London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202305315)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305315

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

10 September 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of window repairs and associated reports of damp and mould.
2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident has an assured tenancy at the property, which is a 3 bedroom maisonette. She had lived there since 2008, when the block was built. The resident pays rent of £170.92 per week (£680 per month) and a service charge of £19.44 per week. The tenancy agreement shows that one of the resident’s adult children has autism. This is supported by a doctor’s letter. The landlord has a vulnerability recorded for the property as “illness”.
The landlord’s repairs policy states as follows:
1. The landlord is responsible for the windows and external doors.
2. Where age and wear and tear affect key components such as doors and windows, these will be replaced through planned programmes of work.
3. Where a resident is vulnerable, it is able to adjust its service standards where a delay would put them at risk because of their condition.
4. It aims to complete routine day to day repairs in an average of 25 calendar days.
5. For emergency works, where there is an immediate danger, it will attend within 24 hours. For emergency works that occur out of hours, it will attend within 4 hours. The out of hours service will be to ‘make safe’ and lower the immediate risk. The follow-on repair will then be completed at the earliest mutually convenient appointment.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021, after the events considered in this case) provides recommendations for landlords, including that they should “adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions”.
Landlords are required to look at the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that can fall within the scope of the HHSRS. 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.
The “Right to Repair” legislation covers small, urgent repairs up to the value of £250. An insecure external window or door should be repaired within 1 working day under this legislation.
The landlord’s compensation policy states as follows:
1. It will award £20 for a failure to keep an appointment without at least 24 hours’ notice.
2. It will partly or fully offset a compensation payment against any debt owed to it by a resident, including rent and service charge arrears.
3. It would not normally pay compensation in the following circumstances:
  1. Where there are exceptional reasons for service delay or failure, which are outside its control such as supply chain issues or COVID-19 restrictions.
  2. Where the service failure is not the responsibility of the landlord but another party.
  3. It will not reimburse residents’ for any lost earnings (although discretionary compensation may be made in consideration for residents’ time and effort in getting issues resolved).
The landlord has a 2 stage complaints policy. At stage 1 it will respond within 10 working days. At stage 2 it will respond within 20 working days. If additional time is required at either stage it will keep the resident informed. Additional time at either stage should not exceed a further 10 working days and the resident’s agreement is required for this.

Summary of events

On 6 January 2023 the resident reported the following to the landlord:
1. The outer frame of the window in her son’s bedroom was broken. It was difficult to close and secure the window. The frame was worn and she had taped it together.
2. There was damp and mould in her and her children’s bedrooms.
That same day, the landlord raised a job for a mould wash to be completed within 20 working days. A healthy homes report visit took place by a mould specialist on 27 January 2023, which found as follows:
1. There were 7 people living in the property.
2. The windows were damaged and in need of repair. Works to repair the windows had been raised that day.
3. The windows and bedroom patio doors were experiencing high levels of condensation and mould growth around the wooden frames. The resident had advised that she cleaned the windows every morning to remove condensation, however she was unable to prevent the mould. She reported that the bedrooms smelt damp, and she was worried for her children’s health.
4. There were no structural or mechanical issues noted.
5. It had discussed what heating settings the resident used to heat the property, and had advised her to use the thermostat to keep the heating constant.
6. It had offered a mould wash and preventative shielding, but this had been refused by the resident. It had installed a sensor.
On 10 February 2023 the landlord noted internally that its contractor had caused confusion as it had advised that all bedroom windows would be replaced, when in fact it was only 1 window in need of replacement. (This Service has not seen the correspondence from the contractor advising that all windows should be replaced, although a contractor advised the landlord in January 2024 that it had stated this). That same day, the landlord raised a job to repair the UPVC balcony seals, and the resident’s daughter’s bedroom window seals. It noted that the seals were no longer holding the glass in place. It gave a completion timeframe of 40 working days.
On 23 March 2023 the resident submitted a complaint, and stated as follows:
1. She had reported condensation and damp in 2019. The landlord had attended, and had blamed the number of people in the home and their breathing. She had explained that she had lived at the property for over 10 years, and had not had previous issues with damp.
2. Another contractor had attended (it is not clear when) but due to the national COVID-19 lockdown, the landlord had advised her that it was only responding to emergencies.
3. The damp and condensation had worsened, causing mould and affecting the health of her children. The heating was on at a consistent temperature, the windows were open all day and she used a dehumidifier every night in each room, but still had to wipe down excess moisture each morning. The window frames were ingrained with mould.
4. A mould specialist had attended in January 2023, and they had agreed that the windows needed replacing as they were allowing moisture in.
5. Another contractor had advised her that the glass in the windows was not stable and the sealant was not supporting the glass. It had advised her that they were unrepairable and needed changing.
6. The landlord had arranged for a surveyor to look at all of the widows. She stated that the surveyor had agreed that the windows needed changing, and had measured all the windows. It had assured her that the next visit (on 23 March 2023) would be to replace the windows.
7. In preparation for the appointment she had cleared everything out of the rooms. She had also spoken to her son who had autism about the disruption in his room. The contractor had attended but advised that it was only repairing the windows. She had called the landlord who had advised that her son’s window should have been replaced. It had advised her that there had been confusion due to there being 2 different job numbers.
8. The landlord had advised her that it would see what the report was from the contractor who had attended and if the windows could not be repaired, it would send a surveyor to inspect and take measurements. It was also waiting for the report from the previous surveyor about her son’s room, to arrange the replacement window.
9. She described the situation as “diabolical”.
10. The tenancy agreement said the windows should be replaced every 7 years. She had lived at the property for over 14 years, and they had not been replaced.
11. There was no consideration for the family or her son’s disabilities. She stated that it was “costing a fortune” to heat the property and run dehumidifiers. She also stated that both of her daughters had asthma, and that the mould was affecting them.
12. She requested that the windows be replaced.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 24 March 2023, and advised it would respond at stage 1 by 5 April 2023.
On 27 March 2023 the landlord noted internally that the resident had refused an appointment as she was under the impression that all the windows would be replaced. It had advised her that the window in her son’s room would be replaced and others would be repaired. It had scheduled the appointment for 25 April 2023.
On 11 May 2023 internal notes from the landlord stated as follows:
1. There was an ongoing issue with whether the contractor’s quote was for 1 window, or 2 windows and the patio door. The contractor’s quote and report seemed to cover the latter.
2. It had an order to replace the resident’s son’s bedroom window, which was awaiting approval.
On 6 July 2023 the landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints procedure and stated as follows:
1. The level of service the resident had received was not reflective of the high standards it aimed to provide. The case should have been managed more effectively. The complaint was upheld. It would be assessed by its complaints learning group, and learning would be taken from it.
2. There had been long delays in responses, as well as long repair delays. It apologised for these.
3. It awarded £150 compensation for the lack of communication and complaint handling failures.
4. For the delays with the window repairs, inconvenience and time and effort, it offered a further £100.
On 31 July 2023 the landlord noted internally that the resident had chased up an update about the windows and had requested the windows be replaced before the winter.
On 11 August 2023 the resident contacted this Service for help with her complaint and stated as follows:
1. The landlord had sent her a cheque for £250 cheque but it had not said what it was for and she had not received the stage 1 response.
2. The compensation was not enough. Her and her husband had taken multiple unpaid days off work to wait in for contractors. Constant phone calls and emails had caused high levels of stress.
3. Her son had had to deal with contractors going in and out of his room and furniture being moved around numerous times, which had triggered his anxieties.
4. There was still no date set for when works would start, and the landlord had not confirmed whether it was going to replace the windows.
On 21 September 2023 the resident escalated her complaint and stated as follows:
1. The surveyor had not responded to her emails, and the contractor had advised her that the landlord had not requested them to start works to the windows.
2. The contractor had advised it would be changing the window seals. This would not address the ingrained mould on the window frames.
3. The situation had affected the health of the household. During, the last 4 winters her children, who had asthma, had developed worsening breathing difficulties. She was “constantly stressed” due to the state of the property which was triggering her fibromyalgia. This led to her being unable to fulfil her responsibilities as a parent, and to having to take time off work to recover.
4. She had had to have the heating on constantly and use dehumidifiers in every room to reduce the level of condensation and damp, so her children could breathe easier. This had had a financial impact and she was in “huge debt” to her energy provider.
5. She had been advised by the landlord that she had been put forward for the ‘better home scheme’ to have the kitchen and bathroom looked at, but this had not been followed up.
6. She reported outstanding issues as follows:
  1. Leak into utility cupboard.
  2. Overfill on boiler needed changing and was possibly causing a leak.
  3. Ingrained mould on balcony window frame.
  4. Wall alongside stairs coming off in chunks.
On 31 October 2023 the landlord advised the resident that her complaint handler was away. It advised that the quote for the window repairs had been approved and it would confirm the appointment date shortly. It advised there was a “backlog” of complaints but that it would respond “shortly”. The resident responded that her neighbours had had other home improvements (kitchen/bathroom) carried out, and asked why she had not been offered these.
On 3 November 2023 the resident sought advice from this Service as the landlord had not responded at stage 2. This Service asked the landlord to respond at stage 2 by 16 November 2023.
The landlord spoke to the resident about her complaint on 9 November 2023. It stated it would investigate and would respond by 16 November 2023. It noted that the resident had submitted a new complaint in respect of her request for a new kitchen and bathroom.
On 14 November 2023 the resident advised the landlord as follows:
1. When she had asked what the £250 was for, the landlord had informed her that it was a service charge refund.
2. She had not refused a mould clean. The operative had advised her that there would be no need, as the mould was ingrained into the wooden frames. Instead the operative had recommended a moisture monitor.
3. She provided energy bills to the landlord.
On 15 November 2023 the landlord responded at stage 2, and stated as follows:
1. The resident had raised an additional stage one complaint in relation to the kitchen and bathroom. This was a separate complaint and so would not be addressed within its response.
2. On 25 May 2021 it had raised an inspection of the sealant around the windows. The contractor had advised that the windows were in “perfect condition” and all the trickle vents were in working order. It had also noted wall vents were in place.
3. In December 2021, it had arranged for a specialist engineer to review the windows. This found that the windows were in good condition and information had been provided to the resident on reducing the build-up of condensation.
4. On 6 January 2023, it had arranged for a specialist mould contractor to attend following reports of mould around the balcony doors and bedroom windows.
5. That same day (6 January 2023) it had raised a work order as the resident had reported that the outer frame of her son’s bedroom window was broken and was difficult to secure. A contractor had visited the property and had submitted a quote for installing 2 new windows and a rear entrance door. Following review of this quote by a surveyor, this was declined by the landlord.
6. On 27 January 2023, a specialist mould contractor had attended and reported that there was condensation and mould growth around the windows and door frames. They did not make a repair recommendation. They had noted that the resident had declined a preventative clean and shield mould wash.
7. On 26 September 2023 its surveyor had raised a work order for the window fabricator to replace the window gaskets. This visit took place and the contractors submitted a quote for replacing the gaskets which was approved. It had advised the resident on 31 October 2023 that it would be in touch to arrange an appointment.
8. It apologised that due to a backlog of complaints, the stage 2 complaint had not been allocated to a member of staff until 9 November 2023.
9. The window fabricator had advised that it had visited the resident on 7 November 2023 to carry out a further inspection. (This Service was not provided with evidence of this). It had ordered the parts required to complete repairs. These should be with them within the next few weeks (the parts being from Sweden). The window fabricator had carried out its own survey (not seen by this Service) and did not feel that replacement windows were required.
10. When the windows were due for renewal, its planned works team would be in contact however there were no current plans for the windows to be replaced.
11. It asked the resident to provide energy bills to show an increase in energy units used. It would then review these to see if a refund of energy costs was appropriate.
12. It signposted the resident to its insurer in respect of a personal injury claim for the impact on the households health.
13. The resident had advised that she was experiencing damp and mould on the walls beneath the windows. It had raised a work request for its specialist damp and mould contractor to attend to inspect.
14. It acknowledged that the level of service the resident had received was not reflective of the high standards it aimed to provide. Repairs and communications should have been managed more effectively and delivered more swiftly. It apologised and upheld the complaint.
15. It offered an additional £250 compensation, bringing its total compensation offered via its internal complaints process to £500. It stated this would be offset against current arrears and was made up as follows:
  1. Distress £80.
  2. Inconvenience £80.
  3. Time and effort getting the complaint resolved £50.
  4. Poor complaint handling £40.
  5. Complaint handling delay at stage 2 £40.
  6. Time and effort in bringing the matter to its attention (complaint handling) £50.
  7. Delay to repairs since stage 1 response (distress) £80.
  8. Delays to repairs since stage 1 response (inconvenience) £80.
On 27 November 2023 the landlord advised the resident that it was still waiting for the window parts to arrive. It advised that the energy bills provided did not show a increase in units used.
The landlord advised the resident on 14 December 2023 that it was still waiting for the parts to be delivered.
On 10 January 2024 the resident advised the landlord as follows:
1. She had been unwell over Christmas and had been signed off work. Her son had also been unwell and was on antibiotics after attending A&E. He had also taken time off work. She believed this was due to the housing situation.
2. Mould was building up in the bathroom which was impacting the paintwork on the ceiling.
3. She believed there was a structural issue with the property.
On 12 January 2024 the landlord advised the resident as follows:
1. The window fabricator was still awaiting the parts required.
2. It had requested for its specialist mould contractor to attend once the repairs to the windows had been undertaken. It had asked the contractor to attend in respect of the bathroom mould.
On 23 January 2024 the job to repair the balcony and window seal in the resident’s daughter’s room was marked as complete.
An internal note from a contractor on 25 January 2024 stated “I already attended this property and advised for new windows as wooden frames are twisted and rotting”.
On 9 February 2024 the resident asked the landlord at what point it would reconsider waiting for the outstanding parts and instead, replace the windows and frames. She stated that she believed the mould was getting into her property via a hole in the wall within the block. She chased issues with her front door handle jamming and a boiler repair. The landlord advised on 12 February 2024 that the window parts were anticipated by mid-March 2024.
The resident referred her complaint to this Service on 24 February 2024.

Correspondence following the referral to this Service

On 18 March 2024 the resident advised this Service as follows:
1. The window fabricator had advised her that the parts had arrived in the UK, and it was awaiting delivery to their depot.
2. The window frames needed to be replaced.
3. This whole situation had affected the heath of the household.
4. Other jobs had been raised and they had had to take time off work for the contractors to ‘look’ at the issue.
The window fabricator attended and carried out the work on 24 April 2024.
On 25 April 2024 the resident advised the landlord as follows:
1. The window fabricator had replaced all the seals on the windows and had replaced the balcony door handle and aligned it properly.
2. The works had not resolved the condensation issue. That morning the windows on the balcony door had been soaking wet. There was now mould around the ceilings, it was at the bottom of the windows and the bottom of the frames.
3. The window fabricator had advised that it was a ventilation issue and not the windows. She asked for the landlord to investigate the ventilation and for the vents to be checked.
On 30 April 2024 the landlord advised the resident that it had spoken to the window fabricator and noted as follows:
1. No further works were required in relation to the vents.
2. There were more parts needed on the cladding which they anticipated would arrive within 4 weeks. When they fit these they would review the vents again.
3. It would take some time for the condensation to pass and keeping the home well-ventilated would help this.
On 11 June 2024 the resident advised the landlord that a contractor had failed to attend an appointment. The landlord apologised the following day and advised that the contractor had been unwell. It issued a £20 voucher for this missed appointment.
On 12 and 28 June 2024 the resident advised this Service as follows:
1. The condensation had lessened but it was difficult to say if the problem with the windows had been resolved.
2. The contractor who was due to check the ventilation had not attended and she had taken time off work to accommodate this. This had not been rearranged.
3. The landlord had refused to compensate, even though it had caused loss of earnings, severe stress and physical health problems due to the mould.
4. She had had to pay for a specialist to come out and clean the mould as the landlord would not do so until the windows had been repaired. She could not wait any longer as her children’s asthma was worsening. She had also been diagnosed with a severe chest infection, and prescribed antibiotics.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

It is noted that the resident raised the issue of the impact of the repair issue and the damp and mould on the health of the household. Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions, or lack of action, have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider any personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. It is noted that the landlord appropriately signposted the resident to advice on how to submit such a claim. This Service will however consider the landlord’s handling of the repair issue, and any distress and inconvenience this may have caused. This Service would expect the landlord’s response to consider the resident’s reports on how the issues were impacting on the health of the household. Such issues reflect the detriment experienced as a result of potential failures by the landlord.
It is noted that the resident stated to the landlord that there had been an issue with damp and mould since 2019 and that, at the time the landlord had advised this was due to overcrowding and the family ‘breathing’. The landlord also referred to inspections of the window and reports of condensation from 2021 within its stage 2 response. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focussed on the period from 6 January 2023 onwards. It is acknowledged by this Service however that the landlord had been aware of issues with the windows and condensation within the property prior to 2023. Although this Service has not seen evidence of the landlord’s advice, that overcrowding and breathing was contributing to the condensation, this does raise significant concerns about how it previously responded to the resident’s concerns. Reference to events that occurred prior to January 2023 are made in this report to provide context.
The resident raised concerns about other issues during the internal complaints procedure. The landlord considered these as separate complaints and it is not clear if these matters have completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. The landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to these issues. Following the completion of the internal complaints procedure, the resident may then approach the Ombudsman if they remain dissatisfied. As such, the following issues, which were considered separately by the landlord do not form part of this investigation:
1. Kitchen and bathroom renewal.
2. Leak into utility cupboard.
3. Boiler repair.
4. Stairway plaster.
5. A hole in the wall within the block.
6. The front door handle jamming.

The landlord’s handling of window repairs and associated reports of damp and mould

It is not in dispute that the landlord was responsible for ensuring the windows and doors of the property were in good working order as outlined in its repairs policy. The landlord committed to undertake works to replace her son’s bedroom window and carry out repairs to other windows in the property and the patio door. The correspondence provided to this Service shows that the total timeframe for these works to be completed were as follows:
1. The insecure window in her son’s room took from 6 January 2023 to 24 April 2024, a period of 15 months.
2. The window seal in her daughter’s room and the balcony doors took from 10 February 2023 to 23 January 2024 to be completed, a period of 11 months.
3. The repairs to other windows in the property and the patio door took from 27 January 2023 to 24 April 2024, a period of 15 months.
These timeframes are significantly outside the repairs timeframes as outlined within the landlord’s repairs policy. It is acknowledged by this Service that works such as window replacement can take longer due to sourcing parts. In such cases, this Service would expect to see evidence of proactive communication from the landlord to the resident, along with ongoing monitoring and consideration of any associated health and safety risk posed by the ongoing repair requirements.
The resident reported damp and mould and the insecure window in her son’s room, which she advised she had had to tape, on 6 January 2023. The landlord responded appropriately and raised a job for a mould wash to be carried out within 20 working days, which was in line with its repairs policy. It also arranged for a mould specialist to attend on 27 January 2023 (within the 20 working day timeframe stated) to inspect the property. The mould specialist advised the landlord that the windows needed to be repaired but there were no structural or mechanical issues found. Following this, the landlord acted appropriately in raising the repairs that same day. The mould specialist also advised the landlord that it had given advice to the resident on heating the property, it had installed a sensor (the type was not specified) and had offered a mould wash, which the resident had declined. It is noted that the resident disputed having declined this, however it was reasonable for the landlord to have relied on the report provided by its contractor.
The date is not clear, however another contractor attended the property prior to 10 February 2023 and advised the landlord that the windows needed to be replaced as they were “twisted and rotten”. This Service was not provided with the contemporaneous reports of this, however the contractor had advised the landlord (on 25 January 2024) that this had been their previous findings. Given these conflicting findings, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have investigated the issues with the windows further in February 2023, to understand the basis for the differing findings of its contractors just 1 month apart. This Service has not seen any evidence that it did so. This Service expects the landlord to have sufficient record keeping processes in place to record the findings of its contractor and to record its decision making processes. Evidence of such was not provided to this Service. This raises a concern in respect of the effectiveness of the landlord’s knowledge and information management.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that where age and wear and tear affect doors and windows, these will be replaced through a planned programme of works. In this case the resident had stated she had had to tape her son’s bedroom window together. In addition the landlord’s contractor had described twisted and rotten window frames and the resident had indicated that this affected how they closed. Such defects would not be considered to be ‘wear and tear’. Insecure windows and doors fall within the right to repair scheme and as such should have been attended to by the landlord within 1 working day. This is mirrored in the landlord’s repairs policy which states it will make safe emergency works within 24 hours. Insecure windows would also be considered to be a hazard under the HHSRS. There is no evidence that the landlord considered the health and safety or security risk associated with this. There is also no evidence that the landlord considered any interim safety measures to reduce the risk of insecure windows and panes of glass.
The landlord was aware that there were 7 occupants of the 3 bedroom property, some of which had disclosed vulnerabilities such as asthma and autism. Despite the landlord’s repairs policy stating that it can adjust its service standards when residents’ are vulnerable, there is no evidence that it considered the vulnerabilities in this case or adjusted its actions in light of the possible health implications of the damp and mould. The landlord’s record of vulnerability for the household states ‘illness’. This is vague and unhelpful to its staff, who should be able to have an understanding of the challenges posed by any vulnerability, and how it can assist the resident from its records. This lack of detail highlights a further concern with its knowledge and information management in respect of appropriately and accurately recording household vulnerabilities. A lack of thorough and accurate records could hinder the understanding that the landlord’s staff have of the household, when responding to repair issues. An order has been made for the landlord to update its record of household vulnerabilities in this case.
The landlord acknowledged (although not until its stage 2 response of 15 November 2023) that one of its contractors had advised that the windows and patio door needed replacing. It stated that it had not approved this on the advice of its surveyor. Although it would be appropriate for the landlord to rely on the advice of its surveyor, this Service has not seen evidence of the surveyors report or the landlord’s decision making process in how to proceed in light of the findings. It is clear that issues had been identified by its contractor who described the window frames as being twisted and rotten. This Service has not seen any evidence of the landlord having explained to the resident how it planned to repair twisted and rotten windows.
The resident stated within her stage 1 complaint that a surveyor had attended and had measured all windows for their replacement. She explained that she had prepared the rooms for the window replacement and had spoken to her autistic son to help him prepare for the disruption. It is noted that the resident stated that her tenancy agreement set out that the windows should be replaced every 7 years. This has not been seen within the tenancy agreement provided to this Service. The landlord however should have clarified this with the resident to manage her expectations. No evidence of this has been seen by this Service.
The landlord should have been able to provide records of its decision making in respect of the windows and the surveyor’s report, which it relied on for not replacing the windows. As the landlord had decided not to replace the windows, it should have clearly explained this to the resident, including the reasons for its decision. This would have helped to manage the resident’s expectations. This Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord sought to do so. As a result of this the resident was left with conflicting advice from the contractor and the landlord as to whether the windows needed to be replaced. The landlord acknowledged internally (10 February 2023) that this had caused confusion to the resident, however it took no action to clarify this with her.
It took the landlord from 6 January to 27 March 2023, a period of 11 weeks, for it to confirm its position to the resident, namely that her son’s window would be replaced and the other windows would be repaired. It is not clear why it took the landlord this long to clarify the work it would be undertaking. The landlord had scheduled the works for 25 April 2023, however this had not taken place by 11 May 2023 due to confusion over the quote and the replacement order needing approval. It is not clear why the landlord could not ascertain what had been quoted for or why the approval had not been agreed by this point. This Service would expect the landlord to have sufficient record keeping processes in place to accurately record what work was required, what quotes were for, and why approval was pending. This information should have been shared with the resident to keep her informed of the reasons for delays.
It is not clear when the issue was brought to the landlords’ attention, however it raised a job on 10 February 2033 to repair the balcony seals, and the seals for the window in the resident’s daughter’s room as they were not holding the glass in place. There is no evidence that it considered the health and safety aspects of the glass being insecure. This was not appropriate. The landlord gave a completion timeframe of 40 working days, however this work was not completed until 23 January 2024, a period of around 11 months. This delay was not appropriate. Given the risk associated with insecure glass, the landlord could have considered if there was an alternative way of sourcing replacement window seals. There is no evidence that it considered this.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it does not compensate if the failure was the responsibility of another party. In this case, it is acknowledged that the window fabricator was waiting for parts to be delivered from Sweden which was outside of the landlord’s control. There is no evidence however that the landlord considered if parts could be sourced from a different source more quickly or that it had kept the resident updated about the delays. While the wait for parts was out of the landlord’s control, the delay to fix a known issue for 11 months was clear evidence of a failure of its repairs service.
It is also of concern that the landlord was aware of damp and mould in the property. The resident had also advised the landlord that her heating bills had increased due to having to have the windows open to reduce condensation and having dehumidifiers running. The landlord appropriately asked her to provide energy bills in support of her assertions. It is noted that she provided these, which the landlord reviewed and concluded that they did not show an increase in usage. This Service has had sight of 6 electricity bills provided to the landlord, which date from September 2021 to February 2023 (although not all monthly bills were provided). These show that there was a lower than average usage November to December 2021 and significantly higher usage October to November 2021 and then again from January to February 2023. Whilst the resident’s electricity usage has varied, it does not present as reasonable for the landlord to have concluded there was no increase in usage without any further explanation as to how it reached this conclusion, which was contrary to the usage shown from January to February 2023. In addition, it is reasonable to conclude that insecure glass window panes would allow for the ingress of water and cold air into the property. There is no evidence that the landlord considered this or ways to temporarily secure the glass whilst awaiting the repair. As such the landlord failed to demonstrate that it had done all it could do to reduce the risk of damp and mould to the resident and the condition of the property, and it did not demonstrate a resolution focused approach.
Despite upholding the complaint at stage 1 (6 July 2023) and acknowledging the delays in respect the window works, the landlord did not take any steps to expedite the repairs. Despite the resident chasing up an update on 31 July 2023, there is no evidence that the landlord responded to this. This caused frustration to the resident and led to her seeking the help of this Service on 11 August 2023. Given the delays in the parts being available, this Service would expect the landlord to be proactive at keeping the resident informed of the progress of the repairs. There was little evidence of this in this case. Instead, the correspondence seen shows that the resident had to repeatedly chase the landlord for updates over a period of 15 months. This was not appropriate and caused understandable frustration to the resident.
It is noted that the parts for the window repairs were not ordered until after the 7 November 2023, when the landlord advised the window fabricator had inspected the windows. This was around 10 months after the works had been identified and raised. It is not clear why it took this length of time for the parts to be ordered or for the inspection by the fabricator to take place. The landlord advised within its stage 2 response (15 November 2023) that this inspection had found that the windows did not need to be replaced. This inspection report was not provided to this Service, and there is no evidence that the resident was informed of this finding. This again demonstrated a lack of knowledge and information management which impacted on the landlord’s ability to substantiate its decision making.
Following the completion of the internal complaints procedure on 15 November 2023, and the works being completed on 24 April 2024, the resident advised this Service that the condensation had not been resolved. There is no evidence that the landlord investigated any other potential causes of the condensation other than the windows or that it considered any other resolution. It is however acknowledged by this Service that a damp and mould specialist had attended the property, and the landlord had relied on the findings that the windows needed to be repaired. In light of the resident continuing to report the damp following the works having been completed, an order has been made for an independent damp and mould survey to be carried out at the property.
The issue of the mould wash being offered and declined on 27 January 2023 is disputed, however it is clear that it was not carried out. Given the significant delays in the works being carried out, the landlord could have reoffered a mould wash to help reduce the health risks associated with damp and mould. There is no evidence that it did so. The resident advised that she had instructed her own contractor to carry out a mould wash as the landlord had advised that it was waiting for the window repairs before doing so. It was not appropriate for the landlord to delay pending the works, given the health issues which the resident had described the household as experiencing.
The landlord acknowledged that the level of service it provided had not been appropriate, and that repairs and communications should have been managed more effectively. It offered £250 compensation at stage 1 and a further £250 at stage 2, making its total offer of £500 compensation. £280 of this was offered in respect of its complaint handling, which will be considered separately below. Therefore the compensation offered in respect of the window delays totalled £220.
It is noted that the resident had requested to be compensated for loss of earnings. Although the landlord’s compensation policy makes it clear that it will not compensate for such, it did not specifically address this request within its complaint responses. This led to the resident feeling as if the landlord had not listened to her request or taken the impact of the situation seriously. The landlord should have addressed this within its complaint responses and should have been clear as to why it would not award compensation for this.
When a failure is identified, as in this case, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own remedies guidance.
The landlord’s offer of compensation of £220 was not appropriate for the overall failures acknowledged by the landlord during its complaints process and identified by this Service, in respect of its handling of the issues with the windows and damp and mould. Although the landlord acknowledged some of its failures, it was vague about what these were, and it did not explain the reasons for its failures or the steps it would take to prevent such from happening again. It also failed to provide a clear resolution to the issues reported by the resident and failed to follow up on whether the works had eradicated the damp and mould issue.
The delays in this case were significant and throughout this time the resident had frequently raised concerns of the impact on the health of the household. Although it was appropriate for the landlord to signpost the resident to its insurer in respect of personal injury matters, it did not demonstrate an understanding of the impact of its failures on the vulnerable household. It is also clear that the landlord’s poor record keeping and information management led to confusion as to the nature of the works required and an understanding of the household vulnerability. It was unable to substantiate findings from surveys with the reports which called into question the accuracy of the information relied on by the landlord. In conclusion, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of window repairs and associated reports of damp and mould.
Given that it took 15 months for the landlord to compete the repairs, this Service has based compensation on 10% of the resident’s rent over the time period. This takes into account the residents’ concerns of increased electricity usage over this period. This is not intended as a refund but is instead used as a figure upon which to acknowledge the detriment caused to the resident and the loss of full use and enjoyment of the property over the period of time. The compensation to be paid to the resident has been calculated as follows:
1. 10% of monthly rent of £680 = £68.
2. £68 x 15 months = £1020 compensation.
In addition, this Service has ordered additional compensation of £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified, making a total of £1520. This includes the landlord’s offer during its complaints process. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance for severe maladministration where a resident was caused distress and inconvenience over a significant period of time due to failures of the landlord. This also takes into consideration the resident’s assertion that she had paid for a mould wash to be carried out independently of the landlord as well as her reports of increased utility costs.

Complaint handling

The resident submitted her complaint on 23 March 2023. The landlord appropriately acknowledged it the following day, and advised it would respond at stage 1 by 5 April 2023. It however failed to do so and failed to keep the resident informed of the delays in its response. Instead it took until 6 July 2023, a period of 71 working days, for the landlord to respond at stage 1. This was significantly outside of its 10 working day response timeframe. Although it apologised for the delay no explanation was provided for it and it had failed to keep the resident updated during this time. The landlord’s stage 1 response was vague and generic and did not address the detailed complaint nor the urgency of the insecure windows and damp and mould reports.
Despite the stage 1 response having been emailed to the resident on 6 July 2023, she advised this Service (on 11 August 2023) that she had not received it, and that the landlord had sent her a cheque for £250 but had not advised what this was for. She later stated that the landlord had advised her that it was a service charge refund. It is concerning that the landlord did not have sufficient records to enable its staff to identify why the cheque had been issued. An order has been made in respect of this below.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 21 September 2023. The landlord did not respond to this until over a month later, (31 October 2023) when it advised that the complaint handler was away and there was a backlog of complaints. Due to the lack of a response, the resident sought the help of this Service, who asked the landlord to respond by 16 November 2023. The landlord’s stage 2 response, sent on 15 November 2023 took 39 working days. This was outside of its 20 working day response timeframe at stage 2.
The landlord acknowledged its complaint handling failures, advised it would take leaning from this, and offered £150 for this at stage 1. At stage 2 it offered a further £130 made up as follows:
1. Poor complaint handling £40.
2. Complaint handling delay at stage 2 £40.
3. Time and effort in bringing the matter to its attention (complaint handling) £50.
The landlord’s complaint handling was poor, taking a total of around 8 months to compete the internal complaints process with a lack of proactive communication with the resident throughout. The landlord failed to address all of the resident’s concerns at stage 1 such as the impact on the households’ health and the damp and mould and the disruption caused to her son. However, the landlord’s offer of £280 in respect of its complaint handling was in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for poor and delayed complaint handling. As such the landlord’s apology, its assurances that the complaint had been referred for further learning and its offer of compensation amounts to reasonable redress.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of window repairs and associated reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s complaint handing.

Reasons

The landlord identified some of its failures however it did not sufficiently address the significant delays in carrying out works to the window. It failed to show that it had considered the impact on the health of the household of the household vulnerabilities and failed to put interim measures in place. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor and it failed to keep her updated with the works required and the reasons for the delays.
The landlord’s offer of compensation during the internal complaints procedure was not sufficient to remedy its overall failures and it failed to explain its conclusion in respect of the resident’s energy usage not having increased. The landlord’s record keeping and information management was poor; this impacted its ability to consider the vulnerabilities of the household. It also meant the landlord was unable to substantiate its conclusions about survey outcomes and works required. Despite the serious nature of damp and mould the landlord failed to demonstrate that it had followed up on the woks it had carried out to ascertain if the issue had been resolved.
The landlord acknowledged its complaint handling failures. It apologised, advised that learning would be taken and offered compensation in line with the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of this report and provide evidence of compliance to this Service:
1. Apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this case.
2. Pay a total of £1520 compensation directly to the resident. This includes the landlord’s previous offer of £500 and is made up as follows:
  1. £1020 to acknowledge the impact on the resident of the loss of full use and enjoyment of the property due to the landlord’s failures in handling the window repairs and associated reports of damp and mould.
  2. £500 to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failures in handling the window repairs and associated reports of damp and mould.
3. Update the vulnerability record for the household.
4. Carry out a review of its process for issuing compensation and recording what such payments have been issued for, with a focus on how to ensure records are clear and accessible to its staff.
5. Within 8 weeks instruct an independent damp and mould survey at the property. Confirm to this Service any works identified and a timeframe for undertaking any works.