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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202209759)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209759

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

14 December 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:
    1. handling of repairs to the balcony door;
    2. handling of reports of a rat infestation;
    3. complaint handling

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord, in a two-bedroom second-floor flat. The resident lives with her two children, who are both under the age of 12.
  2. In December 2020 the resident reported to the landlord that that she was unable to close the balcony door. She added that there was a gap around the door that caused a draught and let rainwater in. The landlord completed repairs to the door on 7 April 2021.
  3. On 10 September 2021 the resident reported that rats were coming into the property. On 15 September 2021 the landlord’s contractor carried out a pest treatment of the property where they identified that holes in her kitchen needed blocking. On 23 September 2021 the landlord arranged temporary accommodation for the resident, while it inspected the property and carried out the necessary works, including CCTV survey of the drains. The resident returned to the property on 15 October 2021.
  4. On 27 September 2021 the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord. In summary, she said that she had reported the issues with her balcony door numerous times in the past and that the issue had put her children’s health and safety at risk. In addition, she was unhappy that the landlord had failed to treat her reports of rats as an emergency and that it would not take any action to deal with the smell or the large amounts of rat droppings left in her kitchen. She was also unhappy with the length of time it took the landlord to find her temporary accommodation. As a resolution, she wanted the landlord to consider a permanent move for her.
  5. On 12 October 2021 the landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 of its complaints process. In summary, it said that it had completed repairs to the balcony door in April 2021 and it had not received any further reports. Concerning the rat infestation, it said that although it did not find any defects following the CCTV of the drains, it had carried out works to block any identified entry points. It added that baiting and treatment would continue until it was able to eradicate the issue and acknowledged the upset this situation would have caused her and her family.
  6. On 4 March 2022 in response to a different complaint the resident informed the landlord that there were rats in the building and repairs in the property that remained unresolved. On 19 July 2022 following contact from the resident, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to respond to her complaint at stage 2 of its complaints process within 5 working days.
  7. On 12 August 2022 the landlord issued its final response. In summary, it said:
    1. It could not find any further reports regarding a door repair, and it had tried to contact her to discuss this.
    2. It had raised an order on 10 September 2021 for its contractor to inspect and treat her property for rats.
    3. It inspected the property on 23 September 2021 and found no evidence of any rodents but could see signs of droppings under the kitchen units.
    4. Proofing works to the property were completed on 30 September 2021 and a CCTV survey and jetting of the drains were carried out on 4 October 2021.
    5. She should write to its insurers for any damage or loss caused.
    6. It offered £80 compensation for the delay in her stage 2 response and £350 compensation for any inconvenience and distress caused during the rat infestation at her property and any out-of-pocket expenses while she was temporarily rehoused.
  8. In the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman, she said that the rat infestation was still an issue in the communal areas and that she could often hear and smell them. Further, she added that due to the wind causing damage to the frame her back door was broken again and that this was a continuous problem.

Assessment and findings

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
    1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
    2. Put things right.
    3. Learn from outcomes.
  2. The Ombudsman must first 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 then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.

Repairs to the balcony door

  1. The landlord’s repair policy states that it is responsible for repairing doors and door frames in tenanted properties. The policy adds that it has a responsibility to undertake repairs to a good standard in a reasonable timeframe. It states that for routine day-to-day repairs it will aim to complete them at the earliest mutually convenient appointment.
  2. The landlord’s records showed that it raised a repair order on 10 December 2020 following the resident’s report that her balcony door would not close properly. Its records noted the resident also said that this issue was causing a draught and letting in rainwater. However, the landlord did not complete the repair until 7 April 2021. It is unclear why it took the landlord almost 4 months to repair the door. While the landlord’s records indicated that it tried to contact the resident the same day via telephone to discuss the issue, there was no evidence of any further attempts to resolve the matter. This would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  3. Overall, the landlord failed to repair the balcony door within a reasonable timescale as set out in its repair policy. In addition, the landlord did not demonstrate any consideration of the adverse effect caused by living with a non-working door during the winter months, particularly with younger children living in the property. The landlord’s final response also failed to acknowledge the delays or provide redress to ‘put things right’, despite the evidence showing that it had previously acknowledged the distress these delays would have caused in a response to the resident’s MP in May 2021. This amounts to maladministration from the landlord. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests compensation of over £100 should be considered where there have been failures by a landlord that have adversely affected the resident. In view of this, an order for compensation is made below for remedy.
  4. The resident recently informed this Service that her balcony door has broken again. The landlord’s records indicate that this has been a consistent issue since 2018. The frequency of reports of the same issue suggests that the landlord has failed to find a permanent solution to resolve this matter. The resident asserts that because she lives on the top floor the wind causes damage to the frame of the door. Given this, an order is made below for the landlord to repair the door and consider if a replacement door is needed.

Rat infestation

  1. The landlord’s repair policy states it will deal with rat infestations in all tenanted homes.
  2. On 10 September 2021 the resident reported seeing rats in her property. The landlord acted appropriately by instructing its contractor to attend, inspect, and treat the problem. Its contractor attended within 5 days of the report and carried out a pest control treatment of the property. The landlord then carried out a joint follow-up inspection 8 days later on 23 September 2021, where it found that various holes needed blocking. It subsequently arranged for proofing works to be carried out.
  3. The landlord’s records indicated that these works were completed on 30 September 2021. Its records also show that it arranged for a CCTV survey of the drains. Although it did not find any defects with the drains, its response demonstrated that it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously by trying to locate the source of the issue. Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports was reasonable.
  4. The landlord also arranged for the resident to be placed in a hotel from 22 September 2021 up to 15 October 2021 while it carried out these works. Given the resident’s concerns for the health and safety of her family, the landlord acted fairly and appropriately by providing the resident with temporary accommodation during this period.
  5. The landlord arranged for the resident to return to the property on 15 October 2021. However, there was evidence that the resident had requested updates from the landlord on its progress prior to her return, yet there was no evidence that it kept her updated. Its records also showed that the resident disputed that the property was ready for her to return to. She informed the landlord that ‘rats were still everywhere’ but there was no evidence that the landlord responded to these concerns. Furthermore, the landlord’s stage 1 response stated that baiting and treatment would continue until the problem was eradicated yet the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence to confirm if this happened. These were failures on the part of the landlord that would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  6. It is noted that the landlord responded to the resident’s initial report within a reasonable timescale and took appropriate steps to address the issue. Nevertheless, this Service has identified failings in the landlord’s handling of her reports. It was, therefore, appropriate for it to offer redress to the resident to ‘put things right’. The Ombudsman does not underestimate the distress this situation would have caused to the resident and her family, however, it is considered that the landlord’s offer of £350 compensation was satisfactory in putting matters right for the failures identified in this report.
  7. The resident has recently informed this Service that although the landlord resolved the rat infestation in the property, she is concerned that they are still present within the communal areas of the block. Considering this, a recommendation is made below.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will respond at stage 2 of its complaints process within 20 working days of the request to escalate. On 4 March 2022, the resident responded to a different complaint about her heating and hot water system. In this response, she stated that she also had several other issues such as rats and repairs that remained a problem. Yet the landlord failed to respond to these concerns. Had the landlord been proactive and contacted the resident to discuss these issues further, it would likely have escalated her complaint earlier.
  2. Its failure to do so led to the Ombudsman (on 19 July 2022) requesting a stage 2 response from it within 5 working days. However, the landlord did not provide its stage 2 response until 12 August 2022, which was almost 3 weeks later. Overall, these delays were avoidable, and the landlord missed an early opportunity to respond to her complaint at stage 2 of its complaints process. This would have caused frustration to the resident.
  3. While the landlord’s approach was contrary to its usual procedure, it did acknowledge this and made an offer of £80 compensation in recognition of the delayed response. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests that compensation between £50-100 should be considered where there is a failure that caused frustration to the resident. The landlord therefore made an offer which was in accordance with this Service’s guidance and, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, proportionately reflected the level of detriment caused. Overall, the landlord’s offer of redress was satisfactory in putting matters right.
  4. Finally, the landlord’s compensation policy states it will partly or fully offset a compensation payment against any debt owed to it by a resident, including rent and service charge arrears. The landlord therefore acted in line with its policy when it offset its compensation award against the resident’s arrears.
  5. However, it is the Ombudsman’s position that compensation awarded by this Service should be treated separately from any existing financial arrangements between the landlord and resident and should not be offset against arrears. This applies regardless of whether the landlord’s compensation policy allows it to do this. As such, the compensation ordered below should be paid directly to the resident, and not offset.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to the balcony door.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the landlord’s handling of reports of a rat infestation satisfactorily.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the landlord’s handling of the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders

  1. The landlord must, within the next four weeks:
    1. Provide a written apology for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident a sum of £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of repairs to the balcony door.
    3. Inspect the balcony door and carry out any repairs that are needed. The landlord must satisfy itself that the door is fit for purpose and on inspection, if it is found to be beyond economical repair, it must replace the door.
  2. The landlord should provide this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should inspect the communal areas of the block for rats. If there is evidence of an infestation the landlord should take appropriate steps to resolve the issue.