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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202000937)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202000937

London & Quadrant H T

29 March 2021


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 the resident’s requests about:
    1. Additional security, lighting and CCTV following a burglary.
    2. Repairs to a window following a burglary.

Jurisdiction

  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 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
    1. Additional security, lighting and CCTV following a burglary
  3. Paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, “are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.”
  4. While evidence shows the resident corresponded with the landlord about security, lighting and CCTV over a period, there is no evidence these issues have exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. As such, they are not matters this Service can investigate.
  5. The complaint about the repairs to a window following a burglary are considered below.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a fixed term assured shorthold tenant of the landlord, a housing association, and the tenancy commenced in 2017. The property is a ground floor flat in a block.
  2. Under The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is obligated to repair and maintain the structure of the property. The landlord’s Repairs Responsibilities Policy confirms it is responsible to make safe, board up and repair damaged windows if provided with a crime reference, and to repair windows that do not close, while residents are responsible for draught excluders. The landlord’s tenant handbook advises that for emergency repairs where there is ‘immediate danger,’ it attends within 24 hours, and for all other repairs it arranges mutually convenient appointments.
  3. The landlord operates a complaints procedure with a provisional second stage and where there is no requirement for responses to be in writing. A complaint is aimed to be resolved immediately or referred to a relevant service to handle. Complaints are acknowledged in one working day and if immediate resolution is not possible, an action plan for issues and outcomes is agreed within ten working days. If a customer expresses dissatisfaction, those handling the complaint will review and undertake appropriate action to resolve it with a manager. On receipt of an escalation request, the landlord may decide to escalate a complaint for a stage two senior manager review; decide a complaint requires referral back to a service for further action; or decide an escalation is not warranted. If this is applicable, residents are advised of next steps to take.
  4. The landlord’s compensation policy advises compensation may be applicable where it fails to follow its policies, procedures or guidelines, such as respond to a complaint or complete repairs within agreed response times.

Summary of events

  1. In 2018, the landlord’s records advise it received reports from the resident about draughts from a living room window, and completed works in relation this. There are then no reports about draughts for over a year until the resident’s service request and complaint.
  2. On 7 October 2019, the resident reported a smashed window and provided a crime reference to the landlord. Following this, the landlord attended on an emergency call out, boarded up the window, and raised a works order for it to be replaced. The landlord’s records advise the resident requested for this to be done the same day, which she was informed was not possible.
  3. On speaking to the landlord and its contractor, the resident was informed the contractor would contact her with an appointment when a quote had been approved. According to the landlord’s records, on 10 October 2019 the landlord received a quote for window replacement, on 11 October 2019 the quote was authorised, then on 14 October 2019 this was changed to ‘approval declined.’ The resident was informed that the landlord needed to speak to the contractor before doing anything, and her records advise the landlord and a contractor planned an inspection on 15 October 2019.
  4. Between 14 and 15 October 2019, the landlord responded to enquiries from the resident’s MP, after she contacted her MP about the security of her home and raised concern that approval for the works was being delayed because of cost. The landlord advised that as soon as it was aware of a break-in, the window was boarded up and could not be breached. The landlord explained the resident may have been informed the window would be replaced by its normal contractor, but due to the bespoke nature of the window, this had been raised to the original manufacturer. The landlord confirmed the manufacturer was aware of the urgency and as soon as a quote was received, approval would be given for the window to be manufactured and installed. The resident’s records advise she received a copy of the landlord’s response to the MP.
  5. On 18 October 2019, after an initial email that advised the job had been completed, the landlord informed the resident that its contractor had ordered a new window which would take between four and six weeks. It advised that once the window had been manufactured, the contractor would contact the resident to arrange an appointment. After the resident raised further concern to the landlord and her MP about the length of time the property was not fully secure, the landlord explained that this was standard process as new windows have to be specially made to specification. Following this the landlord’s records advise the resident continued to raise concern after being advised the timeframe could be between six and eight weeks, and it was queried if works could be brought forward.
  6. On 24 October 2019 the landlord’s records advise it received a revised quote which it authorised on 29 October 2019, and it was confirmed to the resident that after up to four weeks of window manufacture, she would be contacted to arrange for works to be carried out. This timeframe equates to other timeframes specified to the resident in various contacts.
  7. On 15 November 2019 the landlord changed the board on the boarded up window, in response to the resident’s report that wood was coming away.
  8. On 2 December 2019 the landlord raised a works order in response to the resident’s report of draughts affecting living room and bedroom windows.
  9. On 3 December 2019, the landlord’s contractor replaced the resident’s window which had been damaged by the burglary.
  10. On 9 December 2019, the landlord raised a works order in response to the resident’s report that the new window was not locking due to the handle not going completely down.
  11. On 7 January 2020 the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. She complained that she had reported draughts to her windows from 2017 and works the landlord had carried out each time were ineffective. She reported that operatives who repaired her window on 3 December 2019 confirmed they could feel draught and advised sealant required replacing. She complained she had to spend extra money on heating which would not have been the case if the landlord had acted originally. She also reported that when the window had been broken the property was even colder and her heating had to be on all the time for two months. She asked the landlord to reimburse the cost of the issue from the time she complained about it.
  12. On 9 January 2020 the landlord acknowledged the complaint and advised it would be in contact the following week. On 22 January 2020 the landlord contacted the resident and noted an inspection was booked for 11 February 2020 to assess the draught. It confirmed the broken window was repaired on 3 December 2019, and repairs for draughts and a window handle would be carried out on 24 January 2020, after the resident rescheduled an appointment on 15 January 2020. It confirmed it would contact her again. On 24 January 2020, the landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property in relation to the handle and draught issues, then completed the repairs on 12 February 2020.
  13. On 29 April 2019, the landlord internally discussed the complaint and noted that there may have been a service failure due to the window being aluminium and not UPVC, and when the contractor attended they advised or were advised of a specific window type being required. It noted it was unable to check with staff who no longer worked for the landlord.
  14. The same day the landlord emailed the resident in relation to her complaint. It confirmed the window handle repair was completed on 12 February 2020, after the repair was requested on 2 December 2019 and operatives initially attended on 24 January 2020. In regards to the delay for the damaged window and handle repairs, it explained it took longer for the specific type of window to be delivered, and parts needed to be placed on order for the handle works to be carried out. It advised that under its policy it does not offer compensation for additional heating, but it acknowledged the resident could have been caused inconvenience and offered £30 compensation. It apologised for the delay responding to the resident.
  15. On 6 May 2020 the landlord provided the resident with its final response after she expressed dissatisfaction with the response due to issues with security, lighting and CCTV. The landlord replied that the complaint of 7 January 2020 it had responded to did not mention these specific issues. It noted the resident had an open query on such matters and advised her to raise any further queries to relevant staff. The landlord increased its compensation offer to £40.
  16. Following this, the resident relayed further dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response and compensation. She advised that she would not have been without a window for two months if the landlord had been more responsive to the contractor from the start. She contended the contractor would have installed a UPVC window if she had not passed information between the landlord and its contractor. She explained the property had generally experienced draught issues, however a big gap in the window board had made the conditions freezing and the draught issues were experienced during Christmas.
  17. Following this, the landlord explained it had already taken these factors into consideration, and informed the resident of her right to request to refer the complaint to the Housing Ombudsman Service. Subsequently, the resident referred the complaint to this Service, along with correspondence in relation to a rainwater pipe; a drain; flooding; meter/service charges; key fobs; pests; antisocial behaviour and threatening letters; CCTV costs reimbursement; garden maintenance; housing transfer; medical records; and window issues occurring before and after the complaint responded to by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

  1. The Ombudsman’s remit in relation to complaints are limited by its Scheme. This includes that it only investigates complaints which have exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure, and also does not investigate complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion have been brought to the Ombudsman’s attention more than twelve months after exhausting a landlord’s complaints procedure.
  2. The Ombudsman encourages residents to use their landlord’s complaints procedure for each complaint and if they exhaust this they can ask this Service to investigate. If a resident has difficulty progressing a specific complaint, they can contact the Ombudsman and the Service can consider if it needs to intervene.
  3. This means the Ombudsman is unable to consider all complaints the resident has about her landlord and in this case, investigation is limited to the complaint submitted on 7 January 2020 and the landlord’s final response in May 2020. As the resident does not complain about how the landlord dealt with the handle repair, this investigation considers the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a smashed window and draughts.
  4. In accordance with the landlord’s Repairs Responsibilities Policy and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the structure of the property. As a result, it was necessary for it to investigate the resident’s repairs reports and take appropriate steps to resolve any issues identified.
  5. The resident advises the window replacement took longer because the landlord was not as communicative as it should have been with its contractor, which was going to install the wrong type of window.
  6. After the report of the smashed window and provision of a crime reference, it is not disputed the landlord boarded up the window on the same day. The landlord then took steps to arrange for its contractor to replace the window. This demonstrates the landlord acted in accordance with its repair responsibility to make the resident’s property safe and secure in a prompt manner, and continued its repair obligation by taking appropriate steps to effect a permanent solution for the broken window.
  7. At this stage, the landlord’s communication may not have been as effective as it could have been. When on 7 October 2019 the resident was informed same day replacement was not possible, it is unclear what timeframe was provided at that point. From the resident’s range of contacts to the landlord and her MP, it is possible the landlord could have set out timeframes more clearly to help manage her expectations. The Ombudsman has therefore made a recommendation to the landlord to set out more clearly to customers how it prioritises different categories of works.
  8. After the landlord initially authorised works on 11 October 2019, five working days later on 18 October 2019 it then specified a timeframe of six weeks which reflected the eventual completion of the works. When the landlord informed the resident on 18 October 2019 that the works were completed, this will have understandably caused distress. However, the landlord corrected this the same day and provided the accurate timeframe which is consistently reflected in subsequent correspondence.
  9. While it would have been helpful for it to be identified from the start that the window replacement needed to be from the original manufacturer, there is no evidence this added excessive time to the repair or was out of line with the landlord’s policies or expectation for such a repair. The landlord’s Repairs Responsibilities Policy and website do not specify a timeframe for window replacement, however the eight weeks the replacement took was not out of line with typical timeframes windows can take to manufacture and install.
  10. The above demonstrates that while the resident expressed desire for the works to be done sooner, after a relatively short period of delay the landlord took reasonable action for the window replacement to be manufactured as soon as was possible, which completion of the repair depended upon; it communicated an accurate completion timeframe; and it completed the window replacement in this reasonable timeframe.
  11. Moving on to consider the resident’s concerns about draughts, the resident advises that she experienced draught issues since 2017 due to previous draught works being ineffective, a gap in the board worsened the issue, and the issue was experienced over Christmas.
  12. The landlord’s compensation policy does not specify an obligation to pay compensation for draught issues, although it may be applicable if it fails to follow its policies, procedures or guidelines or fails to respond to complaints or repairs appropriately.
  13. As detailed above, there is no evidence the landlord took an unreasonable length of time to replace the window. The landlord also attended on 15 November 2019 to repair the board in response to reports it was coming away. This demonstrates the landlord took reasonable and timely action to resolve any draught issues that may have resulted from the board.
  14. After the report of the draughts, the landlord raised a works order on 9 December 2019 for its contractor to carry out repairs, which it completed on 12 February 2020. The landlord’s Repairs Responsibilities Policy and website do not specify a timeframe for such works. While landlords are typically required to treat heating and hot water repairs with priority, particularly during winter months, there is no evidence that repairs for draughts, which have some resident responsibility in terms of excluders, have equivalent urgency. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the time the works consequently took was not unreasonable.
  15. While the Ombudsman’s overall consideration of the issue is limited to events in 2019, having reviewed the landlord’s repairs records since 2017 there is also no evidence of failures by the landlord to respond to reports of draughts from 2017. While there were reports of a draught issue in 2018, there is no record of further reports over a period of time to advise that an ongoing draught issue was not resolved. The Ombudsman would expect for a landlord to be made aware of an issue throughout the time a resident experiences them, to give a landlord sufficient opportunities to resolve the issue.
  16. The above demonstrates that although the resident’s complaint of draught issues over a period is not necessarily doubted, there is no evidence of any service failing by the landlord in how it handled draught issues reported to it.
  17. In its handling of the complaint, the landlord acknowledged the complaint within two days and then, although later than promised, provided updates about all of the resident’s current window repairs at that time. It then provided final responses between April and May 2020, three months after its previous update on 22 January 2020. While the landlord’s policies do not specify timeframes or requirement for written response, this was not in line with the expectation the landlord gave. The Service’s new Complaint Handling Code also sets out that landlords should now have specific timescales for each stage of a complaints procedure, and at the completion of each stage of a procedure a landlord should provide a written response. However, this Service recognises the impact Covid-19 may have on landlords’ resources and there is no evidence of delayed communication and response causing detriment to the resident in this case. In its final responses, the landlord then offered apology and compensation, which was a positive gesture by the landlord to attempt to repair the landlord and resident relationship, and to recognise any service issues and inconvenience experienced by the resident. 
  18. This Service has sympathy with the resident that the period for which the repairs were required was a difficult time, however there is no evidence the length of time the works took equate to maladministration on the part of the landlord or were excessively unreasonable. The above demonstrates the landlord acted generally in accordance with its policies; provided updates and commitments about outstanding repairs which it met; and was sympathetic to the resident by exercising reasonable discretion to offer compensation in recognition of delays.
  19. Overall, in this Service’s opinion the landlord provided appropriate response to the complaint about the repairs to a window following the burglary.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports about repairs to a window following a burglary

Reasons

  1. The landlord took appropriate action in response to the resident’s reports about repairs to a window following the burglary, and, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there is no evidence the length of time repairs took equate to maladministration on the part of the landlord or were excessively unreasonable. Nevertheless the landlord exercised reasonable discretion to offer compensation in recognition of delays.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to consider if it needs to implement any processes to more swiftly identify original manufacturer involvement for certain repairs.
  2. The landlord to consider including information in its repairs policies that set out how it prioritises works and target timescales, with reference to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on complaints about repairs.