London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202012626)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012626

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

3 October 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 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 resident complains about the landlord’s handling of:
1. reports of a pest infestation;
2. reports of damp and mould;
3. reports of ASB, and;
4. The condition/replacement of windows and doors in the property.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Scope of investigation

In relation to the concerns that the resident has raised about the windows and doors in the property, this is not an issue that formed part of the formal complaint raised with the landlord in January 2021. Paragraph 39 (a) of the Scheme sets out that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in its opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’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). As such, this issue is not considered in this report. The resident may wish to make a formal complaint to the landlord about this matter, and if he remains dissatisfied with the outcome, can then bring this to the Ombudsman for consideration.
In his complaint to this Service the resident has referred to issues dating back several years, and has provided evidence of his reports of rats and ASB to the landlord from 2016 – 2019. However, there is no evidence of a formal complaint being raised to the landlord about these matters until 2021.
The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
This is in accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that we will not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. In this case, that would be July 2020. However, as the resident did raise concerns via his MP in January 2020, discretion has been exercised in this case to consider matters from this date onwards.
It is also noted that the resident has made a more recent formal complaints about the rat issue, which appear to have been considered at stage one of the landlord’s formal complaint process. However, this investigation is limited to the period considered in the formal complaint that completed the landlord’s complaint process in 2021 (so 2020 to July 2021), as these are matters that have exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure.

Background

The landlord’s ‘repair responsibilities policy’ sets out that it was responsible for infestations of rats and mice, as well as blocking and filling holes following pest removal treatment.

Summary of events

In January and February 2020 the resident contacted his MP about a number of housing issues. This included concerns that for three years there had been issues with rats and noise emanating from a neighbouring property, and this property being allowed to breach its tenancy agreement. He said, ‘It has cost myself & family again loss of employment also revenue (days taken off work, unable to find work in the night time economy, career history being tarnished, no benefits, health issue’s)…yet L&Q housing defends resident as to not giving information to why they are allowed also not compensating us that do as to the loss of revenue or employment.’ He said that it had taken the landlord three years to contact the neighbour about the matter to request that they clear their garden.
The resident also raised concerns about a lack of replacement doors or windows which he felt were needed due to ‘gaps’ which he stated allowed noise nuisance and loss of energy. He said that the window frames had black mould growing on them. He was unhappy that the landlord had said that it would not be replacing the windows and doors.
Around this same time the resident also contacted the landlord about the rat issue, and a job was raised for pest control contractors to attend the resident’s property. However, the records note that the resident informed them he wanted them to attend the neighbour’s property, not his.
On 28 January 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident, referring to a conversation it had with him in which he had stated vermin were coming from the neighbour’s property as the drainage was blocked. The landlord also noted that the resident suspected there were rats in his loft. The landlord stated that it had booked a pest inspection for the resident’s property for 25 February 2020 and asked the resident to call the contractor to confirm this date (as the contractor could not call him due to the resident’s request that the landlord did not hold his contact number). In addition, an emergency job had been booked for the drain. The landlord said, ‘You have raised concerns regarding rats in the area in general which most of the residents have complained about. The rats have increased due to the current work that is being carried out next to the scheme. I have today raised my concerns with [the local authority] and will await their response.’
On 10 February 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident updating him on the action taken, stating that repairs raised for the neighbouring property had been progressed. The following day the resident’s MP forwarded on the resident’s complaints to the landlord.
The landlord responded directly to the MP on 28 February 2020, confirming that various orders had been raised and completed to address the pest issue, including unblocking the drain, baiting the area, and communicating with the neighbour regarding their garden. The landlord noted that other residents on the estate reported that the influx of vermin maybe due to nearby road works taking place and disturbing nests. The landlord also stated that there had been no recent noise reports from the resident regarding the neighbour, and advised that the resident contact the landlord to formally register this concern and receive advice around using a noise app.
In relation to the windows, the landlord provided a copy of a letter sent to the resident in June 2019 explaining the current position around the change in schedule of works for door and window replacement.
There is no record of further contact on these matters until 12 January 2021, when the resident contacted the landlord about an ongoing issue of rats coming from the neighbour’s property. In response to this the landlord raised a job order for a pest control contractor to attend, which was marked as ‘no access’. The resident then contacted the landlord to report that the contractor ‘was not truthful’ and that’s why he denied access into property, explaining that the contractor had written to him on the 27 January 2021 with details of an appointment on 8 January 2021. The resident said that he wanted the job to be cancelled as he had what he needed to get rid of the pests himself and did not want to allow the contractor access. The landlord’s records note that it spoke with the resident regarding his concerns about the contractor’s letter and suggested that there had been a ‘typo’ in this regarding the dates that could have been resolved by calling the contractor.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 26 January 2021, expressing concerns about the landlord’s handing of his reports of a rat infestation coming from his neighbour’s property, and also its handling of reports of damp and mould in his home. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord detailing these complaints, and asked that it respond to the resident. The landlord sent an acknowledgment of the complaint to the resident via letter (the landlord’s records note that it was unable to make telephone or email contact with the resident as he had asked it not to do so, and to only communicate via letter).
On 2 March 2021 the landlord provided a stage one complaint response. It noted that the resident had stated that he had an issue with rats in his home which he believed came from the neighbouring property. He had reported the neighbour did not maintain their garden, leading to the rat infestation, and the resident had said that he had lost his job due to taking time off for appointments and contractors not attending. The landlord noted concerns that the resident had previously raised regarding the pest control contractor’s letter being sent after the appointment date, and that the log of a ‘no access’ appointment was incorrect. The landlord also noted that it had attempted to explain there could have been a typo in the letter but the resident had terminated the telephone call.
The landlord went on to recount the history of the matter (at one point referring to a mouse infestation) and said that there was no record of any recent concerns raised about the condition of the neighbour’s garden. The landlord said that the resident should make contact with staff if he did continue to have concerns about the garden, who could arrange to send a letter to the neighbour.
The landlord said that it had no record of any report or order being raised in relation to damp and mould, but if the resident could provide more details it would attend and inspect.
On 11 March 2021 the resident telephoned the landlord to escalate his complaint (noting that the complaint officer should not call him). The call handler’s note of the conversation said that the resident did not agree with decision because he hadn’t reported mice entering the property only rats, he had Subject Access Request documentation with the history of the neighbour’s garden, confirming infestation and problems from previous years, he had lots of issues with ASB from the neighbour, and damp and mould issues in his home. The landlord wrote to the resident that same day confirming that the complaint had been escalated.
The landlord next wrote to the resident in June 2021 explaining that its new approach to complaints handling was taking longer than it expected. It said, ‘ We’re learning from this and are recruiting to strengthen the team. In the meantime, please bear with us. One of our officers will be in touch as soon as your complaint is allocated to them. We’re sorry for the delay and the inconvenience this might cause.’
The landlord provided a stage two response on 5 July 2021 offering sincerest apologies for the delay. Regarding the pest issues, the landlord noted that no recent concerns had been raised, and the January 2021 works order was cancelled at the resident’s request. It said that if the resident was still experiencing pests within his property and would like help in resolving this issue, it could raise a works order for its pest control team to inspect.
The landlord said that there were no records of any reports of damp and mould. The landlord said that it operated a reactive maintenance service which relied on residents reporting repairs. As previously mentioned if the resident could provide further information the landlord would inspect.
In relation to reports of ASB from the neighbour, the landlord said the last report of ASB was in 2019. In line with its complaint policy, the landlord was unable to consider complaints about matters over 6 months old. If the resident was experiencing any form of ASB, he could report it by either phone, online or in writing.
The landlord concluded that there had been no service failure, but acknowledged the delay on providing the stage two response and offered £50 in compensation for this, and explained that it was taking action to speed this up.

Assessment and findings

In his complaint to this Service, the resident said that the pest issue has been ongoing for several years and was due to the neighbouring property, stating, ‘Various excuses are given by L&Q housing as to the reason of the tenant … not complying with the responsibilities of Tenants (Unsightly state of garden, drive way, as to cleaning, overgrowth, disrepair of outside building) including blocked drain at the front of the property & hole at the front of the property for which Rats/Vermin enter through wall cavity). The resident said that there had been ‘many visits’ to his property and ‘excessive days taken from employment’. He said that this had caused financial difficulties and loss of employment, as well as a financial cost for treating the infestation.
The resident said that the landlord’s responses to the complaint had been inaccurate and it had not offered enough compensation for the ‘various financial losses & employment/career to the family.’ He said that it was not the case that the works order was cancelled due to him stating that he would do it themselves, rather, ‘…an agreement was made to ease the excessive days taken off from employment…’
In relation to the complaint about damp and mould, the resident explained that the history of the landlord’s investigation was inaccurate and misleading, and referred to, ‘…financial costs…as to cleaning /repeatedly cleaning off the mould of the window frames & doors including the walls by using a mould cleaning solution.’ He said that the landlord had attended on a number of occasions to photograph the property’s doors and windows ‘causing excessive days from employment, including damaging career & future employment opportunities.’ He also said that the issue with the windows had caused excessive fuel bills.
Finally, with regards to ASB, the resident said that the landlord’s history was inaccurate. He describes ‘Slamming & banging on the internal walls from 04.00am, strong smell of cannabis entering the property…threats & intimidation, slamming of the front door, abusive visitors who may be participating in alcohol & drug activities…’ The resident says that this has been reported to the landlord, as well as the Police who had been involved ‘as to the use of drug’s including threats & intimidation, homophobic abuse since 2020.’

Pests

In line with its ‘repairs responsibilities policy’ the landlord was obliged to address pests such as rats. The repair records show that when the resident raised this issue in January 2020, a pest control job order was raised for his property, which was a reasonable response to the resident’s concerns that there was a pest issue within his home. The resident cancelled this.
In addition, the landlord stated in its correspondence in 2020 that it had progressed actions relating to the neighbour’s drains, garden, and the local council. These were all appropriate actions to take in light of the resident’s concerns and show the landlord taking steps to investigate these. However, it is not clear what the outcome of the actions were and that the resident was advised of the outcome.
When the resident raised these concerns again in 2021, the landlord again appropriately raised an order for its pest control contractor to attend. The repair record notes that it was explained to the resident at the time that while he believed the issue was with the neighbour, his property needed to be inspected first. The contractor was to advise the landlord following the visit if a visit was also needed to the neighbour. This was a reasonable first step for the landlord to take to investigate the issue.
This visit did not go ahead at the request of the resident due to his unhappiness about the letter sent by the contractor. This meant that the pest control contractor did not have the opportunity to assess the situation and whether a visit to the neighbouring property was required.
The landlord advised the resident in its responses to his 2021 complaints to let the relevant staff member know should he have concerns about the neighbour’s garden and/or rats in his own property, and these would then be addressed. Usually the Ombudsman might expect a landlord to take more proactive action in situations like this as part of its complaint process, such as speaking with the resident to determine what issues were outstanding and what action could be taken to address these (rather than refereeing the resident on to a different staff member). However, in this case the resident had declined to receive any telephone calls or emails from the landlord. As such, the landlord was unable to discuss the matter with the resident as part of the complaint process, and so it was reasonable that it advised the resident in its responses to the complaints to contact the relevant staff member to discuss any current concerns. There is no record of the resident doing so.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident has stated that the landlord’s responses to the complaint failed to offer reasonable compensation for the numerous visits to his property and excessive days taken off from work for this. However, there is no indication that the landlord’s contractor’s carried out any works at the property in relation to the pests issues during the period in question, and therefore no evidence that the resident was required to take numerous days from work.
Overall, while the landlord should have advised the resident on the outcome of its actions in 2020, there were no failings the part of the landlord here that amount to maladministration.
The Ombudsman understands that the pest issue continues (also affecting several other properties), with the landlord noting in its most recent correspondence that it has not yet been able to eradicate the rats, and that the resident has declined any pest control visits to his home. As such, a recommendation is made in this regard below.

Damp and mould

The repair records from 2018 and in January 2019 show that the resident raised concerns about the condition of the windows in the property, and as part of this mentioned that mould grew on them due to ‘gaps’. Other than this, there is no other reference to damp and mould in the property.
The resident did not raise concerns about damp and mould in his stage one complaint to the landlord, and did not specify in his stage two escalation request that this was in relation to his concerns about replacement windows. As such, the landlord’s response here was reasonable: It checked its contact and repair records for any reports of damp and mould in the last twelve months, and when none were found, it advised the resident in its complaint responses to provide more details so it could attend and inspect. As above, this was a reasonable course of action in light of the resident’s request that the landlord did not call or email him. There is no indication that the resident provided further details or reports of damp and mould, and the Ombudsman understands that the doors and windows have now been replaced. There was no failing on the part of the landlord here.

ASB

The resident mentioned noise from his neighbour in his communications with his MP. In reply to the MP, the landlord noted that there had been no recent noise reports from the resident regarding the neighbour, and advised that the resident contact the landlord to formally register this concern and receive advice around using a noise app. There is no indication that the resident did so. In reply to the formal complaint, the landlord again noted that there had been no reports of ASB for two years, and advised the resident how he could report this.
The contact record supports these responses, with no record of the resident having raised concerns about noise from his neighbour in 2020 or 2021. The Ombudsman asked the resident for details/dates of any reports he made to the landlord of ASB since 2020, but no details have been provided.
As such, there was no action for the landlord to take in response to the complaint as there is no evidence of recent ASB reports, and the advice it offered in response to both the MP’s enquiry and the formal complaint was appropriate. There was no failing on the part of the landlord here.

Complaint handling.

There were delays in the landlord’s response to the formal complaints made. However, it has acknowledged these and apologised, and offered £50 in compensation. This was a reasonable redress to the frustration that the delays would have caused the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with section 54 of the Scheme, there was:
1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of a pest infestation;
1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould;
2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB, and;
3. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord took reasonable action in relation to the resident’s reports of rats. There is no evidence of the resident reporting damp and mould or ASB for the period in question. The landlord appropriately advised the resident to provide more details of these issues so it could take action.
The landlord took action to ‘put right’ the frustration caused by the delays in its complaint handling.

Recommendations

The landlord should write to the resident outlining an action plan for dealing with the ongoing rat issue. This letter should also offer to arrange a time for the resident to call the landlord to discuss any outstanding concerns about the neighbour’s garden, and how this might be addressed.