London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202009794)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009794

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

26 January 2022

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 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 reports of outstanding works to secure her front door, and the length of time that it took to respond to this.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant living in a two-bedroom house owned by the landlord.
The resident contacted the landlord on 8 October 2020 via email, and she explained that she was informed by its staff that an ongoing repair regarding her front door had been closed and no reason was provided for the closure. She explained that, in January 2020, she had an issue with her main door which would not lock. This reportedly happened on two occasions, and twice a carpenter and locksmith attended the resident’s property and cut her door frame and changed locks only for the issue to arise again sometime later. The resident further explained that a third visit in February 2020 was made to her property by a locksmith, who found that the main issue was the front door, rather than the door frame, which needed replacing.
A request was described as having been made for a surveyor to attend the property, and the resident was advised that she would be contacted about this. She explained that she waited for several weeks until the landlord was fully operational following the lockdown restrictions in place as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic before making contact with it again, only to be told that her door would not be replaced, and the repair report was now closed. The resident explained that she was advised that she would have to start the whole process all over again by logging a new repair request, which she disputed as she reported that this was a safety issue.
The landlord responded to the resident’s email on 12 October 2020, apologised for the issue with her front door, and explained that its records showed that its staff had been unable to access her property or speak to her when they called the resident for an appointment to repair the door on 7 October 2020. It explained that the notes also indicated that the resident had previously agreed to call it for a surveyor’s inspection of her front door in February 2020. As the landlord stated that it did not hear from the resident about this, the latter job did not proceed at that time.
Although the landlord confirmed that it had made the latest appointment for the resident’s front door in response to her report that she was unable to lock the door from the outside. It additionally invited her to contact it again to report if she was still unable to do so, or to secure the door from the inside, for it to attend this as an emergency repair within 24 hours, for which its operative would report back to it again if a new door was required for this.
On 1 December 2020, the resident emailed a stage one complaint to the landlord, and she explained that an operative had just attended her property to repair her front door lock for the sixth time, but that they had advised her that she had an unusual lock and that the required parts for this could not be sourced. The resident was advised she would need to rebook another appointment for this. She explained that she had been living in the property with a broken front door lock since January 2020, and that at least six locksmiths had attended her property and taken photographs of the door.
The resident added that four of the locksmiths had advised that the issue was not the lock, but the front door itself. The resident explained that the door was too small to fit the door frame, and that there was a gap on either side which allowed cold air to travel in, which meant that the heat from her home was escaping. She also reiterated that the condition of the door for 11 months had left her feeling unsafe as “an older woman living alone within yards of [a] Prison…this is an absolute emergency”, whereas her neighbour’s front door with the same issue had been replaced without difficulty. The resident additionally made reference to her own ethnicity.
The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 3 December 2020, and it explained the following that was also supported by its records:
1. On 17 February 2020, an operative attended and found damage at the bottom of the front door and that there were gaps there. Nevertheless, no further work was raised by the landlord for this.
2. Another operative attended the door on 7 October 2020 and reported back that there was no access to the property, so that the job for this was closed.
3. On 27 October 2020, a further operative attended the front door, and they again reported back that there was damage to the bottom of the door, and that the seals on the framework for this were damaged. However, once more no further work was raised by the landlord for this.
4. On 20 November 2020, the door was reported as operational by a subsequent operative who had attended this and found that the door was not beyond repair. Draught excluders were fitted to this on that date, and it was reported back that the door handle would need to be checked by another operative.
5. A further operative attended the front door on 1 December 2020 to check the door handle. They advised that this was not a standard handle and ordered a new one with the landlord’s suppliers. An appointment for further work to repair this was then arranged by it for 13 January 2021.
6. It outlined that its operatives assessed repair works, liaised with their supervisors for further advice for any issues with these so that inspections were not always required, and it always carried out repairs and only renewed items that were beyond repair as a repair service. The landlord added that it promoted equal opportunities whatever a person’s characteristics were, including their ethnicity, but it apologised for the trouble that the resident had been caused.
The resident responded to the landlord’s email on 4 December 2020 and explained that, if she was offered an appointment for 13 January 2021, then she was dissatisfied that she had been waiting for a whole year to get her broken front door lock fixed. She explained that it would have been far easier and cheaper for the door to be replaced. The resident further explained that she was still unhappy and wanted the complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure. She received an automated response from it on the same date explaining that she would receive a response from it within ten working days.
The resident made a report to this Service on 11 January 2021 explaining that the issue with her front door lock remained unresolved. She explained that it would have been much easier and cheaper to have the door replaced as the gaps between the door and the frame continued to allow the cold air from outside to enter her home. The resident explained that she had to purchase additional heating resources as her home continued to be very cold. She explained that she wanted the above to be submitted as a complaint, as she believed that the landlord had not fulfilled its obligations towards her.
On 13 January 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to let it know that she had waited the whole afternoon on that day to have her front door fixed by it, only to be told by the staff member who had attended her home to carry out the repair that the right parts were not available for this. She was therefore told that she would have to wait until spring for the repair to be completed, and so she repeated that a new front door would not only have been much safer but also far cheaper, and that this would have saved time and correspondence for all parties.
The landlord responded to the resident via email on 14 January 2021, and it apologised for the inconvenience caused to her by the parts for her front door having not been delivered. She was advised that, due to the pandemic, there were delays in getting materials, especially for specialist parts from overseas, and that the required part for her door had not yet been delivered.
The resident was advised that the staff member who had attended to carry out the front door repair on 13 January 2021 had reported back that the current lock was made secure, and that the door was safe and in working order with no need for a replacement, but that a new repair appointment had been booked for 11 March 2021. The landlord added that, if the parts for the door came in earlier and it had any cancellations, it would contact her to bring the work forward.
Following contact to this Service from the resident on 10 May 2021, who advised us that she had not received a final stage complaint response from the landlord, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 28 May 2021 and asked it to provide a response within 20 working days.
The landlord’s internal records showed that it emailed the resident to explain that it was reviewing the final stage complaint on 1 June 2021. The records also showed that the landlord attempted to contact the resident by telephone to discuss the complaint. The landlord advised that a work order had been raised for an operative to attend to review the repair to the front door handle and report back the findings.
An internal email was then circulated by the landlord on 1 June 2021 regarding two missed emails from the resident that had not been responded to in March 2021. It was explained, in the email circulated by it, that the resident’s email was missed due to staff being on leave and a backlog. It was also explained that the landlord’s records indicated that its staff had attended the resident’s home to remove damaged front door handles, and that they had used parts to repair handles. There was no follow up required for further work to the door recorded by it.
The landlord issued its final stage complaint response to the resident on 14 June 2021, and it explained the following:
1. The complaint had been reviewed by the landlord to ensure that the issues with her front door were resolved, and to consider a compensation payment for the delays, time and effort that she had incurred in respect of this.
2. The landlord outlined its previous attendances for the resident’s front door, and it added that the latest appointment for this on 11 March 2021 had found that the part for this that it had awaited for several months from overseas could not be fitted, as the barrel sizing was wrong. It explained that it was still experiencing some long delays with its suppliers meeting its normal delivery times due to the circumstances of the pandemic.
3. The landlord apologised for the lack of responses from it to her subsequent emails about her front door, and it explained that this was due to its staff being on leave and her emails being missed on their return.
4. The landlord also acknowledged the delay in it responding to the final stage complaint from her, which it had progressed after receiving the above correspondence from this Service. It explained that it fully recognised the time, effort and inconvenience that the matter may have caused her.
5. The resident was offered £100 total compensation by the landlord, which was broken down to £25 for the late final stage complaint acknowledgement, £25 for its non-response to her emails, and £50 for the time and effort that the matter may have caused her. She was also advised that it had booked a further appointment to inspect her front door and report back the findings on 21 June 2021.
The landlord’s records showed that it then attended the above appointment on 5 August 2021, but that no further action was taken by it for this as it noted that the resident’s front door handle was “fine”. Although she reported to it on 6 August 2021 that she was dissatisfied with this, and that she wanted to send it photographs of the handle. The landlord additionally noted that the resident had previously reported this to it on 17 February, 7 and 19 October and 6 and 9 November 2020.
The resident subsequently complained to this Service that the landlord’s operative had not touched her front door lock and had disputed that there was anything wrong with this during its latest appointment for this, for which she provided us with photographs of the lock that she reported was stiff. She explained that the operative’s advice that she grease the lock would eventually erode this and the barrel, and she requested a new working front door lock to enable her to feel safe in her home, or a new safe and secure front door if this was not possible.
This was because the resident felt constantly vulnerable as a single woman living alone, and there had been no improvement in the lock or further responses to her about this by the landlord, for which its previous repair attempts appeared to have damaged her front door. She reiterated that her neighbour’s identical door and broken and jamming lock issue had led to it replacing their door, with the only differences between them being that the neighbour’s door broke a year after hers and that they had different ethnicities.

Assessment and findings

Agreement, policies and procedures

Under the landlord’s repairs and responsibilities for general needs and sheltered tenants, it “is responsible for repairs to external doors”. This involves resolving issues related to “insecure doors, door frames or panels…external door handles…door frames…front, rear and patio door primary locks.”
The landlord’s repairs policy states that the landlord is responsible for “maintaining the structure and exterior of the home, including…external doors.”
The policy also states that maintaining homes is a joint effort and it is expected that tenants will report repairs promptly and allow the landlord access to carry out the work.
The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord “shall give reasonable notice to the resident to enter the premises to inspect the state of the repair or to carry out repairs to the premises”.
Under service standards within the repairs policy, the landlord states that it will “provide residents with a reliable, modern and effective repairs service that undertakes repairs for which we have a responsibility to a good standard in a reasonable timeframe.”
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will attend emergency works where there is an immediate danger within 24 hours, and “for routine day to day repairs, we will aim to complete the repair at the earliest mutually convenient appointment.”
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will compensate residents with £10 if it fails to respond to their queries within ten working days, or to their formal complaints within its complaints policy’s timescales. It is required to pay right to repair compensation of up to £50 for failing to repair insecure external doors within one working day, and it is able to make additional discretionary payments to acknowledge the impact, inconvenience, distress, time and effort required of residents for this.

Scope of investigation

The resident has expressed concerns to both the landlord and to this Service during the course of her complaint that her ethnicity may have affected its response to the works to secure her front door. However, we are unable to investigate or determine complaints concerning discrimination as a result of ethnicity or for other reasons, as we have neither the authority nor the expertise to do so in the way that a court or tribunal might. This aspect of the resident’s complaint is therefore outside of the scope of this investigation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding works to secure her front door, and the length of time that it took to respond to this

Following the resident’s reports of outstanding works to secure her front door to the landlord on 17 February, 7 and 19 October and 6 and 9 November 2020, the evidence provided by the landlord demonstrated that its operatives attended this on 17 February, 7 and 27 October, 20 November and 1 December 2020. These attendances were on the same day that the resident reported not being able to lock the door on 17 February and 7 October 2020, which was in accordance with its repairs policy’s above 24-hour timescale for it to attend emergency works within 24 hours. However, there was no access to the property by the landlord on the latter date. Attempts by it to contact the resident using the number on the account were also unsuccessful.
As this was an appointment which was arranged following a report from the resident, it is expected that the landlord’s operative would have been allowed access for this. The landlord, therefore, complied with its repairs policy’s and the resident’s tenancy agreement’s requirements for her to receive reasonable notice for it to enter the premises for this, as this was an arranged appointment made at her request. Furthermore, it acted appropriately in line with the timescales in its repairs policy when it attended on the same day that the repair was reported and it later provided the resident with details to contact it for future emergency repairs. This was after the resident raised concerns on 8 October 2021 that the repair for her door had not been carried out and that the repair report had now been closed.
It is noted that when the resident raised concerns regarding the landlord closing the repair job, she also raised concerns as to why she was expected to make a new report and to contact a surveyor. In this case, it appears from its records that it was reasonable for the landlord to expect the resident to call the surveyor, as its records of the original repair attended on 17 February 2020 by an operative showed that this was an agreed action in line with its repair policy, whereas there was no other evidence provided to the contrary. This additionally required a joint effort by the landlord and the resident in maintaining the home by reporting repairs promptly and allowing access for these. This was an appropriate action for the landlord to take and complied with its repairs policy and her tenancy agreement.
The evidence provided by the landlord providing the above dates when it attended to inspect and investigate the issues with securing the resident’s front door and to carry out maintenance work to the door, further showed that it acted in line with its repairs policy. The landlord complied with its obligations when it carried out work to resolve and/or inspected the issues with the insecure external door and handle on 27 October, 20 November and 1 December 2020, as it attended these at the earliest mutually convenient appointment for routine day to day repairs under the policy.
In doing so, the landlord took reasonable steps to carry out remedial work within reasonable timescales in accordance with its repairs policy when it attended to fit a draught excluder to the resident’s front door on 20 November 2020. There was subsequently a follow up to check the door handle on 1 December 2020, which was not replaced on the day as a new one needed to be ordered. Given that further remedial work was required to fully resolve the issue, the resident was given an appointment for 13 January 2021, when the door handle would be replaced as the one she had was not a standard door handle. Therefore, the landlord acted appropriately and reasonably when it communicated clear next steps and expectations to the resident and attended on mutually agreed dates.
The landlord’s records then stated that, when it rearranged a new appointment to replace the resident’s front door handle scheduled for 11 March 2021, it ensured that the operative who had attended this on 13 January 2021 had made the lock and the door safe and had left these in working order. Although the landlord does not specify timescale to complete routine repairs, the repairs policy states that these will be completed at the earliest mutually agreed appointment.
A reasonable timescale to complete repairs is usually within 28 days and, therefore, the new appointment date provided to the resident for 11 March 2021 would mean that it would have taken approximately fourteen weeks for the full completion of remedial work to her front door by the landlord from 1 December 2020. In this case, the resident had to wait an unreasonable amount of time for the landlord to schedule the appointment. This did not comply with the landlord’s repairs policy above, which aims to provide a reliable effective repair service.
It is noted that the landlord attributed the above delay to the pandemic, which affected the supply of specialist parts for the resident’s front door from overseas. In light of the supply issues that the landlord was aware that it was facing, however, it should have prioritised the remedial work to the door when the resident previously reported her concerns about this to it from 17 February 2020 onwards, ordering the necessary parts and completing the required work as quickly as possible. The landlord should also have considered the alternative solution requested by the resident that it replace her front door if it was unable to repair the lock for this, particularly given the length of time that it would have to await the parts for the repairs and her security concerns at her property.
In normal circumstances, it would be expected that the resident’s front door repair would be completed within a period of time that would normally be expected for routine repairs, saving any difficulties in obtaining parts, due to the unusual lock that was required. This is especially given that the resident had raised concerns about having to use additional sources of heat before the draught excluders had been installed by the landlord on 20 November 2020.
However, the landlord’s appointment to repair the resident’s front door with the new part on 11 March 2021 was also unsuccessful, as this found that the part that it had waited several months for from overseas could not be fitted since the barrel sizing was wrong. This was inappropriate, as was its further delay in taking any more action to seek to remedy the condition of the door until its subsequent inspection of this almost five months later on 5 August 2021, which found that this was “fine”.
While it was suitable for the landlord to rely on the expertise of its operatives who attended the resident’s front door to determine the condition of this in the absence of any other expert evidence to the contrary, it is of concern that there is no evidence that it responded to her subsequent reports of outstanding works to the door from 6 August 2021 onwards. This was contrary to both its repairs policy’s above timescales and its own operatives’ previous findings regarding the works needed to items including the door’s lock, which again meant that it should have considered her suggestion that it replace the door if it could not repair this.
The landlord also acted in an unreasonable manner towards the resident because it failed to provide a satisfactory response to her in relation to the missed emails that were not responded to by it in March 2021. The resident was simply advised that its staff had been on leave. The landlord did not advise her, however, that it was working on implementing a new system that would ensure that it would communicate more effectively in the future.
The resident was nevertheless offered compensation by the landlord on 14 June 2021 for a total of £100. This was in order to recognise its delayed response to her final stage complaint and lack of communication with her from the missed emails with £25 each, as well her time and effort from the outstanding works to her front door with £50, and it apologised to her for these delays. However, this was not proportionate to fully recognise the length of its delays in resolving the issue in accordance with the landlord’s above compensation policy.
This is because, while the compensation policy recommended that the landlord acknowledge its above final stage complaint response and missed email delays with £10 each and award right to repair compensation for the resident’s outstanding front door works of up to £50, it did not fully consider the impact, distress and inconvenience to her of this. It also had discretion under the policy to compensate her for these reasons, but there is no evidence that it considered doing so, despite her having to await further works to the door by it from 1 December 2020 until 5 August 2021, when it decided to take no more action for this.
Given the above delay, and the lack of updates from the landlord to the resident about the front door works between 11 March and 1 June 2021, as well as its failures to consider replacing the door or to respond to reports about this from 6 August 2021, it should have considered further exercising its discretion under its compensation policy. It has therefore been ordered below to recognise the impact, distress and inconvenience caused to her by these failings with additional compensation of £250, as recommended by this Service’s remedies guidance for distress and inconvenience as a result of failures to meet service standards. The landlord has also been ordered below to re-attend the door to inspect and repair this, and to consider replacing the door if it is unable to do so.
The Ombudsman notes that there was the need for intervention from this Service from when the landlord’s internal complaints process had not been fully exhausted on 28 May 2021. This would have exacerbated the resident’s concerns, as she was not kept updated by it while the final stage two complaint was being dealt with by the landlord. This Service appreciates the landlord’s subsequent attempts to address the resident’s concerns. However, based on the information provided to her and to us by it, it did not fully put things right as it did not demonstrate how it would improve its service to prevent this delay and lack of updates, as well as its above failings regarding her front door, from happening again, which it has therefore been recommended to review below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding works to secure her front door, and the length of time that it took to respond to this.

Reasons

When deciding on how best to proceed with the repair, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors at that time. In this case, the landlord’s staff concluded at the time of the resident’s reports that her front door did not need replacing, and that this had been repaired and made secure. However, it then excessively delayed carrying out further works to secure the door before deciding to take no further action for this, awarded her compensation that was not proportionate to fully recognise this, failed to consider replacing the door in light of its delays, and did not respond to her subsequent reports about this.
It is concerning that the resident requested the intervention of this Service while her complaint was still going through the landlord’s complaints procedure. This is unsatisfactory, as a complaints process exists to ensure that resident’s concerns are addressed within a specific time frame.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident additional compensation of £250 within four weeks to recognise the impact, distress and inconvenience caused to her by its above failings in respect of outstanding works to secure her front door.
2. Pay the resident the £100 compensation that it previously awarded her within four weeks, if she has not received this already.
3. Contact the resident within four weeks to arrange for it to inspect and repair her front door, and to consider replacing this if it is unable to do so, providing her with clear timescales for the completion of its works to this.
It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Review the way that it communicates with regard to ongoing repairs to ensure that residents are kept regularly updated once a repair has been reported until its completion, in a way that takes their circumstances into consideration.
2. Review its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of its complaints policy to seek to ensure that they provide residents with timely acknowledgements, updates and responses for final stage complaints. This should include consideration of this Service’s remedies guidance at https://hos.dev.civiccomputing.com/about-us/corporate-information/policies/dispute-resolution/policy-on-remedies/, and the completion of our free online dispute resolution training for landlords at https://hos.dev.civiccomputing.com/landlords-info/e-learning/, if this has not been done recently.
The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders and whether it will follow the above recommendations.