Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202222022)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222022

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

29 September 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
    1. A previous agreement regarding contractors attending the resident’s property.
    2. External decorating to windows and doors as part of its major works programme.
    3. Repairs to the front and rear doors.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

Repairs to the front and rear doors.

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the aspect of the complaint about the repairs to the front and rear doors is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  3. Paragraph 42(a) of the scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.
  4. This service has taken into consideration the resident’s concerns about both her front and back door, which go back to 2017. The landlord’s records show that its contractors attempted to repair the resident’s front door on 7 July 2018. The resident was dissatisfied with the door not being obscure enough and the standard of works being carried out by the contractors. The resident turned the contractors away for these reasons.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord on 2 December 2020, stating that she was dissatisfied with the outstanding works to her front door and that the landlord had not responded to her previous emails. The Ombudsman does not doubt that the resident has had issues with both doors to her property and that this will have caused and continues to cause the resident distress and inconvenience. However, there is no evidence that following 2 December 2020, that the resident sought to go through the entirety of the landlord’s complaints procedure regarding this issue. It also did not form part of the resident’s complaint submitted to the landlord on 26 October 2022. Therefore, the Ombudsman cannot consider this issue because it has not yet exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. If she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the repair to both the front and rear doors of her property, the resident can make a new complaint to the landlord about this. If the landlord is then unable to resolve matters to her satisfaction through its complaints process, she may be able to refer the complaint to this service for investigation at that stage.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord at the property.
  2. On 26 October 2022, the landlord’s contractor wrote to the resident to inform her that it would be commencing works to her property within 7 days. It explained that the works were part of the landlord’s planned works programme. The letter explained the works being carried out to the property were:
    1. The painting of all previously painted external surfaces.
    2. Carrying out minor associated repairs prior to decorating.
  3. On 28 October 2022, the resident raised a complaint to her landlord about the proposed commencement of works to her property. She said that she had been threatened previously by the landlord’s contractors, after filming what she said was their ‘shoddy work’, ‘taking shortcut’s’, and ‘using internal materials for external works’. The resident said she had also been subjected to counter allegations by its contractors. The contractors had reported that the resident had threatened them. The resident said that following these incidents, as a safeguarding measure between 11 September 2017 and 15 September 2017, the landlord had agreed with the resident that it would do the following during works at her property:
    1. All visits by contractors would be as a pre booked appointment.
    2. Only 1 contractor would enter the resident’s property at any one time.
    3. The landlord would provide a resident liaison officer or a clerk of works present in her home whilst contractors were carrying out works on her property.
  4. As part of the resident’s complaint, on 26 October 2022, she requested the landlord write to her by letter to confirm the previous agreement in 2017 remained in place. She also stated that since the previous interactions with the landlord’s contractors, her dog had died which meant she felt even more vulnerable than before.
  5. On 4 November 2022, the landlord’s stage one complaint response stated that it had no record of an agreement being made with the resident that only 1 contractor would enter her property at a time. It said that the members of staff the resident mentioned in her complaint were either no longer employed, or the landlord had no record of them. It said the resident had not had cyclical decorations to the property between 2014 and 2017, and 2019 to 2020.
  6. The landlord said its contractor had agreed to arrange a pre-booked appointment but for reasons of health and safety, none of its staff would work alone in the resident’s property. The landlord stated that it no longer employed a resident liaison officer or a clerk of works, and it would not provide a member of its staff to remain at the property, whilst the works were being carried out. It offered to ensure the consultant overseeing its planned works programme was present to handover the property to the resident once the works were completed. The landlord advised the resident that if she did not allow access for 2 contractors to attend the property, then it would proceed to its no access procedure, which would result in the resident’s property being removed from its planned works programme.
  7. On 16 December 2022, the resident contacted this service to assist in the escalation of her complaint as she was dissatisfied that the landlord had not honoured her original agreement regarding its contractors attending her property.
  8. On 28 December 2022, at the final stage of the landlord’s complaint process it apologised to the resident that she was unable to contact the landlord to escalate her complaint. It her awarded the resident £40 compensation as a goodwill gesture for this. It also awarded the resident a further £60 compensation for the delay caused in providing its final response to the resident’s complaint.
  9. Within its final response, the landlord told the resident that although she did not want the windows and doors to be open whilst they were being painted, they must remain open for a minimum of 8 hours, otherwise it would cause damage.
  10. On 28 December 2022, the landlord confirmed to the resident that it had no record of the agreement she described in her complaint. It asked the resident therefore, to provide copies of her correspondence that referred to it. It said it had been attempting to decorate the resident’s property since 2014 without success and that the current works were due to commence during the first week of January 2023. It aimed to complete these works by 25 January 2023. The landlord confirmed its contractor would need to send 2 employees to carry out the works. It apologised that it was unable to provide a member of staff to be present during the works. It informed the resident that she could have a family member or friend present to assist her as an alternative.
  11. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. She brought her complaint to the Ombudsman on 17 January 2023, stating her desired outcome was that the landlord should honour its original agreement in its response to sending contractors to her property. She also wanted it to carry out the outstanding remedial works to her property which included:
    1. External decorating of her property including the windows and doors.
    2. Both the front, and rear door to be repaired.
  12. Between 10 January 2023 and 6 February 2023, both the landlord and its contractor sent a number of letters to the resident about carrying out the external works to her property. The resident did not respond, and the landlord followed its no access procedure. It wrote to the resident on 15 February 2023 that it had removed her from its planned works programme.

Assessment and findings

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution: Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  2. The Ombudsman must consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes.

 

 

 

 

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s programme maintenance works policy states it will complete external decoration of a resident’s property every 6 years. It states these works will be delivered by suitably qualified service contractors. If a resident refuses certain planned works, then it will instruct its contractor to remove that resident’s property from their works programme. If a resident then changes their mind after being removed, it will not be possible to add them back into the programme. This is because the landlord will seek to allocate the works to another property.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will acknowledge a stage one complaint within five working days. It will provide its response within ten working days. The resident has six months to escalate a complaint. It will provide a final written response within 20 working days, unless it informs the resident that it requires further time. It will provide this within a further ten working days.

Scope of Investigation

  1. In line with Section 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme as referenced above, we may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising. The Ombudsman does not doubt that the resident was intimidated as she described in her communication about these previous interactions with the contractors. However, these incidents were in 2017 and 2018. There is a lack of evidence to show that the resident reported these issues to the landlord as a complaint at the time, within a reasonable period. Landlords are not expected to retain detailed contact records indefinitely and the landlord would not be expected to still have information relating to the resident’s contact with its contractors in 2017/2018. Due to the availability of evidence, this service is therefore, in line with the scheme will only consider the landlord’s handling of the agreement from October 2022, which is when the resident received the 7-day letter from the contractor regarding the planned redecoration works. Any reference to the events of 2017 and 2018 in this report are for contextual purposes only and have not formed part of the Ombudsman’s assessment of the current complaint.

 

 

 

 

 

 

A previous agreement regarding contractors attending the resident’s property.

  1. Whilst we do not doubt the resident’s testimony, the Ombudsman has not been provided with written confirmation of the agreement as specified by the resident about the contractors attending her property. This service has seen an email which shows evidence that the landlord accommodated the resident’s request for 1 operative to attend at a time during works carried out between 11 September 2017 and 15 September 2017. This email appears to relate to a single period of time explaining how the landlord would respond to works at the resident’s property for that period. There is no evidence of a longer-term agreement that only 1 contractor would attend the resident’s property at a time.
  2. The landlord advised the resident that it had no such record of such an agreement. It asked the resident to provide the correspondence stating that it had agreed to this. This was a reasonable response by the landlord as it would not be expected to honour the agreement without seeing evidence of it. It also took reasonable efforts to identify and trace the members of staff whom the resident stated had made the agreement with her, although it was ultimately unable to trace them.
  3. The landlord agreed that its contractors would make a pre-arranged appointment to carry out the works to the resident’s property, rather than just provide its 7-day notice of the works. This was a fair response by the landlord. It had sought for the works to be carried out at a suitable and convenient time for the resident. The landlord was reasonable when it explained that for reasons of health and safety, 2 contractors would be required to attend her property to carry out the works. Some works often carried out by contractors, including painting and the use of ladders require more than 1 person for safety reasons. Regardless of a previous agreement, the landlord and its contractor were entitled and have an obligation to comply with the health and safety in manging the risk and welfare of its staff. Therefore, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s explanation was a reasonable response to the resident’s concerns. Going forward, the landlord would not be able to guarantee that only 1 contractor would attend the resident’s property at a time for these reasons.
  4. The landlord explained in its final complaint response to the resident that it would not be able to provide a member of staff to be present during the works. Although the Ombudsman understands the resident was unhappy with this, it was a reasonable explanation. The landlord is entitled to use its staff in a manner which it believes is the most effective and it suggested an alternative solution of the resident asking a friend or relative to be present. It would not be necessary to provide an additional member of staff in order to complete the repair.

External decorating to windows and doors as part of its major works programme.

  1. The timeline shows that the contractor sent the resident a letter on 26 October 2022, stating it would be starting planned works to her property in 7 days’ time. The resident submitted a complaint 2 days later. The contractor then attempted to make an appointment following the resident’s complaint, to carry out the works at a convenient time to her rather than within 7 days. This was an acceptable response by the contractor. The contractor showed it had listened the resident’s request and was attempting to accommodate her needs in making an appointment that was suitable for her.
  2. Between 10 January 2023 and 27 January 2023, the contractor sent 4 letters to the resident, asking for her to make contact so it could arrange an appointment to carry out the external decoration to her property. In the final letter, the contractor said that as the resident had not responded it would wait until she or the landlord replied to the requests to make an appointment. This service has not been provided within any evidence that the resident responded. It was reasonable for the contractor to send multiple letters in an effort to fulfil its obligations on behalf of the landlord to keep the property in a good state of repair. As the resident did not respond, it was appropriate for the contractor to confirm it would wait until she requested an appointment rather than continuing to contact her.
  3. The landlord’s letter dated 6 February 2023, advised the resident that under the terms of her tenancy, it had a right to carry out repairs or other essential improvement works. It asked the resident to make immediate contact. This information was accurate and in line with the resident’s tenancy agreement as well as the landlord’s planned maintenance works policy. This service has seen no evidence that the resident responded to the landlord. It was therefore reasonable and in line with its planned maintenance works policy, that the landlord wrote to the resident informing her that it had removed her property from its programme of works for the period of 2022 to March 2023.
  4. Going forward, if the resident wants the decorating works to be completed, she should contact the landlord. The landlord would be expected to complete the redecoration works if the resident allows access to its contractors to do so. However, there may be a delay in the landlord completing the decoration. This is because in line with its planned maintenance policy, it has prioritised other properties ahead of the resident’s due to her not providing access for the contractors to carry out the works.

The associated complaint.

  1. The resident made her complaint to the landlord on 28 October 2022. The landlord provided its stage 1 written response within 5 working days. This was within the timescale of the landlord’s complaints policy. The resident contacted this service on 16 December 2022, stating that she had been unable to escalate her complaint to the landlord. She said the telephone numbers provided in its stage 1 written response were not working, and she did not have access to the internet. This service contacted the landlord on 20 December 2022 and advised the landlord to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2. The landlord provided its stage 2 written response within 4 working days of being contacted by this service.
  2. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, it acted correctly when it apologised for the resident being unable to contact its service to escalate her complaint. It also awarded the resident £100 compensation. This service has assessed this offer in line with our service’s remedies guidance (published online) which sets out our service’s approach to compensation. The remedies guidance suggests that compensation in this range is appropriate when there is a delay which would have had some impact on the resident, but the delay did not significantly affect the outcome for the resident. In this case, whilst it would have been inconvenient for the resident to have to contact the Ombudsman to progress her complaint, the landlord then responded in a timely manner and apologised for the delay.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to a previous agreement regarding contractors attending the resident’s property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to external decorating to windows and doors as part of its major works programme.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to our investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should issue a response to the resident’s complaint about its handling of the repairs to the front and back door of her property within 10 working days, in line with its complaints policy.
  2. The landlord should complete the cyclical works at the resident’s property if the resident allows access for these works, with 2 operatives if the landlord considers it necessary to send 2.