findings

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

Handling of the resident’s reports of recurring leaks at her former home

The landlord may not have been aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities at first when she reported the leak above her lounge window on 28 February 2020, but she raised them when making her complaint the same day. Although the evidence suggests that the landlord did consider them as its policies say it will, the appointment was only brought forward by five days. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have attended sooner, given that it knew of her vulnerabilities and that her belongings were being damaged.
Despite the landlord’s various contractors attending multiple times from 15 May 2020, the landlord’s records do not explain what work, if any, was done on each occasion. The evidence suggests that this inadequate record keeping contributed to the delayed repairs and identifying the cause of the problem. For example, the landlord’s contractor had needed scaffolding to inspect and repair the roof in June 2020 yet subsequently the landlord raised further orders that did not specify that scaffolding was required. This was despite the resident telling the landlord on at least two occasions from December 2020 that the roof could not be accessed or inspected from her flat and meant that contractors attended but were unable to inspect or repair the roof.
Similarly, inadequate record keeping coupled with inadequate internal communications meant that the landlord took too long to consider whether the various issues in the block were related. For example, on 18 June 2021 the surveyor said he was not previously aware that the landlord’s insurance team were dealing with a claim which was about tree roots causing structural issues. However, an order to fell the trees had been logged as a communal repair in February 2021 which suggests the surveyor may not have looked at this previously.
The evidence shows delays in attending following the resident’s reports about the leak above her lounge window. For example, it took almost a month for the landlord’s contractor to attend after the resident reported the leak had recurred on 26 July 2021 despite this being a recall to a repair previously attended. Further, the evidence suggests the landlord did not coordinate the involvement of its different contractors. For example, the landlord’s repairs team had attended in May 2020 and December 2020 to reseal the window and its roofing contractor attended in July 2020 and December 2020. Yet it was the complaints officer on 29 December 2020 that highlighted in an internal email that the repairs team said the problem was the roof whilst the roofing contractor said it was the window.
No evidence has been that the landlord considered the overall period that the leak above the lounge window had been an issue when responding to the residents reports of it recurring. This was despite the resident telling the landlord several times that the issue had persisted over 12 years. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have been proactive in diagnosing the cause and attending to the work needed to resolve it.
However, it took the landlord over 16 months to conclude that the leak above the lounge window was caused by a structural issue and it is not clear from the evidence whether the repair attended on 23 August 2021 permanently resolved the problem. It is evident that the resident lived with the recurring leak for at least 18 months during which her belongings were damaged, and she experienced significant inconvenience and distress.
The landlord acted promptly when the resident reported the leak from the flat above on 29 April 2020 by raising an order with its repairs team. However, the evidence suggests that the leak was not resolved as the resident made two further reports resulting in the landlord arranging to inspect both properties on 26 May 2020.
The Ombudsman understands the challenges that can arise when arranging access in such cases and that Covid-19 restrictions were in place at the time. However, the landlord was aware of the resident’s disabilities, her concerns about falling and that the water may be contaminated, and it had noted that the leak was “uncontainable”. As such the landlord should have investigated the hazards sooner and taken steps to mitigate the risks to the resident. That it did not do so was inappropriate and contrary to its responsibilities under the HHRS and its repairs policy.
It is not clear from the evidence whether the landlord was able to gain access to the flat above to deal with the leak following the inspection on 26 May 2020. However, the evidence suggests that the bathroom walls were still damp in August 2020 when the resident reported mould. There is no reference to the leak from the flat above after the date of the inspection until 15 June 2021 which suggests that some repair work had been done.
When the resident reported the leak from the flat above had recurred on 15 June 2021 the landlord took prompt action to make her ceiling and light fitting safe but could not get access to the flat above to stop the leak. Again, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered the risks to the resident including that she was left with no form of lighting in her bathroom. No evidence has been seen that the landlord considered using the tools and powers it has to gain entry to a property in an urgent situation to resolve the leak from the flat above.
As in the handling of the leak above the lounge window, inadequate internal communication meant the landlord missed opportunities to resolve the leak from the flat above sooner. For example, on 29 May 2020 the property manager had advised that the occupant of the flat above had a support worker, yet no evidence has been seen that the landlord engaged the support worker when trying to arrange access to the flat above.
Although the landlord raised another order regarding the leak from the flat above on 29 September 2021, it is marked as completed on 15 March 2022. This suggests the issue was not resolved until several months after the resident had moved out permanently.
The landlord raised an order with its specialist contractor when the resident reported damp and mould in August 2020. Although the repair order is marked as complete on 3 December 2020, it appears this visit was to assess the issues and recommend work needed to resolve them. It was reasonable that the landlord intervened to arrange an appointment when the damp contractor said it had not been able to contact the resident. However, the appointment was not scheduled to take place until 10 March 2021 which was an unreasonable period for the resident to wait for mould removal.
It is not disputed that the landlord moved the resident to a hotel temporarily for a period but the landlord was not able to confirm the date this happened. The evidence suggests it was at least 3 days after the resident reported the leak which was an unreasonable delay considering the severity of the issue, the risks to the resident, and her known vulnerabilities.
The evidence suggests that the landlord was not keeping the resident updated with progress consistently which caused her to chase for updates. For example, the landlord had already raised another order for the roof repair after its repairs team had attended on 12 February 2021, but the resident was not aware of this until she chased a few days later.
Similarly, when the resident postponed the appointment for the mould removal there is no evidence that the landlord confirmed to her that this had been done. This caused confusion as the resident later reported that the contractor had not attended.
It is acknowledged that landlords were working in difficult circumstances during covid-19 restrictions and when recovering their services afterwards. However, the landlord’s silo working and inadequate internal communications resulted in the resident living with both leaks at times over an 18-month period (between 29 April 2020 and 31 October 2021) which had a serious impact on her living conditions as well as causing her distress and inconvenience.
For the reasons set out above, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of recurring leaks.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The landlord reimbursed the resident £651 for the costs expended on food and laundry during her stay at the hotel. However, the evidence suggests that this was not reimbursed until around 22 September 2021 which was unreasonable as it left the resident out of pocket for several weeks. An order has been made for the landlord to review its relevant procedure to ensure residents do not have to wait so long to be reimbursed for expenses in future.
The landlord paid the resident £1,010 compensation in November 2021 for delays in repairs though it is not clear which leak this related to. It also offered an additional £2,460 during its complaint process for the leak above the lounge window. Although this was rejected by the resident, the Ombudsman considers that the total £3,470 offered by the landlord is sufficient compensation considering the impact on the resident’s living conditions over the 18-month period. However, it does not reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident over that time. As such orders have been made for the landlord to apologise to the resident, pay the £2,460 it previously offered and pay an additional £800 for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Handling of the resident’s move due to disrepair

The evidence is not clear exactly when the landlord decided that permanent rehousing was necessary due to the complexity of the repair issues in the block. It suggests that the resident was aware that a permanent move was needed from 4 July 2021. Similarly, it is not clear whether the decision was due to the problem causing the leak through her bathroom ceiling, or the structural issue causing the leak above the lounge window, or both.
Regardless of the reason, it was reasonable that landlord found alternative housing for the resident. However, the evidence suggests that there was again ineffective internal communication and record keeping resulting in the landlord’s staff being confused about whether the move was permanent or not.
As set out in paragraphs eight and nine above, the landlord’s policies say that it will pay home loss compensation when a resident is permanently moved due to major repairs. No evidence has been seen that the landlord advised the resident of how to claim a home loss payment as its procedure says it will, or that any payment was made to the resident. The landlord’s compensation policy says the amount is £6,300 but this is a statutory payment and the amount is set by the government each year. At the time the resident moved in November 2021 the amount was £7,100. As such, an order has been made for the landlord to pay home loss compensation of £7,100 to the resident.
Under its compensation policy the landlord says it will consider additional disturbance compensation towards the cost of moving. The landlord told us that it had provided packing materials and paid for the removal van and handyman. The Ombudsman considers this was reasonable but it would also have been reasonable for the landlord to have also paid for the redirection of the resident’s post.
The landlord’s rehousing procedure says that, when residents move to another property, it will fit a key safe at their former home to enable them to leave the keys for the landlord to collect. No evidence has been seen that the landlord did so in this case and suggests that the confusion over whether the move was permanent or not resulted in the landlord not realising that keys should have been returned until significant rent arrears had accrued.
It was inappropriate that the landlord did not end the resident’s former tenancy given that it had rehoused the resident due to the disrepair and knew that she had moved. Even after the landlord concluded the move was permanent, it did not contact the resident for several days and took until 23 May 2022 to confirm it had the keys. This was over six months after the resident had moved. The landlord should have taken steps to retrieve the keys sooner and could have considered changing the locks.
After the return of the keys, it took the landlord over six weeks to finally end the tenancy and write off the arrears that had accrued since the resident had moved out. Although this put things right for the resident, it took almost seven months overall for the landlord to resolve the issue which was unreasonable and caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
For the reasons set out above, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the residents move. In addition to the order to pay the resident the £7,100 home loss payment, orders have been made for the landlord to apologise and pay £500 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Handling of the resident’s complaints

The landlord did not deal with the resident’s complaint of 28 February 2020 through its complaint process. This was inappropriate and contrary to the landlord’s complaints policy as the resident’s online contact was a clear expression of dissatisfaction and her subsequent contact referred to it as her complaint.
The landlord did recognise the resident’s subsequent complaint of 15 November 2020 and provided its response within its policy timescale for stage one complaints. The evidence shows the landlord was chasing progress with its contractors and was initially keeping the resident informed. However, following the stage one response, although the complaints officer was continuing to chase progress, the resident was no longer being kept up to date. This led to her making a further complaint on 27 December 2020.
The landlord had initially logged the resident’s complaint of 4 July 2021 about the leak from the flat above as a different case but subsequently added it the case for the ongoing complaint about the leak above the lounge window. As such it is not clear why the landlord later said that the issues relating to the leak from the flat above were not part of the resident’s complaint. No evidence has been seen that the landlord provided a separate response to the resident regarding her complaint about the leak from the flat above.
As noted previously, the landlord reimbursed the resident for costs during her hotel stay after her further complaint of 8 July 2021. However, it took the landlord until 22 September 2021 to contact the resident following that complaint and no evidence has been seen that it provided a formal complaint response.
Despite the resident chasing the landlord multiple times from 19 August 2021, the landlord did not provide its stage two response until 24 May 2022 which was 13 months after the resident’s escalation. The stage two letter also incorrectly said that the resident had raised a further complaint about the leaking “roof” on 18 June 2021. The evidence shows the resident had actually reported the recurrence of the leak in her bathroom from the flat above.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that it “will” consider paying compensation where “our negligence with carrying out day-to-day repairs has caused damage to the customer’s home and/or belongings” and there is no evidence it did so in this case. Further, according to its policy, the landlord should have made any referral to its insurance team itself. As such, the landlord’s advice on 8 December 2020 that the resident could contact its insurance team to claim for the damage to her belongings was inappropriate.
The landlord’s timescale for making a claim through its insurance is within 28 days of the incident occurring. That period had long since elapsed when the landlord advised the resident to make a claim in its stage two response of 24 May 2022 and was, therefore, inappropriate.
The landlord’s vulnerable persons policy says it recognises mental wellbeing as a potential vulnerability. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered any additional needs that the resident had and there is no evidence that it did so. Nor is there any evidence that the landlord considered providing the resident with support, referring her to a support agency or that it considered any action to safeguard her when she said that she had felt suicidal. This was unreasonable and missed opportunities to reduce the distress and inconvenience being caused to the resident.
For the reasons set out above, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.
Although the landlord offered the resident £300 compensation for its handling of her complaint about the leak above the lounge window, including its late stage two response, the Ombudsman views this as insufficient under the circumstances. As such orders have been made below for the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay £900 compensation in consideration of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident over the 27 months it took to respond to her complaints (from 28 February 2020 to 24 May 2022) and its failure to consider compensating her for the damage to her blinds and flooring.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of recurring leaks at her previous home.
2. Move to another home due to disrepair issues.
3. Complaints.

Reasons

The landlord’s silo working and inadequate internal communications resulted in the resident living with two leaks at times over an 18 month period. This had a serious impact on her living conditions and wellbeing and was contrary to the landlord’s repair obligations.
The landlord did not follow its policy and procedure in managing the resident’s move and, as a result, did not make her a home loss payment or end her tenancy. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident over the seven months the landlord took to end her tenancy and resolve the accrued rent arrears.
The landlord took 27 months to respond to the resident’s complaint about the leak in her lounge and did not consider compensating her for the damage caused to her belongings. It did not respond to other complaints made by the resident through its complaints process. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident and was contrary to the landlord’s obligations under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the shortcomings identified in this report. The landlord must provide us with a copy of its letter.
2. Pay the resident compensation totalling £11,760. The compensation must be paid to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation is comprised of:
  1. £2,460 previously offered through its complaints process for its handling of the leaks reported by the resident.
  2. £800 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports about the leaks.
  3. £7,100 for the loss of the resident’s former home due to major repairs being needed.
  4. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her move including its failure to end her former tenancy.
  5. £900 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her complaints including its failure to consider compensating her for her damaged belongings.
3. Review this case to identify and implement service improvements including, to ensure:
  1. It is clear what work has been done when a repair is marked as completed.
  2. There are clear records of the outcome of any inspections conducted.
  3. It can identify and respond effectively to recurring disrepair reports including issues which are affecting several dwellings in a block.
  4. Staff members understand their obligations under the landlord’s policies and can fulfil them consistently.
  5. Residents do not have to wait for expenses to be reimbursed when they are decanted.
  6. There is effective co-ordination and collaboration when managing complex cases where issues span across specialist teams.