London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202336460)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202336460

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

13 August 2024


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of outstanding works relating to subsidence of the property.
    2. Request for permanent rehousing instead of a temporary decant.
    3. Reports of a roof leak and associated damp and mould.
    4. Associated formal complaint.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
    1. Reports of outstanding works relating to subsidence of the property.
    2. Request for permanent rehousing instead of a temporary decant.
  3. Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme says the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.
  4. While there was evidence provided which demonstrated that there was subsidence at the property, being dealt with by the landlord’s insurers, the matter was not raised in the resident’s formal complaint or addressed in the landlord’s complaint responses. This aspect of the complaint is, therefore, outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction as the landlord has not had the opportunity to respond via its 2-stage complaint process.
  5. There was also evidence of communication regarding the resident’s housing situation, whereby his daughter had moved in causing overcrowding, and his need for a larger property. While this Service empathises that this would have been distressing for the resident, the matter was not raised in the formal complaint or addressed in the landlord’s complaint responses. Therefore, we have determined that this matter has not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure and is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  6. The resident may wish to raise a new complaint to the landlord in relation to the above matters. While the above elements are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction they may be referred to for context purposes.

Background

  1. At the time of the complaint the resident was the assured tenant of a 1-bedroom property, owned by the landlord, where he resided with his daughter. The tenancy ended when the resident moved to alternative accommodation on 31 March 2024. The landlord was aware of his medical conditions and vulnerabilities.
  2. The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 28 November 2023. He stated that it had failed to complete repairs to the leaking roof, and resolve the damp and mould in his home, which he had been reporting since February 2023. It had not communicated effectively since the issues arose and the neighbourhood lead had failed to respond to him. It had provided incorrect information to its contractor, who kept contacting him for access to the empty flat above, in order to access the roof and complete an asbestos survey.
  3. The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 1 December 2023, prior to receiving the landlord’s stage 1 response. He stated that an appointment had been made for 23 January 2024, to inspect the damp and mould, and the delay was unacceptable.
  4. In its stage 1 response on 5 December 2023, the landlord apologised for the issues the resident was experiencing in relation to the outstanding roof and guttering works. It acknowledged that this was causing damage around the bay window. Its contractor had completed an asbestos survey to the roof and it was waiting for the report. It had contacted its planning team and surveyors to advise on the situation and get the repairs progressed. It appreciated that he was still waiting for the issues to be resolved and it would consider awarding compensation when it had dates for works to be completed.
  5. In its stage 2 response on 15 January 2024, the landlord provided a timeline of events from 23 February 2023 to the date of its response. It acknowledged the resident’s dissatisfaction and apologised. It was unable to bring forward the date for the damp and mould inspection but once it was complete it would expedite the works. It apologised that the roof repairs were outstanding and stated it was chasing its contractors to get an appointment booked. It also apologised for its customer service and outlined the measures it had taken to address this. It offered £1,275 compensation which comprised £720 for distress and failing to recognise the impact due to his disabilities, £495 for time and effort in getting the complaint resolved, and £60 for poor complaint handling.
  6. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought his complaint to this Service. He stated that he had spent considerable time and effort chasing the repairs which were still not complete when he left the property in March 2024. He said the compensation offered did not reflect the difficulties he experienced, for over a year, waiting for the repairs to be completed.

Assessment and findings

  1. In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances.

Scope of investigation

  1. In the resident’s correspondence he stated that his living situation was having a detrimental impact on his health. He had a terminal illness and was disabled. The damp and mould was causing respiratory infections due to breathing in mould spores.
  2. This Service has investigated how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns and can consider any inconvenience or distress caused, as a result of any service failure by the landlord. However, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health, nor can it calculate or award damages. Ultimately this would be a matter for the courts.

Reports of a leak from the roof, resulting in damp and mould

  1. Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible to keep the structure and exterior of the property in good order. This includes walls, roofs, windows, external doors, drains and gutters.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will undertake emergency repairs within 24 hours and routine repairs within an average of 25 calendar days.
  3. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that following a report of damp and mould it will establish if an immediate repair is required. An assessment of the property will be made within 20 working days to understand the scale of the problem. Any required remedial works identified will be raised to its maintenance teams within 10 working days of the assessment. Multiple fixes may be required and it will be clear with the resident on timescales and keep them informed throughout. If it needs to rehouse a tenant to allow work to be carried out, it will follow its allocations and lettings policy.
  4. The landlord’s compensation policy stated that it will pay compensation where it has failed to follow its policies, procedures or guidelines and this has a negative impact on the customer. It will also pay compensation where it fails to deal satisfactorily with repairs and the customer is continuing to live in poor conditions longer than reasonable.
  5. The landlord has a responsibility under the housing health and safety rating system (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard that may require remedy. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS, and they are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
  6. It is not disputed that there were delays in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a roof leak and associated damp and mould. In its stage 1 response it apologised for the issues he was experiencing in relation to the damp and mould, and outstanding roof repairs. It acknowledged the damage it was causing and stated it would consider compensation once it had dates for the work to commence. In its stage 2 response it apologised for the delays and acknowledged that the roof leak had been reported in February 2023. It awarded compensation of £1,275.
  7. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, this Service will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation and offer to complete repairs) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, this Service takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  8. The landlord’s repairs records demonstrated that the resident reported the roof leak and wet patch above his bay window on 28 February 2023. The record was completed on 10 March 2023 with no action. Further records showed that:
    1. A further report was made on 15 March 2023 relating to the leak and bay window.
    2. An order was raised on 4 April 2023 to repair cracks above the bay window and living room door. This showed as complete on 5 May 2023.
    3. An inspection was raised on 14 April 2023 to ensure there was no leak to the bay window. This showed as complete on 14 July 2023.
    4. A full inspection was raised on 14 July 2023 to the roof tiles and guttering but was completed on 29 August 2023 due to no access.
    5. The same survey was raised again on 6 November 2023, stating that the flat above was empty, and access was via a key safe. This was completed on 22 November 2023, the same date as an asbestos survey.
    6. On 12 December 2023 records referred to the ground floor flat, and empty flat above, requiring inspection. It suggested to “get in there asap as if there is a roof leak it could be going through from the above property”.
    7. On 30 November 2023, records referred to the complaint. It stated that this related to the living room bay window area, damp and mould, potential rising damp, and an inspection to report on damages. This was marked complete on 17 January 2024.
  9. The records demonstrated that the leak had been ongoing from February 2023 until December 2023, as stated in the resident’s complaint. There was no evidence provided to suggest that the landlord had inspected the resident’s home for damp and mould or completed an inspection of the roof, other than completing an asbestos survey. This was not in line with its repairs policy timescales or the timescales and principles of its damp and mould policy. This did not demonstrate the landlord having due regard to its responsibilities under HHSRS in considering the hazard or any detriment to the resident’s health.
  10. On 1 December 2023 the resident contacted the landlord, stating that he had received an appointment for 23 January 2024, to inspect the damage, and damp and mould in his home. He had reported his concerns in February 2023, was dissatisfied with the delayed appointment, and asked to escalate his complaint. As a cancer patient, he believed that his damp and mould concerns should have been addressed more urgently.
  11. In its stage 1 response the landlord apologised for the issues the resident was experiencing relating to the roofing and guttering repairs. Its contractor had undertaken an asbestos survey and it was awaiting the report. It had contacted its roofing surveyor and planning team to advise of the situation and get the repairs progressed. It was also contacting its area surveyor about the damage, damp and mould issues around the bay window to see if an inspection could be booked to assess the likely cause of the issue and get works booked based on its findings. It appreciated that he was still waiting for these issues to be resolved and it would consider compensation as and when it had dates for works to be completed.
  12. The landlord’s response failed to acknowledge the length of time the resident had been waiting for repairs to be completed. It also failed to provide any explanation as to why repairs had not been carried out or provide a timescale for when repairs would be undertaken. It also stated that it would contact its surveyor to see if an inspection could be booked, despite his earlier correspondence advising that an appointment had been booked for 23 January 2024. While it apologised, it showed no empathy for the resident’s situation or health concerns. It stated that it would consider compensation once it had a date for the works to be completed, however, it could have considered compensation at the time given it was aware that the work had remained outstanding for 9 months.
  13. The resident wrote to the landlord on 7 December 2023 stating that he was “in a deep state of distress”. He was a cancer patient and also disabled. It had failed to complete repairs in his home, and he had previously raised a legal disrepair claim. There was subsidence, damp and mould, plaster falling out beneath the bay window, and water leaking into his living room. He also stated that:
    1. In June 2023 scaffold was erected as the source of water was due to the defective roof and guttering, along with a defective window ledge above his living room window.
    2. In November 2023 the scaffold was taken down without any repairs being carried out. This had left him with water still coming in every time it rained.
    3. He had received an appointment for January 2024 to inspect the damp and mould with no mention of the external repairs.
    4. He was waiting for a stage 2 complaint handler to contact him and had been trying to get the repairs done for almost a year. This was putting added pressure and stress on his household due to his medical conditions.
  14. The landlord’s internal emails of the same date referred to raising an inspection to investigate the roof leak, and getting the roofers to have a look at what was needed to deal with any water ingress.
  15. The landlord’s internal records of 11 January 2024 referred to the resident’s terminal illness. It was inspecting the roof on 12 January 2024 as there was “serious damp and mould”. It stated that dehumidifiers and its healthy homes contractor could become involved if necessary. It is not known why the landlord did not consider involving its healthy homes contractor and supplying dehumidifiers at an earlier stage.
  16. In its stage 2 response the landlord stated that following its telephone conversation on 19 December 2023, his desired outcome was for the damp and mould inspection to be brought forward, compensation for distress, for the roof to be fixed, and consistent communication with the neighbourhood lead. It also stated that:
    1. On 28 February 2023 he had reported the leak from the roof. A job was raised to investigate this. The visit was completed on 10 March 2023, meaning that he had to wait for 10 days before a visit. It was sorry for the inconvenience. He had reported the same issue on 14 April 2023 and a job was raised to its contractor but no one attended until 14 July 2023. It apologised for the length of time it took for the inspection to take place.
    2. On 22 November 2023 he asked to be contacted urgently to discuss the issues he have having in his flat but received no response.
    3. He made a complaint about the damp and mould and was advised on 5 December 2023 that the only date for the supervisor to visit would be 23 January 2024, with which he was unhappy. It understood his dissatisfaction with the date provided and acknowledged the poor service received. It had been unable to move the date forward for the damp and mould inspection, however, the supervisor would visit on 23 January 2023 and work would be scheduled and expedited.
    4. It apologised that the roof repair was still outstanding and stated that it was having “placement” issues. The supervisor who visited on 15 January 2023 was chasing contractors to get an appointment booked. A customer liaison officer would be assigned to the case to ensure he was kept updated about appointment.
    5. It apologised for his vulnerabilities and the delay with the complaint. He had at times received “misinformation”. The customer service received was not its usual standards and could have caused distress and inconvenience. It had contacted its customer service and maintenance teams to provide additional training to avoid this happening in the future. It had also advised the neighbourhood lead of the importance of maintaining consistent communication.
    6. It offered £720 compensation for distress and failure to recognise the impact due to vulnerabilities. It also offered £495 for time and effort getting the complaint resolved and £60 for poor complaint handling, totalling £1275.
  17. The landlord’s response acknowledged and apologised for the delays. It recognised that it had failed to consider the impact of the situation due to his vulnerabilities, and the time and effort taken to get the complaint resolved. It also demonstrated some learning from the complaint and explained how it had taken measures to resolve its poor communication. However, there were failings in its response as follows:
    1. It failed to provide any timescales for when work would be completed or provide any explanation as to why it had not undertaken the work when it was reported in February 2023. This would have added to the resident’s frustration given that he had already waited for over 10 months for the repairs to be completed.
    2. It failed to explain why it as unable to bring forward the damp and mould inspection. As stated in its internal records, it could have considered involving its healthy homes contractor at an earlier stage.
    3. It did not respond to the resident’s enquiry, to explain why the scaffold had been put up in June 2023 and taken down in November 2023, with no work being undertaken.
    4. While it offered compensation for failing to recognise the resident’s vulnerabilities, and for time and effort in getting the complaint resolved, it did not make any recompense in relation to the delays or failure to comply with its damp and mould and repair policy timescales.
    5. It failed to demonstrate that it had any consideration of its obligations under HHSRS to assess any hazards during the prolonged period the repairs remained outstanding.
  18. Following the landlord’s final response the evidence demonstrated that the work remained outstanding for a further 3 months. Its records from January 2024 to March 2024 showed that there was substantial work required to the bay window area. It was aware that the resident had suffered 2 respiratory illnesses which he attributed to living in the damp and mould. Further reports had been made that the leak, and damp and mould, were getting worse further impacting his health and he had not heard from anyone.
  19. The evidence also demonstrated a record keeping failure. Records between January 2024 and March 2024 referred to the work remaining outstanding. There were jobs for its contractors, however, these had not been allocated. Planners had been contacted to book in the roofing repairs, but there was a further job with another contractor running alongside, so it was unsure which job was the correct one. It was also unsure about the damp jobs that needed to be carried out. It also demonstrated that despite its stage 2 response, where it stated it would expedite the work, it had failed to do so.
  20. The resident advised this Service that on leaving the property at the end of March 2024 the repairs remained outstanding. He also stated that in July 2024, after leaving in March 2024, he had been contacted by the landlords contractor requesting access to the property to carry out repairs.
  21. In conclusion the landlord’s response did not offer reasonable redress to the resident. There were significant failings in its communication, record keeping, and failure to comply with its damp and mould, and repairs policy timescales. For these reasons, this Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak and associated damp and mould.

Associated formal complaint

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Complaints are acknowledged within 5 working days. Stage 1 complaints are responded to within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  2. The resident raised his complaint on 28 November 2023, acknowledged by the landlord the following day, in line with its 5 working day complaint policy timescale.
  3. The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaint process on 5 December 2023, 5 working days later, in line with its 10 working day complaint policy timescale.
  4. The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 1 December 2023, prior to receiving the landlord’s stage 1 response. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 5 December 2023, the same date it sent its stage 1 response. However, a further escalation acknowledgement was sent on 14 December 2023. This referred to the resident’s boiler repairs which was not a concern the resident had reported. This further demonstrates the landlord’s records keeping failures.
  5. It responded at stage 2 of its complaints process on 15 January 2024, 28 working days later, and 8 working days later than its complaint policy timescale.
  6. In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged its delay in responding and offered £60 compensation. Given that the delay was not significant, its offer was reasonable and in line with this Services’ remedies guidance for service failure, in the range of £50 to £100. This Service, therefore, finds that the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion satisfactorily resolves the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated formal complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (The Scheme) the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
    1. Reports of outstanding works for subsidence of the property.
    2. Request for permanent rehousing rather than a temporary decant.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak and associated damp and mould.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handing of the resident’s associated formal complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident the increased total sum of £2,000 in compensation which includes the £720 and £495 offered in its stage 2 response. (These can be deducted if already paid).
  2. The landlord is ordered to send a written apology to the resident, by a senior member of staff, for the failings identified in this report.
  3. Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord must provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the resident £60 offered in its stage 2 response for its complaint handling failure if not already paid.
  2. The landlord should ensure that its complaint handling staff are aware of any acknowledgements of complaints so not to duplicate these.
  3. The landlord should consider its record keeping, and its obligations under HHSRS, in assessing hazards in residents homes, in particular where vulnerabilities are known.