London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202011424)

A picture containing font, text, graphics, logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011424

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

29 June 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to the balcony.
2. Pests and dampness affecting the carpets.

Background and summary of events

The resident has held an assured shorthold tenancy for the property since August 2014. The property is a two bedroom, first floor flat with a balcony.
The balconies on the estate the resident lives, were designed as ‘open’ balconies and would let the rainwater through to the properties below. It is not clear when, but prior to 2019, the former landlord of the property installed membranes beneath the balconies to contain the rainwater, after it received concerns from residents. The landlord later found that the membranes installed caused the rainwater to pool and stagnate, forming moss/algae.
Around 18 March 2019, the resident reported that rainwater pooled on her balcony and was leaking to the property below. She also reported that a panel, believed to be on the roof of the balcony, was warping and said that the brickwork on the balcony was turning green. The landlord’s contractor attended and the repair was marked as completed however, there is no report of what took place during the visit.
On 7 November 2019, the resident reported the balcony repairs again. The landlord’s contractor attended on 11 November 2019. It reported back that there was already existing works with the landlord, as the issue affected a number of balconies across the estate. The report mentioned that a trial repair had been done and would be completed to the other balconies once the landlord’s surveyor approved this.
Between 11 and 19 November 2019, the resident reported that the bedroom carpets were damp and she suspected it may have been caused by a burst pipe. She also reported that she believed she had mice under the floorboards. The landlord’s pest contractor attended on 20 November 2019 and found carpet beetles not mice as suspected. The contractor reported that the carpet had been eaten and needed to be removed so that the floor could be treated before new carpet was laid.
The resident followed up with the landlord on 17 December 2019 and was informed she would be responsible for the recommended carpet removal. During the call, she advised that her balcony was still leaking.
On 13 January 2020, the resident followed up with the landlord to reiterate she was still experiencing damp in her carpets. She also reported that she could not remove the carpet herself. She asked if the landlord could visit the property to assess the water damage to the carpet. A plumber visited the property to investigate the cause of damp to the carpet, on 15 January 2020. The inspection did not go ahead and an inspection by the landlord was recommended.
The inspection of the dampness to the carpet took place on 12 March 2020. The surveyor arranged for a specialist contractor to check the Mechanical Ventilation with Heat Recovery (MVHR) unit, as he believed this may have been leaking onto the carpet. The specialist contractor attended on 16 March 2020 and used an infra-red camera to show thermal images. No leaks were found coming from the unit and the contractor recommended that the landlord complete another survey.
After the contactors visit, the resident asked the landlord for an update on 19 March 2020. She chased the matter again on 12 May 2020 and said that the dampness was getting worse and the carpet beetles remained an issue. On 10 June 2020, the landlord informed the resident that due to restrictions in place following Covid 19, it would have to suspend the appointment it had booked to attend. It agreed to call her and rebook later on.
The resident called the landlord again about the carpet issues, on 14 July 20. The surveyor attended on 27 July 2020. He reported back that there was a moth infestation and that moths were eating away at the carpet and laying eggs. The resident called the following day and repeated that she could not remove the carpets herself. She noted that the moths were causing skin irritation. Throughout August 2020, the resident chased the landlord about the carpet, noting that it was still wet and infested. The resident’s social worker also contacted the landlord on 25 September 2020 for an update on the carpet.
On 11 January 2021, the resident contacted this Service complaining about the landlord’s response to repairs she reported to the balcony, the carpet and the pests. The following day, she called the landlord expressing her dissatisfaction. She reported that inspections carried out, concluded there was no damp but she did not believe they were thorough. In addition, she said that her balcony canopy was bowing and constantly dripping water, which was causing damage to the outside wall and moss was growing on the wall and balcony decking. The resident also reported that the pests were still present.
On 15 January 2021, the resident called the landlord and informed that while attending to a window repair, an operative reviewed the balcony and informed her that the balcony was a major health and safety risk. The operative believed the roof of the balcony was full of rainwater and bowing, causing the continuous leak. On receiving this information from the resident, the landlord made internal queries with its surveyor, who was on the estate the same day. The surveyor confirmed that it was not the roof of the balcony that was bowing, but the panel that had been installed (to collect the rainwater) underneath the balcony that was bowing. The landlord then raised an order for the balcony to be inspected.
We wrote to the landlord on 27 January 2020 and asked that it consider a formal complaint if it was not already doing so. The landlord recorded a formal complaint the following day and called the resident to discuss her complaint. During the call, the resident reiterated that she had been advised not to use the balcony. The landlord assured the resident that an order had been raised for the balcony to be inspected.
On 1 February 2021, the landlord called the resident and advised that the works required to the property were still being discussed resulting in a delay in the provision of its complaint response. It agreed to continue to liaise with the relevant teams about the repairs so that it could provide updates. By 18 February 2021, the resident had not received a complaint response. She contacted this Service and we contacted the landlord, who provided her a further update on 22 February 2021. In this, it explained that due to the complexity of the issues in the property, it was still discussing works. It apologised for the delay and inconvenience caused to the resident.
The landlord provided its stage one response on 26 February 2021. It confirmed that it attended to the balcony in March 2019 but no follow up was recorded. It advised that after the report in November 2019, its contractor attended on 11 November 2019 and reported that the landlord’s surveyor was aware of the issue and investigating the matter. The landlord said that at the time, the contractor agreed to liaise with the surveyor to organise the repairs to the resident’s property, but there was no record to show that this action was taken. The landlord accepted that no follow up action had been taken on the pest contractors’ recommendations. In relation to the damp carpet, the landlord confirmed that investigations confirmed no issues with the heating unit as initially suspected. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had made unsuccessful attempts to get an update on the investigation into the damp carpet, after it attended in March 2020.
The landlord explained that following its investigation with the relevant teams, it had received feedback about the repairs complained about. It said specifically that the source of the water ingress to the carpet had been identified. It agreed to remove the carpet, clean and treat the floor and replace the carpet. In relation to the balcony, it advised that a repair was being arranged for this and would be finalised soon. After the balcony repair was completed, it agreed to arrange a jet wash of the balcony. The landlord agreed to continue to provide updates to the resident once more information was available about the works agreed. It acknowledged that its delivery of service and communication regarding the matters was not to a high standard. It apologised for the resident’s experience of this and said it recognised that the repairs were taking longer than expected. It explained the reason being was due to the complexity of the case, it was deliberating on what contractor would do the work. It apologised for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
After the stage one response, the parties maintained contact in March 2021 about the repairs to the carpet and balcony. The landlord arranged a repair for the removal of a plastic panel, on the balcony roof (installed to collect rainwater) to be removed. The panel and jet wash took place around 8 March 2021. After the panel was removed, a felt membrane to the roof of the balcony was left exposed. The carpets were eventually replaced on 14 April 2021. Between the time of the stage one response and the carpet being installed, the landlord became aware that it would need two separate contractors to remove the carpet and install the new carpet.
On 27 March 2021, the resident requested an escalation of the complaint. In this, she said that the cause of dampness had not been discussed, as well as an oil stain found on the concrete beneath the carpet. She referred to the landlord’s complaint response, where it said it had identified the source of the suspected water ingress and advised that the landlord had not specified what the source actually was. The resident expressed that since the Covid 19 lockdown, it was difficult living in the property and she and her son had rashes and bites from the pests. The resident stated that she had been stressed physically and mentally due to the issue. She questioned whether a risk assessment of the balcony had been completed after the operative’s advice that she did not use it. She also said that after the panels had been removed from the balcony ceiling, water stains and some damage to the canopy in place, could be seen. She asked when this would be addressed and when the panel would be replaced. The resident sent another email on 29 March 2021, asking the landlord whether she could use her balcony and if it could inspect the balcony ceiling.
On 30 March 2021, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request. In April 2021, the parties were in contact and after the carpet renewal works, the resident notified that the underlay was not renewed with the carpet. The landlord confirmed via email to the resident on 17 March 2021, that the underlay was not renewed as the landlord had asked for the renewal of the carpet only. The landlord also confirmed that it had received an update from the surveyor, confirming that the balcony was safe to use. The landlord explained that it had a backlog of cases and its stage two response would therefore be delayed. It apologised for this and confirmed the resident would be notified when the case was assigned.
On 26 August 2021, the resident contacted this Service as she had not received the stage two response form the landlord. We contacted the landlord and asked that it provide the resident with an update on the complaint. The landlord contacted the resident on 31 August 2021 and she reiterated the concerns from her escalation request. She also confirmed that the balcony was still leaking to the flat below and the water stains and damage to the canopy on the roof remained outstanding.
The landlord provided its stage two response on 23 September 2021. It acknowledged the resident’s dissatisfaction with its handling of the repairs. It explained that from March 2020, the Covid 19 pandemic limited the work that it could do and resulted in a backlog of repairs and longer wait times for appointments which it said it was working through. It acknowledged and apologised for the calls and emails the resident had made to chase the issues. In response to the matter of the dampness in the carpet, it reiterated that after investigations it arranged, no leaks were found. In relation to the balcony, it explained that after the panel was removed, the felt membrane was exposed and it acknowledged this had water stains and some damage. It explained that the panels and the membrane was fitted to the balconies previously, as a way to address water leaking to the balconies below but this was found to not be an effective solution. It said that this was because the water is meant to escape through the balconies and not be collected by the membranes/panels, as this caused mould growth. The landlord confirmed that it had plans to remove the panels and membranes to restore the balconies to their original design. It asked the resident to inform if she was happy for it to remove the membrane. It explained that doing the work would mean that water and light would come through as per the design of the balcony.
The landlord confirmed that it jet washed the balcony to remove the moss as a goodwill gesture. It explained in future, this would be the resident’s responsibility. In response to the resident’s concern about the health and safety of the balcony, the landlord advised that the surveyor confirmed the health and safety concern was to do with caning the resident had installed along the glass of the balcony. The landlord recommended the resident removed this as it was considered a fire hazard and said this would cause mould to grow between the cane and the glass. It confirmed that there was no need to carry out a risk assessment of the balcony. The landlord said that the issue with the pests was a matter it attended to as a gesture of goodwill. It said it could not comment on how the infestation nor the noted staining to the flooring was caused, as it was not something the landlord would investigate. In response to the carpet renewal work, the landlord advised that this was done as a gesture of goodwill and that the contractor would not have laid the new carpet on the existing underlay if it was found to need replacing as well.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s comments on the impact the pest infestation had on her and her son and apologised. It explained that it could not pursue liability claims through its complaints process and advised this would need to be referred to its insurance team. It provided the resident with the details on how to submit a claim to its insurers. The landlord concluded that it recognised the delays and the length of time the matters had been ongoing but said it was confident that it did what it could, during the pandemic to ensure there were no leaks or damp issues located within the property. It reiterated that it took actions to address the issues reported. It explained that it appreciated that inconvenience and distress may have been caused to the resident, as a result of the lack of communication as well as the delays in the provision of the stage two response. It offered the resident £320 compensation comprising:
1. £50 for its lack of communication.
2. £150 for the distress time, effort and inconvenience.
3. £120 for delay in stage two response.
The resident referred her complaint to this Service and explained she remained unhappy for several reasons. She explained that the landlord did not provide an explanation for the dampness in the carpet, ultimately resulting in the carpet beetles. She explained that the landlord initially agreed to replace the underlay as well but did not and believed therefore, that the pest and damp issue could recur. In addition, she advised that the landlord informed the balcony was safe, without a visit. The resident confirmed that she was happy for the landlord to remove the felt membrane on the balcony, as proposed in its stage two response. She disputed that the landlord had advised her about removing the privacy screen she installed, as suggested in the stage two response. The resident explained that she had been let down constantly and had been stressed as a result of experience. In addition, mentioned her son had been distressed by the pests.
In December 2021, the resident confirmed to the landlord that she was happy for it to remove the membrane to the balcony. In June 2023, the landlord confirmed that an appointment had been made for 19 June 2023, for it to cut back the felt and look at cracks on the timber – which this Service understands is an issue that was reported after the complaint finalised in September 2021.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and outside of the property repaired, including outside walls and doors.
The repairs policy advises that after receiving notice of a repair, the landlord will complete the repair within a reasonable period of time. The target times are dependent on the type of repair, which can be one of the following:
1. Non-urgent (Routine) – The landlord aims to complete such repairs at the earliest mutually convenient appointment.
2. Emergency- The landlord aims to attend these repairs within 24 hours or within four hours to make safe, if reported out of hours.
The repairs policy confirms that the landlord will not repair floor coverings such as carpets. These are the responsibility of the resident. The landlord is responsible for repairs to the balconies, but not the cleaning of such.
The landlord’s repair policy confirms that the landlord will not be responsible for pests affecting a single property but, it is responsible for certain pests if they affect multiple flats and/or communal areas.
As a result of the Covid 19 pandemic, the government imposed a series of lockdowns accompanied by law changes, rules, regulations, and guidelines. Restrictions put in place as a result of the pandemic, were in force from March 2020 up until around July 2021. After the start of the pandemic in March 2020, the landlord operated a repairs service for critical repairs and emergency repairs only. These repairs were considered those which were a risk of harm to the person or property and security. While the landlord’s repair service was limited, pre-existing repair appointments were suspended to be rearranged at a later date when restrictions eased. The landlord’s staff were given guidance on how to deal with maintenance queries while the service had been amended. The landlord also published this information about the change to its repairs service on its website.
The landlord’s compensation policy, effective from September 2019, explains the circumstances which the landlord can make discretionary compensation payments. The policy is not prescriptive with the amounts the landlord can consider paying for all instances of service failures but advises compensation will be awarded in a manner that is fair and proportionate. The landlord will not consider compensation for delays if they are outside of its control. In April 2020, the landlord introduced an interim compensation policy for complaints received from April 2020 onwards. The policy was in place to reflect the limitations on its ability to deliver services as usual and noted that the landlord was not to make discretionary compensation payments until further notice. It is not clear when the landlord reverted to its original policy following this.

The landlord’s response to the balcony repairs

The landlord’s records do not show what repairs, if any, were completed when it attended following the resident’s initial report in March 2019. As the same issues were reported again in November 2019, this Service is satisfied that the matter was not resolved when the landlord attended in March 2019.
The repair to the leak from the balcony would be considered a non-emergency repair as while it presents an inconvenience, the issue would not present any immediate harm to the resident or the property itself. Given the nature of the issue affected several other residents, it is understandable that the landlord would have been required to take a holistic approach to investigate the matter so that it could understand the cause of the issue. There is evidence that the landlord completed a trial repair to some of the balconies affected, as a result of its investigations into the issues, sometime in or around 2019.
The landlord’s internal records confirm that when the landlord attended to the balcony the second time, in November 2019, it was in the process of deciding to complete the trialled repairs to the remainder of the balconies. However, after visiting in November 2019, the landlord did not notify the resident of its intentions to complete the repairs. The landlord has recognised in its response to the complaint, that the matter of the balcony was not followed up after the visit.
It is accepted that once lockdown restrictions were in place from March 2020, the landlord’s repairs Service was impacted and the balcony works would have been put on hold during that time due to the fact that they were not critical repairs. However, in the months after the visit in November 2019 up until March 2020, the resident had to chase the landlord for updates and did not receive any information in response from the landlord about what it was going to do about the balcony.
Throughout 2020, the resident when reporting other repairs, continued to notify the landlord that the balcony was leaking, its ceiling was warping and that there was moss on the walls of the balcony. Despite the resident’s attempts to chase it, the landlord did not offer any assurance that it would be taking actions to address these issues once its repairs service resumed as normal. This is unreasonable as the landlord was aware from November 2019, of repairs it wanted to complete to the balconies. The inability to do the repairs in 2020 is not entirely the fault of the landlord, but the lack of communication to the resident about its intention to do these repairs was a service failure.
After the resident complained in January 2021, the landlord arranged for its contractor to observe the balcony while attending to another repair. The request for the operative to do so was reasonable, given the last visit for the balcony was more than 12 months prior. The operative notified the resident that he believed the balcony was not safe and the resident relayed this to the landlord. The landlord promptly referred this to its surveyor who was on the estate at the time. The surveyor was able to clarify that the issue the operative believed was the balcony ceiling bowing, was actually the attached panel that was bowing. Given the surveyor’s knowledge of the structure of the balconies on the estate, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on his advice. The landlord also then raised a routine repair for the balcony to be inspected which was reasonable for to do, to reassure the resident that her balcony was safe however, there is no evidence that this inspection took place.
At stage one of the complaint’s process, the landlord agreed to complete a repair to the balcony and follow this with a jet wash. The landlord was vague on the details about the repair it would be doing to the balcony but agreed to liaise with the resident to provide updates on the repair. This Service has seen the communications between the parties after the stage one response and it is evident that the landlord kept to its agreement. This is further confirmed by the fact that the landlord later completed the repair, which was later confirmed to be the removal of the bowing panel and the jet wash. The actions taken by the landlord were satisfactory, as it addressed the bowing panel, which was bowing as a result of stagnant rainwater and the jet wash cleared the moss formed due to the stagnant water.
The landlord did not provide information about its investigations into the water leaking from the balcony into to the property below, at stage one. But it provided a comprehensive explanation for this occurring within its stage two response. The landlord also did not offer reassurance to the resident, that her balcony was safe to use in the stage one response. As the landlord had received confirmation from the surveyor that the balcony was safe to use, it should have relayed this to the resident earlier than it did in March 2021, as she was clearly concerned about the safety of the balcony.
When the resident escalated her complaint, she also indicated concerns about the condition the balcony ceiling had been left in following the removal of the panel. The landlord acknowledged her escalation request shortly after receipt in March 2021. It appropriately explained there would be a delay in the response due to a backlog of cases it had. The landlord, when responding at stage two, offered the resident £120 in recognition of the five month delay in providing its final response. This was a reasonable offer as it reflects the efforts the resident was required to make to pursue the stage two response.
After the resident escalated her complaint, it was five months before the landlord was in contact with her again. This Service understands the landlord was not in a position to provide the resident with a complaint response, but there was also no communication with the resident about the issues she had raised about the balcony ceiling. Restrictions on the landlord’s repair service would have likely impacted its ability to offer prompt repairs to such. Nevertheless, there is an expectation that the landlord acknowledged the repair issue and managed the resident’s expectations on this. This is particularly, given the landlord’s acknowledgement of its communication issues within the stage one investigation.
When the landlord provided its stage two response, as well as providing details on the outcome of its investigations into the cause of the leaks reported from the balconies, the landlord also proposed works it was going to do to the balconies. The extent of detail it provided, reflects that it had thoroughly investigated the matter in order to establish that the leaks reported were not a fault with the balconies, but rather how they had been designed. The landlord’s decision to complete work to restore the balconies to their original design, was informed by its investigations, which found the panels and membranes contributed to issues with panels bowing and forming moss on the balconies. The landlord’s decision to restore the balcony back to the original design, by removing the panels and membranes fitted, also offered a way to address the issue of the water stained membrane the resident reported.
When explaining what it was going to do to the balcony, the landlord also explained the implications of it restoring the balcony to the original design. It was appropriate that it did this, as removing the membrane meant that light and water would come through.
Although, when confirming the work, it was going to do at stage two, the landlord did not give the resident any indication about when she could expect for it to do this. As the issue reported to the balcony had been ongoing for nearly two years by that point, the landlord should have taken steps to explain when it could realistically do this work. Given that the agreed balcony work was required across several properties including the residents, and the fact that the landlord’s repairs service was still affected from having been significantly reduced from March 2020, it was evident the landlord was unable to deliver the balcony work in a short timeframe. It was not appropriate that after acknowledging the works had been ongoing for a long time, the landlord made no attempt to include information to the resident when it expected to realistically be able to do the work to the balcony.
The landlord has confirmed that it arranged for the felt membrane to be cut down from the resident’s balcony. The resident has since confirmed the work has been done. This is nearly two years after it confirmed it would be doing so, which is a significant delay. Between 2020 and 2021, it is acknowledged that delays in that period were not necessarily a fault in the landlord’s service but rather the impact of the changes in its service during the pandemic that commenced in March 2020. However, the lack of communication by the landlord regarding the repairs to the balcony for the majority of the time from 2019 up until it provided its final response, was unreasonable. Despite the evidence of the landlord taking action to investigate the balconies issues on the estate, it has not provided the resident updates about this despite her attempts to follow up with it. The landlord offered a clear explanation of its findings from its investigations of the balcony and it proposed a reasonable resolution to restore the balcony to its original design. However, it provided the resident with no information about when she could expect for this work to take place and then did not complete the work until nearly two years later.
The resident has recently also informed this Service that there are cracks on the wood of the balcony. This repair issue was not raised as part of the resident’s complaint and cannot therefore, be considered within this investigation. Although, the landlord informed that the visit on 19 June 2023, was to also look at the cracks. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to provide an update to the resident following the recent visit regarding the repair.
The landlord recognised in its response to the complaint, that there had been delays in the repairs the resident complained about. It is offered the resident £50 compensation in recognition of its poor communication and £150 for the resident’s time and trouble pursuing the repairs overall. Its offer of compensation for the communication while offered for all repairs, is not considered proportionate to reflect the delays the resident experienced in the balcony repairs as well as the other repairs, which will be assessed separately in this report. The resident experienced poor communication from the landlord about the repairs between 2019 and 2021.
In the case of the balcony repair, maladministration has been found because although the landlord offered and completed some of the repairs to address the concerns with the balcony, the level of compensation it offered is not reflective of its poor communication with the resident over the two year period. In addition to this, it did not manage the resident’s expectations about when it was able to complete the balcony work it agreed to do at stage two and did not complete the work until nearly two years later.
The £150 the landlord offered the resident for her time and trouble is considered appropriate as far as the balcony repair, as the resident spent a significant time chasing it for updates as a result of the lack of communication on this. The Ombudsman will consider the compensation for time and trouble, relative to the carpet and pests separately in this report.

The landlord’s response to the pests and dampness affecting the carpets.

The repair records show that the resident first raised the issues about the pests, in November 2019. The landlord received the report from the contractor on 21 November 2019, explaining that the carpet would need to be pulled up so the floor could be treated to eradicate the pests, and a new carpet would need to be put down. The landlord’s feedback that this would be the resident’s responsibility was in line with its repair policy, as it is not responsible for the carpet.
The resident notified the landlord in January 2020, that she would not be able to remove the carpet herself. It is expected therefore, that the landlord would have acknowledged this concern. The internal records show that the resident’s query was passed to a surveyor however, the residents concern was not responded to. The resident continued to contact the landlord throughout 2020, insisting that the issue of the pests remained an issue and that she could not remove the carpet. A third party also contacted the landlord for an update on the carpet. The landlord did not respond to those queries.
There is no obligation on the landlord to complete the work to remove the carpet however, it was aware there was a pest infestation and was notified by the resident on two separate occasions, that she could not remove the carpet herself. Therefore, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to offer the resident either assistance itself, or information on how she could get assistance with the removal of the carpet at the earliest opportunity.
In response to the complaint, the landlord agreed to remove the carpet, treat the floor area and install new carpets. The agreement to do so was appropriate as a goodwill gesture to recognise the avoidable delay in the treatment being carried out, as a result of its failure to respond to the resident’s request for assistance with the removal of the carpet. It was approximately 14 months the resident spent without having any response from the landlord about what assistance she could get with the removal of the carpet. This was a significant period of time and the fact that the carpet was found to be harbouring the pests, during both visits in November 2019 and the landlord’s surveyor’s visit in March 2020, it is a concern that the landlord did not look to help the resident to address the carpet sooner.
The landlord’s completion of works to treat the affected area and install the carpet, combined with its offer of compensation and recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, goes some way to put things right for the resident. As above, the £150 offered for the resident’s time and trouble is considered proportionate, relative to the balcony repair.
However, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord has not considered the impact of the pest issue on the resident in its offer of compensation. A separate award for the delays, time, trouble, distress and inconvenience as a result of the landlord’s handling of the pest issue, is warranted and therefore an order of additional compensation will be made.
The resident has made it clear that the presence of the carpet beetles and moths, negatively impacted the environment in the property for both her and her son. This is compounded by the fact that majority of the time the issue remained outstanding, was during a period of lockdowns and restriction, meaning the resident did not have much choice but to spend most of her time in the property.
The resident has also mentioned in her complaint, that her and her son’s health and wellbeing have been negatively impacted as a result of the pests. The landlord referred the resident to its insurers in its response to the complaint and it was appropriate that it did so. The complaints process could not assess liability for any medical conditions and such claims are better pursued through the appropriate insurance process.
As well as the pests, the resident also raised in November 2019 that the carpet was damp and she suspected this was caused by a leaking pipe. The landlord did not attend to investigate this issue until January 2020 but at that time, the inspection did not go ahead. The reason for why the appointment never went ahead in January 2020 is not clear from the landlord’s record. But the landlord was notified by the contractor in January 2020, that its surveyor would need to inspect.
The inspection by the surveyor was not arranged until another two months later. Given that there was a suspected leak, there was an expectation for the landlord in line with its repairs policy, to investigate the issue much sooner than it did so that it could quickly ascertain whether there was a leak thus mitigating further damage to the property. It took the landlord four months to attend overall.
Though, once the landlord attended its investigations to establish whether there was a leak, a reasonable assumption given the damp affected only the carpet, its investigations were thorough. On the basis of the investigations carried out, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that there was no leak. The landlord’s follow up visit in July 2020, was also unable to ascertain what caused the dampness in the carpet.
In the stage one response, the landlord stated that it found source of what was believed to be water penetration affecting the carpet. It provided no further detail on this and this Service has also not seen any evidence to support that the landlord was able to identify what caused the dampness. In fact, the information we have received confirms the landlord found no leak.
The resident complainedin her escalation request that the landlord has not provided an explanation for the cause to the dampness despite stating it found the source. The landlord did not recognise that its stage one response was misleading, in that it said it found the source of the ‘water ingress’ when there is no evidence of this. It also contradicted its stage one response at stage two, in which it said it did not find any leak.
The fact that the landlord has not been able to explain the cause of the dampness to the carpet is not a failure, as it took appropriate steps to investigate the issue. There was a delay in it attending to investigate, and we have seen that it has recognised in response to the complaint, that there were delays overall in its handling of the reported issues. Its stage two investigation however, failed to recognise that it provided misleading information that it had found the cause of the leak affecting the carpet when it had not.
There is no indication that the dampness affected the newly laid carpet once this was installed in April 2021. Therefore, it can be accepted that the actions to replace the carpet provided a resolution to the issue.
The resident raised concerns about the underlay not being replaced with the carpet renewal, and her concerns are understood. Typically, underlay is replaced at the same time as the carpet. In this case, there is no suggestion that not renewing the underlay has compromised the effectiveness of the repair it completed to address the pests and the dampness.
However, the resident has recently informed this Service that the carpet has started to gather, therefore an order has been made for the landlord to inspect this and see whether any repair can be carried out to the areaaffected.
Therenewal of the carpet and treatment of the pests provided a resolution to the issues affecting the carpet but maladministration has been found in the landlord’s handling of matters. This is because, the delays in the landlord providing a solution of the carpet, after the resident notified it that she required assistance with its removal, resulted in an avoidable delay in the pests being addressed. The issues affecting the carpets were ongoing for 17 months by the time the carpet was renewed in April 2021. The landlord also has not recognised that it provided misinformation that it found the source of the dampness in its stage one response.
Given this an additional award of compensation has been ordered.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there has been a maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repairs to the balcony.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there has been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the pests and dampness affecting the carpets.

Reasons

With regard to the balcony, there were delays and poor communication with the resident about the repairs from when they were first raised in 2019, which the compensation does not reflect. In the complaint response, the landlord took some reasonable steps to address some of the issues affecting the balcony. But when the landlord agreed further work at stage two, it offered no timeframe as to when it would do this and the works did not take place until nearly two years later.
In relation the dampness and pests affecting the carpet, there was an avoidable delay of 17 months in these issues being addressed. The landlord completed the work to address these issues but the compensation it offered and its complaint response, is not considered sufficient in recognition of the resident’s experience, especially with the pests. The landlord undertook a thorough investigation into the dampness affecting the carpet, which found no source of water penetration. However, it has not realised that it provided contradicting information in its complaint responses about finding a source of the dampness.

Orders

In recognition of the findings of maladministration in this investigation, it is ordered that within four weeks of this report, the landlord pay the resident £1020 compensation. Comprising of:
1. £320 the landlord offered the resident in its stage two response if it has not already made this payment.
2. £300 for the maladministration found in the landlord’s handling of the balcony repair.
3. £400 for the maladministration found in the landlord’s handling of the pests and dampness affecting the carpet.
Within four weeks of this report, the landlord is to arrange for an inspection of the carpet it installed, reported to be gathering, to see whether a repair is required.
Following the inspection, the landlord is to confirm its findings to the resident in writing, with a copy to this Service. It is to confirm what, if any, repairs it will complete.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord provides the resident an update on its observations of the cracks to the timber on the balcony, following its visit on 19 June 2023.