London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202119915)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119915

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

1 March 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould including its handling of the resident’s repair requests, including roof, window, brickwork, and extractor fan repairs.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be compensated for the damage caused to their possessions by damp.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about an infestation of pests.
4. The landlord’s response to the resident’s rehousing request.
5. The landlord’s consideration of the resident’s disability, health and wellbeing.
6. The landlord’s communication and complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The landlord’s Repairs Policy reflects its statutory obligation to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the resident’s property. The policy specifically states that it is responsible for dealing with penetrative and rising damp and condensation and mould (via its Healthy Homes Programme). The policy also confirms its responsibility to repair door and window frames and all furniture, and to repair brickwork and concrete external walls and rendering.
The landlord introduced its Healthy Homes programme in 2020 in partnership with a damp contractor to ensure that every case of damp and mould is “properly investigated”. The focus is “on tackling the root cause of the problem and carrying out any repairs needed to prevent damp and mould from reoccurring”. It will make a referral to the damp contractor who will visit then provide the landlord with a report advising on the severity of the issue. The landlord will then raise orders for treatment or repair.
The landlord’s Repairs Policy confirms that the landlord is responsible for dealing with infestations of rats and mice in the properties that it manages. It is also responsible for “blocking and filling holes following pest removal treatment”.
The landlord’s Vulnerable Residents Policy states that “Our wider suite of policies and procedures reflect the need to tailor services to the different needs of residents, including vulnerable residents. There are many ways in which we can support our vulnerable residents to retain their home and well-being; and live as independently as possible, such as:
1. Communications – provide materials in a range of formats.
2. Service adjustments – providing minor health and safety repairs at no cost and priority repairs for health and safety repairs.
3. Aids & Adaptations – providing minor and major adaptations to support our residents to live safely and independently in their homes.
4. In-house support– referring residents to our Tenancy Sustainment Team as well as other commissioned services which can help address issues of financial vulnerability and exclusion.
5. External referrals or signposting to statutory agencies and other external support organisations.”
The landlord’s Compensation Policy states it:
1. “will consider an offer of compensation when an apology alone is not sufficient and we recognise the impact the service loss or failure has had on the customer” and that “Compensation may be considered where we fail to follow our policies and procedures”. The policy further states that “discretionary payments can be made to recognise individual household circumstances, for example, larger sized households, or specific vulnerabilities”.
2. Compensation is not a replacement for home contents insurance. Customers are responsible for arranging their own home contents insurance for accidental damage to their belongings/property that is not our responsibility.
3. Where damage or alleged injury occurs because of our or our contractor’s negligence, we will refer the issue to the Insurance Team. This includes damage to customers’ personal possessions. All claims against our insurance policy must be registered by us within 28 days of the event.
4. It “will make a payment of £10 for the … Failure to respond to a formal complaint within the timescales published in our Complaints Policy”.
The landlord has a two stage complaints procedure. At stage 1, the landlord will outline how it will resolve the complaint with timescales within 10 days. If it cannot do so, it will write again within a further 10 working days. At stage 2 it will write with the outcome and the next steps within 20 working days of the complaint escalation. If it cannot do so at that point, it will write again within a further 10 working days. It will then monitor progress until all actions are completed.
The landlord previously operated an internal choice based lettings transfer list which ceased in May 2020. Under this system residents were registered in date order in the following bands: Band 1 – Decants; Band 2 – Under Occupiers, Band 3 – Priority Cases and Band 4 – Standard Cases. Residents could make bids for advertised properties.
The landlord introduced a new Allocations and Lettings Policy in June 2021 which allowed existing residents of the landlord to transfer to another of the landlord’s property and it holds an internal rehousing list for applicants. The policy states:
1. “There will be situations where we need to directly rehouse existing L&Q residents either on an emergency, temporary or permanent basis. In these cases, we will match the resident to a property through our Rehousing list”.
2. “A temporary move may be required so that planned repair or improvement works can be completed in a resident’s home. In these circumstances we will encourage residents to stay with family or friends first and, where this is possible, we will pay the resident £250 per week”.
3. A permanent move may be agreed when a resident is required “to move to a more suitable property” or where there is “major disrepair”. It will “typically be to another L&Q property or possibly a property with a different housing association or local authority (reciprocal move)”.
4. “Properties will be matched to residents from the Rehousing list according to their individual requirements and prioritised according to the date that their direct offer was approved. Residents who are at immediate risk of harm may be prioritised”.
5. “We will take additional measures to support older people, those with disabilities and other vulnerable adults”.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) provides recommendations for landlords, including that they should:
1. “Adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. Landlords should review their current strategy and consider whether their approach will achieve this”.
2. “Identify where an independent, mutually agreed and suitably qualified surveyor should be used, share the outcomes of all surveys and inspections with residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on next steps. Landlords should then act on accepted survey recommendations in a timely manner”.
3. “Ensure they treat residents reporting damp and mould with respect and empathy. The distress and inconvenience experienced by residents in this area is some of the most profound we have seen, and this needs to be reflected in the tone and approach of the complaint handling”.

Summary of Events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, her tenancy commencing in 2010. Her property is a one bedroom ground floor flat and her current rent is £115.66. The resident is disabled and has cerebral palsy.
In June 2016, the landlord asked a damp specialist to inspect after the resident’s representative advised no action had been taken to resolve damp in the resident’s property for two years and she was seeking legal advice. The representative advised that the damp had worsened and the resident was self-harming. The resident also advised that she was not using her bedroom because of the damp.
On 14 November 2016 the resident’s solicitor submitted a letter of claim. The landlord on 21 December 2016 whilst not accepting there was disrepair offered to wash down the bedroom wall and redecorate, upgrade the extractor fan in the bathroom and install a new humidistat control fan in the kitchen.
An inspection report carried out by an independent surveyor dated 25 January 2017 for court proceedings at the time noted that the main problem with the property related to dampness in particularly condensation and resultant damp mould growth particularly in the bedroom and to a lesser extent the bathroom. It further noted that there appeared to be rising dampness, from an ineffective horizontal damp-proof course, to the front external wall within the living room. The surveyor also noted mice droppings in the kitchen which suggested there was an ongoing mice infestation.
In February 2018 the landlord arranged for a contractor to carry out damp works after it noted “Major mould affecting flank wall & Rear elevation of bedroom wall. Lounge – Damp affecting front & side elevation, sash cord broken”. Works were carried out in June 2018.
On 15 May 2018 the resident was given Band 3 medical priority for a move under the landlord’s choice based lettings system.
On 17 January 2019, the landlord raised an order for its pest controllers to carry out baiting and proofing.
On 3 April 2019 landlord, having logged a repair request on 29 March 2019, attended the resident’s property to repair a live wire under a kitchen unit that had been gnawed by rodents. It arranged for its pest controller to attend at the same time, although it is not clear what action the pest controller took at the appointment.
On or around 17 April 2019 the landlord started works to remove and replace kitchen cupboards to fill in holes under kitchen cupboards/units which allowed rats to enter.
After visits by the pest controller on 26 April, 2 May and 16 May 2019, it stated that it had blocked all the holes and could not detect rodent activity therefore the only further action it could take was to install a non-return valve to the back of the toilet pan.
After a joint inspection by the landlord and the pest controller on 11 June 2019, the landlord noted that mesh had been put over concreted grilles in the back garden and other areas blocked off but that another member of staff would check back door to see if repairs and further proofing works were needed.
A letter from the local authority to the resident’s MP in July 2019 noted that its OT had assessed the resident’s property as to whether it was suitable for her medical needs. It noted that the resident was on the landlord’s rehousing list and that she should bid for properties. The local authority also noted that the resident wished to live in a neighbouring borough and that the landlord had informed her that she should contact the neighbouring local authority directly and register to swap her home.
With regards to the resident’s wish to be transferred to a property in the neighbouring authority the landlord advised on 6 August 2019 that it did not refer tenants to local authorities; however, she was registered on its systems with medical priority.
On 16 October 2019, the resident’s solicitor raised a legal disrepair claim citing disrepair to rainwater goods & pipes, drains, external brickwork, windows, heating, plasterwork, fence, paving, and that there was damp and a rodent infestation. The landlord’s records state that the claim was closed as repairs had been referred to a contractor. Its repairs records indicate that it had also arranged for its pest controller to attend the resident’s property on 12 and 30 November 2019. The pest controller advised that it would install a bristle brush to the back door.
On 13 March 2020, the resident’s MP wrote to the landlord on her behalf raising a number of issues including the return of “extreme damp” on the bedroom wall, despite being treated previously.
After the resident reported that rats had returned to her property on 19 May 2020 the landlord raised an order for its pest controller to attend.
On 11 June 2020 the resident reported a repair to her extractor fan which was hanging out of the wall above her toilet.
On 28 September 2020 the resident reported a rat in her bedroom following which the landlord arranged for its pest controller to attend. She made a further report on 5 November 2020 after which the landlord arranged for the pest controller to attend again.
Following a recommendation from its pest controller, on 27 April 2021 the landlord raised an order for its bricklayer to seal a large gap on the rear wall of the property behind the bedroom. The landlord’s repair records states the job was “Complete – No action” on 11 January 2022.
On 4 October 2021, the landlord’s damp contractor carried out a Healthy Homes inspection after it raised an order on 28 September 2021 after the resident reported mould on possessions and a strong smell of damp. It advised that there was missing/loose pointing on a rear wall that may be causing damp to the thermal boards, a downpipe needed repairing as it was off its joint, the bathroom extractor fan was broken and that it recommended an extractor fan in the kitchen. The report noted that the “Surfaces were cleaned and shielded (for mould) as a precautionary measure”.
On 15 and 26 November and 7 December 2021 the resident enquired when the works identified by the damp contractor would be completed and that she was concerned that damp in her bedroom would get worse over the winter months, as this was not the first time there was damp in her property. She advised she had been sleeping on her sofa for a number of years.
On 7 and 9 December 2021 the landlord raised repairs to the guttering and downpipe, to the brickwork for missing pointing causing damp to thermal board, electrical repairs to the bathroom fan and a survey for the possible installation of a kitchen fan.
On 13 December 2021 the resident raised a complaint regarding roofing works, double glazing/difficult to open windows, brickwork and extractor fan repairs, and stating that repairs had been dragging on for 10 years nearly. She subsequently advised that she wanted all repairs completed by the end of the year.
The landlord’s roofing contractor advised it on 21 December 2021 that it had completed works on 17 December 2021 and that it had “Used treble ladder for access. Cleaned box gutter (NSI), cleared hopper and cleaned gutter”.
On 22 December 2021 the landlord sent the Stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint. It stated that:
1. It would offer £50 for missed appointment by the electrical contractor responsible for the extractor fan repair.
2. It had made a new appointment for the extractor fan for 6 January 2022.
3. It understood the roofing works had been completed.
4. Its Healthy Homes Team would contact her about her reports of damp and mould.
5. The bricklayer would carry out an inspection of the brickwork on 7 January 2022.
6. She should contact her GP for an OT report if she wanted improvements to the property.
On 27 December 2021 the resident asked to escalate her complaint. She advised that most of the repairs had been outstanding for over 10 years and that she had to live in one room which affected her mental health. She advised that she could not access her rear garden due to a high step, growing moss, wet leaves and bird mess, and that the pavement and road was dangerous for her outside her property. She advised that she had lost items such as furniture, pictures, clothes, curtains, shoes and bedding.
According to the landlord’s repair records, the electrical contractor repaired the bathroom fan but did not install a kitchen extractor fan at the appointment of 6 January 2022. It requested that a follow up appointment be made for a glazer to attend and cut a hole in the glass so the fan could be installed. On 10 January 2022, the landlord advised the resident that the electrical contractor responsible needed a hole to be cut in the kitchen window and that it had arranged for a glazer to attend. It further advised that the roofer had requested a recall so it could check for the works that had been concluded.
Between 10 and 14 January 2022 the resident again asked to escalate her complaint reiterating that most of her repairs had been outstanding for 10 years. She stated that she was unhappy about the mould which had now spread to her front room which was the last space in the property she could live in, therefore the property was unliveable, in her view. The resident also referred to the lack of disabled access with a dangerous road outside her property, and a hard to access garden.
The resident stated that the extractor fan contractor did not attend to install the fan. She denied that roofers attended as its report did not mention a broken pipe and contained a photo was of a different property. She also stated that the bricklayer had inspected but she was not confident it would proceed with carrying out works.
On 12 January 2022, the landlord’s bricklayer advised that there were no issue with the pointing but there may be an issue with the gutter or roof that was causing damp which it did not deal with. The landlord’s internal correspondence indicates that on or around 12 January 2022 the Healthy Homes Team phoned the resident to arrange a visit but the resident declined advising she could no longer wait for repairs but wanted a move.
On 12 January 2022 the landlord sent an internal email querying whether it could arrange a safeguarding assessment as the resident had advised she wanted to kill herself on many occasions due to her living conditions.
On 10 February 2022 this Service asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to Stage 2 and respond by 9 March 2022.
On 22 February 2022, the landlord wrote to resident noting that she had declined appointments from the glazer and asking that she provide access. In internal emails sent between 1 and 3 March 2022, the landlord noted that the resident had declined visits and wanted to be moved.
On 3 and 5 March 2022 the resident reiterated her concern about the condition of her property, also sending images of dead rats and mould from when she had previously reported rodents in her property. She stated that her property was unliveable due to damp and mould in the bedroom and front room and on her possessions. She declined the installation of the extractor fan in the kitchen window as she did not think it would help or that the rotten window frame would hold the extractor. She stated that there had been no roofing works and no checking of the brickworks to see where water might be entering the property.
The resident asked for a decant stating that she was staying away and that she was feeling unwell with depression, anxiety and suicidal thoughts. She advised that when works were carried out in 2018, there was no treatment or cleaning of the damp wall on which plasterboard in the bedroom was laid and that the front room walls were replastered but no damp treatment completed beforehand. She also noted that a new kitchen was fitted due to the severity of the rat infestation.
The resident also reiterated her concern that her property did not have disabled access but the OT did not recommend a ramp to the property due to the pavement outside the property sloping into the road. She also advised that a tree outside her property made it difficult for her wheelchair also.
On 7 March 2022 the landlord advised that it could not conclude that the property was uninhabitable from the photos sent in and an inspection was required. It advised that whilst it appreciated that the resident did not want works completed, there may be structural damage to the property from the issues raised therefore it needed to inspect and arrange works if necessary.
On 9 March 2022 the landlord sent the Stage 2 response. It advised:
1. The resident had refused entry to the glazer to cut a hole in the window for a new extractor fan in the kitchen.
2. The roofer had accessed the roof without scaffolding and entry in the resident’s home for cleaning works and to inspect the pointing. However, as the resident felt the work was not completed, it would arrange for the roofer to reattend.
3. It could not accept new referrals for rehousing as the demand was higher than the available stock however, it would send a medical form. The resident could also register with the local authority or mutually exchange.
4. The resident’s claim for damage to possessions would need to be referred to its insurance team. It provided the insurance team’s contact details and outlined the information required for a claim to be considered.
5. The complaint would stay open at Stage 1 until all the necessary work had been completed.
6. When its Healthy Homes Team attempted to carry out an inspection after the Stage 1 response, the resident declined any further visits or work. It would arrange an inspection of the kitchen window, the pointing and look at what else it could do to help the damp and mould issues, then arrange further works needed.
7. It had awarded £100 for the delay in acknowledging the Stage 2 escalation.
On 14 March 2022, the resident stated that she was disappointed with the Stage 2 decision and could not see how a disabled tenant with mental health issues could be expected to stay in her property.
On 16 March 2022, the resident stated that a member of staff had called about the medical assessment form, but had not returned her calls.
On 16 May 2022, the landlord provided information for this investigation.

Assessment and findings

This investigation has also not sought to assess the landlord’s handling of historical reports of damp and other repair issues. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not raised with the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable time, which would normally be within six months of the matter arising. In view of the time periods involved in this case, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, this investigation has nor assessed in any great detail any specific events prior to 2019 and is focused on the landlord’s actions in responding to the more recent events and, specifically, to issues raised within the formal complaint procedure. The issues which were ongoing for several years prior to the resident’s formal complaint provides context to the resident’s complaints and have been considered only with respect to the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould, including roof, window, brickwork, and extractor fan repairs

The resident has reported damp and mould periodically since start of her tenancy, pursuing legal action at times. The landlord has taken action in response including damp works in 2018. The landlord arranged a damp inspection by its damp contractor on 4 October 2021 following a further report from the resident. This was in accordance with its policy on dealing with damp at this time. The contractor identified various works to the property. However, the landlord did not raise the suggested repairs until 7 and 9 December 2021, including an inspection of the pointing. This was over two months later which was an unreasonable delay. The failure to act promptly on the damp inspection was particularly unreasonable given the history of damp reports and the fact that the resident had actively pursued the repairs, citing that she was not sleeping in her bedroom because of mould there.
The damp contractor identified works to the guttering. The landlord’s roofing contractor advised that it had carried out works to the guttering. Ultimately it was reasonable that the landlord relied on the advice of a professional approved contractor. However, as the resident queried whether the contractor had attended the property and also because the bricklayer had suggested that there may still be issues with the gutter and/or roof it was appropriate that the landlord recalled the roofing contractor.
The damp contractor requested repairs to the bathroom extractor fan and the installation of a kitchen extractor fan. It was in line with good landlord practice that it offered compensation for a missed appointment as this would have inconvenienced the resident. Although the kitchen extractor fan was not installed at the visit of 6 January 2022, there was good reason for this as it transpired that a hole in the window would need to be cut. The landlord took further steps to complete the work by arranging a visit by a glazer. Given that the resident has not provided access for the glazer partly because of concerns about the integrity of the window frame, it is reasonable that the landlord offered to inspect further in the stage 2 response.
The damp contractor had suggested there may be damp caused by issues with the pointing in the brickwork. By arranging for a bricklayer to attend it took reasonable steps to establish the condition of the pointing. However, as the resident has denied that the brickwork was checked, it is reasonable that the landlord agreed it would inspect further in the stage 2 response.
Aside from the works identified by the damp contractor the landlord’s Healthy Homes Team also sought to consider what else it could do to address damp and mould. This is appropriate as the Healthy Homes Team has responsibility for dealing with damp and mould. By inspecting further the landlord is more able to take an informed position on the damp and mould situation in the resident’s flat.
The resident did not agree arrangements for the landlord to inspect and for contractors to attend to outstanding repairs. However, the context of the resident’s complaint was that she had reported damp and mould periodically over several years and this Service had issued guidance that landlords should have zero tolerance of damp. In addition the resident had raised her complaint over the winter months and stated that the mould was spreading, and was vulnerable and had reported great distress and inconvenience. Taking together with this Service’s Dispute Resolution Principle to “Put Things Right”, it was unreasonable that the landlord was not more proactive in trying to gain access for the inspection and outstanding works. Furthermore, although the landlord in the Stage 2 response of 9 March 2022 advised that would try again to arrange an inspection of the resident’s property there is no evidence that it did so in good time, and not by 16 May 2022 when it provided information to this investigation.
In finding that the landlord was not proactive in seeking to gain access for an inspection and works by contractors, the Ombudsman has considered its Vulnerable Residents Policy. It is not clear that the landlord followed the policy in the resident’s case, for instance providing support through its Tenancy Support Team or liaising with the resident’s advocates. Furthermore, the resident when escalating a complaint, suggested being decanted. The landlord’s Rehousing Policy allows the landlord to decant residents so works can be completed; however, there is no evidence that the landlord has considered this option
In deciding an appropriate level of redress in this complaint, this Service has considered the resident’s level of rent. The resident’s current rent is £115.66. The property has four rooms – a bedroom, bathroom, living room and kitchen. The landlord’s damp contractor attended on 4 October 2021 and identified works. The matter remained unresolved after the resident completed the complaints procedure on 9 March 2022, and when the landlord provided information to this Service for the investigation on 16 May 2022, a period of 32 weeks.
It is noted that the landlord made some efforts to complete works. However, it is clear that the resident’s enjoyment of her bedroom and living room in particular were severely curtailed from damp and mould. Exacerbating this was the fact that the presence of rodents in the property has caused the resident to suffer the total loss of use for her bedroom for periods. Therefore, an order has been made for the landlord to pay as compensation 1/3 of the rent for the period that it failed to appropriately deal with the damp and mould. This totals £1233.71. An additional order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings, taking into account the individual circumstances of the case and this Service’s remedies guidance

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be compensated for the damage caused to her possessions by damp

In responding to the resident’s complaint the landlord advised the resident that she could make a claim for damage to her personal belongings to its insurance team. This was in line with its Compensation Policy which states that where a resident has claimed damage to personal possessions, it will refer the issue to its insurance team. Generally, insurance protects a landlord’s financial standing by the insurer paying compensation claims as opposed to this coming from the landlord’s finances. Insurers can determine whether there has been negligence on the part of the landlord, and therefore whether it is liable for damaged property/belongings and other losses.
The landlord provided the details of its insurance team and advised of the information she would need to provide for a claim. It therefore provided the resident with the necessary information for her request for compensation for possessions damaged by damp to be considered.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about an infestation of pests

It is evident from the landlord’s repair records on the case and the resident’s submissions that she has reported periodically the presence of rodents in her property. The landlord is responsible for responding to reports of rodents brought to its attention under its Repair Policy. In this regard it followed its policy by arranging for its pest controller to attend when it received reports. The landlord has identified through its pest controller and carried out proofing works in line with the requirements of the policy, entailing the refitting of the resident’s kitchen.
The resident when making her formal complaint in December 2021 did not mention the landlord’s response to her reports of pests in her property, and there is no evidence of any reports made at that time. However, the landlord’s records do not confirm that following the resident’s report of 28 September 2020, it identified that the property needed further proofing until April 2021, seven months later, which is an unreasonable delay. The landlord’s records also do not confirm whether the works identified – sealing a large gap on the rear wall of the property – were completed or not. Regardless of whether further reports of mice were made in the interim, having identified the works, it is unreasonable that the works were not completed promptly
When escalating her complaint in March 2022 she provided photos of rats in her property from previous reports. Although there was no evidence of rats in her property at that time, she indicated that this issue was still of general concern to her and that it contributed to her general dissatisfaction with the property. By not seeking to establish the situation at that time in respect of rodent infestations and investigating its handling of the matter, the landlord failed to demonstrate that it had fully heard the resident, show empathy and resolve all aspects of her complaint.
The resident has advised this Service that there is a gap under her rear door. As noted the landlord’s repair records do not confirm whether the works to seal the rear wall ordered on 27 April 2021 were completed, and if not the reasons why. It is therefore ordered that the landlord provide confirmation to the resident on this point and whether it will carry out other proofing works.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s rehousing request

The landlord operated a choice based lettings system for internal transfers within its stock prior to 2020. During this period, it dealt with the resident’s transfer application in line with the system as it assessed her priority for a transfer, awarding her Band 3 medical priority. It also made clear that it was her responsibility to bid for properties. It is not clear whether it could have facilitated an auto-bidding process at this time for the resident, whereby bids are made on properties on behalf of applicants who do not or are unable to actively bid.
There is no evidence that the resident applied to the landlord for an internal transfer after 2020, nor did she mention the handling of her request for rehousing in her formal complaint. However, in pursuing her complaint the resident advised she was not staying at her property and wished to be moved. Therefore it was appropriate that the landlord explore whether she wished to pursue a transfer at this time.
Under its Allocations Policy at this time, the landlord could make direct offers of properties to residents, including those with disabilities and vulnerable people. In line with this it agreed to send the resident a medical form when responding at Stage 2. However, there is no evidence that the landlord has taken this action or otherwise assessed whether the resident’s circumstances warranted consideration for a direct offer of alternative housing. Therefore, after identifying the resident’s request for rehousing in its response to her complaint, it has failed to take the necessary action to assess her request.
The resident has raised concerns about the suitability of her property with the local authority’s OT department. She has also contacted the local authority about rehousing and has been advised to contact to contact a neighbouring local authority directly about securing housing there. The resident’s concerns about these aspects of her rehousing case fall within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and therefore have not been assessed by this Service.

The landlord not taking the resident’s disability, health and wellbeing into consideration

As noted the landlord has a Vulnerable Residents Policy. In this case the resident reported rodents in addition to the mould and also wanted to be decanted or transferred. These issues confirmed there was an elevated and composite detrimental impact to the resident which the landlord had a responsibility to be mindful of and address through its Vulnerability Policy. However, it is not evident that it consistently did so.
The resident when pursuing repairs after the damp contractor’s inspection, and her formal complaint made clear how she was being affected. She advised that she had been living in one room and sleeping on her sofa for several years. She advised on the effect on her mental health and according to the landlord’s internal notes, told it that she had been suicidal on occasions. However, despite mention of arranging a safeguarding assessment, the landlord did not take this action or follow other options allowed for by its Vulnerable Residents Policy such as making a referral to its Tenancy Support Team. Social landlords have a key safeguarding role to play along with other professional and should be responsive where resident’s cite self-harm.. Given the circumstances outlined by the resident, together with its prior knowledge of her mental and physical health and the history of her case, the lack of follow up action by the landlord at this time was unreasonable.
With regards to the works required to her property, there is no evidence that the landlord explored possible options for securing access and minimising the distress to the resident. For instance, there is no evidence that the landlord explored mediation or working with professionals to proceed with works. As noted above the landlord also had the option of decanting the residents and in considering this option it had a responsibility to tailor its service around the resident’s vulnerability. It was therefore unreasonable that it did not proactively consider providing alternative accommodation.
With regards to the resident’s reports of rodents the delay by the landlord in acting on the resident’s report of September 2020, in particularly in carrying out proofing, had an particularly significant impact on resident who had mobility issues and who stated could not sleep in the bedroom. This, as noted above, was not recognised by the landlord.
Regarding the resident’s transfer request, the landlord has restricted the opportunity for residents to be even considered for internal transfers by not accepting new referral for housing. As such it has offset its responsibility to ensure that the needs of all vulnerable tenants are necessarily properly and fairly taken into account and that they are suitably housed. In the resident’s case the landlord committed to carry out a medical assessment but by not following this through, it has failed to assess her housing needs and seek rehousing accordingly.
The resident also mentioned difficulties in accessing and exiting the front and rear of her property. The landlord is not responsible for the local authority OT’s decision not to install any adaptations. Nonetheless, the Vulnerable Residents Policy allows the landlord itself to provide minor and major adaptations to support its residents to live safely and independently in their homes. The landlord did not proactively consider installing any adaptations itself, instead advising the resident to obtain another OT report. By putting the onus on the resident the landlord did not exercise the discretion it had under the policy. Also by referring to “improvements”, which are outside its repair obligations, rather than adaptations which are intended to make the resident better able to live in her home, the landlord could be construed as being insensitive to the resident’s needs.
The landlord’s Vulnerable Residents Policy is dated 5 December 2018 and was due to be reviewed in December 2021. As there is no evidence of the policy review and given the findings of this investigation, this Service orders the landlord to carry out a review of the policy and provide confirmation to this Service.

The landlord’s communication and complaint handling

With regards to the landlord’s complaint handling, the landlord responded to the resident’s Stage 1 complaint within the 10 days’ timescale set out in its complaints procedure. However, the landlord then failed to acknowledge several requests by the resident to escalate her complaint causing her to contact this Service for assistance. This failure exacerbated the resident’s time and trouble in pursuing her complaint and caused a delay. The landlord recognised the delay and offered £100 compensation. This offer exceeded the guidance within the landlord’s Compensation Policy. The offer was also in line with this Service’s Remedies Guidance in effect at the time for instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the resident. As such the landlord provided reasonable redress for its delay in its complaints handling that satisfactorily resolved its failures in complaints handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould including its handling of the resident’s repair requests, including roof, window, brickwork, and extractor fan repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request to be compensated for the damage caused to her possessions by damp.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports about an infestation of pests.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s rehousing request.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its consideration of the resident’s disability, health and wellbeing.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord delayed in raising works identified by its damp contractor. Thereafter, it was unreasonable that the landlord was not more proactive in trying to gain access for completion of outstanding works and its inspection. Furthermore, although the landlord in the Stage 2 response of 9 March 2022 advised that it would try again to arrange an inspection of the resident’s property there is no evidence that it did so in good time, and not by May 2022 when it provided information to this investigation. In finding that the landlord was not proactive in seeking to gain access for an inspection and works by contractors, the Ombudsman found that the landlord has not followed its Vulnerable Residents Policy.
It was in line with its Compensation Policy that the landlord advised the resident that she could make a claim for damage to her personal belongings to its insurance team. It provided the resident with the necessary information to make a claim.
The landlord has followed its repairs policy by arranging for its pest controller to attend when it received reports. However, there was a significant delay in the landlord responding to the resident’s reports of rodents in September 2020. After the resident reported further concerns about rodents in March 2022, it failed to establish the situation at that time in respect of rodent infestations and investigate its handling of the matter.
Whilst the landlord agreed to send the resident a medical assessment form there is no evidence that the landlord has taken this action or otherwise assessed whether the resident’s circumstances warranted consideration for a direct offer of alternative housing under its current Allocations and Lettings Policy.
There was an elevated and composite detrimental impact to the resident which the landlord had a responsibility to be mindful of and address through its Vulnerability Policy. However, it is not evident that it consistently did so.
The landlord provided reasonable redress for its delay in handling the resident’s complaint at Stage 2.

Orders and recommendations

Within the next four weeks the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Arrange for a senior member of the landlord’s staff to apologise to the resident in person (or in writing if preferred by the resident) for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £1,233.71 compensation for its failures in dealing with the resident’s reports of damp and mould and rodents.
3. Pay the resident an additional £400 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her case, including not adequately taking into account her disability, health and wellbeing.
4. Arrange and complete the outstanding works and inspection of the resident’s property. It should consider providing the resident with decant accommodation if this is required to ensure completion of the works. It should also advise the resident whether the works to seal the rear wall ordered on 27 April 2021 were completed, and of any further works or actions to be completed, with timescales set.
5. Provide the resident with a medical form if it has not already done so and assess her priority for rehousing under its current Rehousing policy. It should then advise the resident of the outcome and obtain any further information that may be necessary such as the resident’s area choices.
Within the next 12 weeks the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Carry out a review of the Vulnerable Persons Policy and provide evidence to this Service that this action has been carried out. If it is not possible for the landlord to carry out the review within this timeframe it should advise this Service of the further steps it intends to take to complete the policy review with clear timeframes.