London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202302258)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302258

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

30 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Damp and mould.
2. Repairs to a storage heater.
3. Overcrowding in the property.
4. His complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. His tenancy at the property began on 7 June 2010. The property is a 2 bedroom ground floor flat. The resident lives there with his wife and 3 children. For simplicity, this report will refer to actions by both the resident and his wife as ‘the resident’.
In October 2021, the resident raised a legal disrepair case with the landlord over the condition of the property. As part of the agreed disrepair works, a contractor visited the property on 30 June 2022 to renew the bathroom extractor fan. During this visit the contractor identified that the bathroom wall was “crumbling away due to water damage/moisture some of the tiles have started to come away.” It referred this back to the landlord for investigation.
The resident made his complaint on 9 December 2022. He expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of repairs identified during the disrepair process. He said that this had caused issues with damp and mould in the bathroom to “spiral” and cause damage to the family’s belongings. The resident said he had been given a date for repairs to the bathroom, but this was not until February 2023, and he expressed concern about the health impact of living with the damp and mould until then. He said that the property was overcrowded and too small for his family. He asked the landlord to rehouse them to a more suitable property.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 15 December 2022. It:
1. Said it had completed all disrepair works and there was no damp present in the building.
2. Advised it had raised a new works order for its damp and mould contractor to inspect the property and recommend any further repairs.
3. Gave the resident advice on ventilating the property and cleaning down any mould that appeared.
4. Confirmed that it its contractor would be in touch to book in works which included the bathroom wall.
5. Signposted him to its insurers if he wished to make a claim for any belongings damaged by damp and mould.
6. Said that it was unable to rehouse the resident, and that he would need to register with the local authority to bid for a transfer.
On 2 March 2023, the resident contacted the landlord’s complaints team to express his continued dissatisfaction that it had not carried out the works to the bathroom. On 22 May 2023, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf and asked it to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of its process. On 30 November 2023, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord again repeating this request.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 7 December 2023. It said that:
1. It had reinstated the bathroom extractor fan and cleared the ducts behind it on 26 October 2023. It had also raised an order to renew the bathtub and panel due to rust.
2. Its damp and mould contractor had carried out a mould wash on 12 September 2023.
3. It had attended to the bedroom storage heater on 6 November 2023 and 10 November 2023, but the problem had persisted. On 1 December 2023 it had ‘factory reset’ the heater and left it in working order.
4. It had asked the resident’s housing officer to visit the property and review any issues that were still outstanding.
5. It was unable to move the resident, as per its stage 1 response, and signposted him to the local authority and mutual exchange process.
6. It was offering compensation of £940. This was composed of £440 for its complaint handling and £500 for its handling of the repairs.
The resident asked this Service to investigate his complaint on 11 January 2024. He expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of his complaint which he said remained unresolved. He expressed concern about the deterioration of his children’s health due to the living conditions in the property, and the loss of earnings he and his wife had experienced in taking time off for repeated repairs appointments. The resident said he wished for the landlord to offer his family a “suitable and safe property” and compensation which reflected the inconvenience they had experienced.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord stated that the resident had “raised a legal disrepair complaint…on 26th October 2021”. It said that it had completed all works identified under this complaint.
At the time of the complaint, the landlord’s policy said that “a complaint must be logged within six months of the issue occurring”. This mirrored the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code at that time, which allowed landlords to exclude complaints about matters occurring over 6 months prior to the complaint being made. In keeping with this position, this investigation will examine events from June 2022 onwards.
The resident has said that whilst living in the property, his children developed asthma which he believed the damp and mould in the property contributed to. The Ombudsman is unable to determine the cause of, or any legal liability for, detriment to health. These matters are better suited to consideration by the courts or via a personal injury claim.
As part of his desired outcome from the complaint, the resident said he wanted the landlord to reimburse him for loss of earnings. He said he and his wife had taken excessive time off work to give access for appointments with the landlord and its contractors.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance explains that “in general, we would not propose a remedy of compensation to reimburse a resident for their time off work, loss of wages or loss of employment whilst repairs are carried out. However, there may be circumstances when the Ombudsman decides that it is appropriate to make an order that a landlord pays compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused, for example where repairs appointments are repeatedly missed or fail to resolve the repair issue.”

Damp and mould

The landlord’s repair records show that a contractor visited the property on 30 June 2022 to renew the extractor fan in the bathroom. The contractor reported back to the landlord that it was unable to complete the job. This was due to the wall “crumbling away due to water damage/moisture.” It described the wall as “unsafe” and said the landlord needed to ‘look at it’.
Despite this assessment, the landlord’s records show no evidence of it raising a repair to inspect the bathroom wall until 31 August 2022. This was an unreasonable delay for any repair, especially one which its contractor had assessed as “unsafe”.
On or around 21 October 2022 the landlord raised a further repair to make good the wall and renew the extractor fan. The landlord sent an operative to the property on 2 November 2022. However, the operative did not carry out any works. The landlord’s records state that it decided to send the repair to a contractor instead. It is unclear whether the landlord communicated this decision and any next steps to the resident.
The resident made his complaint on 9 December 2022. It is evident that, at some point prior to this, the landlord had contacted him and made an appointment for 1 February 2023. This was to carry out works to the bathroom wall under the original order raised on 31 August 2022. The resident expressed dissatisfaction that the bathroom wall had not been addressed and that damp and mould was spreading throughout the property. He said he felt the 1 February 2023 was too long to wait for the matter to be resolved.
In its stage 1 complaint response, provided on 15 December 2022, the landlord stated that there was no damp in the property. It is unclear what this assessment was based upon other than the fact that the building “was constructed with a damp proof course.” There is no evidence that the landlord had carried out a damp and mould inspection to support this position. In fact, it only raised an order for an inspection on the day it provided the stage 1 complaint response.
In the stage 1 response, the landlord also advised the resident that any claims for damaged goods sat outside of its complaints process. It signposted him to its insurers and provided details of the information he would need to provide to make a claim. This was in keeping with the landlord’s complaints policy which says that it will refer any claims for damage to residents’ possessions to its insurers and that issues of “legal liability such as insurance claims” do not form part of its complaints process.
The landlord’s repair records show that on 16 December 2022 it raised an order for an asbestos survey of the bathroom wall. It is unclear why it did not raise this earlier, considering it had inspected the wall over a month beforehand and already had a scheduled appointment to begin works.
On 24 January 2023, the landlord contacted the resident to move the appointment from 1 February 2023 to 20 February 2023. It said this was due to the it reallocating the work to its “team that does larger works”. This approach appeared confused considering it had previously decided to contract the job out, after visiting on 2 November 2022. The landlord has not provided any records as to whether the appointment on 20 February 2023 was kept. However, based on later communication between it and the resident, it is apparent that the wall and extractor fan were not repaired on this date.
The landlord’s repair records indicate as of 14 March 2023 it was still awaiting the damp and mould report from its contractor. It had raised the order for this on 15 December 2023. Whilst it is unclear on what date the contractor attended, this was an unreasonable delay – especially for a household containing young children vulnerable to mould. There is no evidence that the landlord chased up the report and it is unclear when, or even if, it received it.
The landlord’s damp and mould contractor did carry out mould treatment in the property on 12 September 2023. However, this was 9 months after the landlord first raised the order for it to inspect. This represents a further unreasonable delay and failure to consider the vulnerabilities in the resident’s household.
On 17 July 2023, the landlord carried out extensive works in the bathroom of the property. However, these did not include renewing the extractor fan, or addressing the bathroom wall – which its contractor had identified as an issue over 12 months prior.
On 18 August 2023, the landlord inspected the bathroom and decided to replace the bath. It arranged an appointment to do this on 19 August 2023. The resident contacted the landlord the day before this appointment to decline the work. He said that the issue with the wall needed to be resolved before replacing the bath. The landlord cancelled the order, but it is unclear what steps it took to address the wall and whether the issue remains outstanding.
It is apparent that the landlord renewed the extractor fan at some point between 17 July 2023 and 22 September 2023. A landlord surveyor inspected the property on the latter date and found the fan fully operational. However, they identified a possible issue with the ducts behind the fan, which the landlord appropriately raised a repair to have cleared.
As part of its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said that due to ongoing problems with the property, it would arrange to visit the resident and review any outstanding work. When referring his complaint to this Service on 14 December 2023, the resident said that he had been home for 2 scheduled appointments for this, but the landlord had failed to attend them.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord the landlord offered the resident a total of £940 compensation. £500 of this was for its handling of repairs, including failure to recognise the vulnerabilities in the household and associated impact. This amount is in keeping with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for instances of maladministration causing an adverse effect on a resident.
However, it is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord failed to acknowledge the full extent of its failings in this case. The landlord raised multiple repair orders for the bathroom wall and extractor fan and adopted an incoherent approach to resolving the issue. This led to the resident being without sufficient ventilation and suspected damp in the bathroom for an extended period contributing to mould growth. The landlord also failed to ensure that its damp and mould contractor inspected the property and produced its report in a timely manner. This meant that it did not carry out mould treatments in the property until an unreasonable length of time after the resident’s complaint. These failings are aggravated by the presence of the young children in the property.
Due to this the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration and orders a further £300 compensation.

Loss of heating in the bedroom

Issues with the storage heater in the bedroom of the property did not feature in the resident’s original complaint to the landlord. Nor were they addressed in its stage 1 complaint response.
According to the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, the resident first reported the issue on 6 November 2023. The landlord attended on that day and got the storage heater working. After the heater failed again, the landlord returned on 10 November 2023. It records that it left the heating in working order again.
On 14 November 2023, the resident reported that the storage heater had failed again. The following day, the landlord raised the repair to a specialist electrical contractor to attend. This was a reasonable approach considering its own operatives had tried twice to resolve the issue but been unable to.
The contractor attended on or around 21 November 2023. It diagnosed the issue as being due to the resident having a bed pushed up against the storage heater. However, after moving the bed, the resident reported that the storage heater had failed again on 24 November 2023 after he had relocated the bed.
According to the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response its contractor returned on 1 December 2023, ‘factory reset’ the storage heater and left it in working order. The resident has told this Service this was not the case, and the heater failed once again leaving him with no heating in the bedroom for several weeks.
The landlord’s repair logs support this, showing it raised a further repair for the storage heater on 14 December 2023. However, this date falls after the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. As the landlord has not had an opportunity to address these events through its internal complaints procedure, they will not be considered here.
In summary, the landlord attended the property twice within reasonable time to attempt to repair the storage heater. When it was unable to, it passed the repair to a specialist contractor. At the time of its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord reasonably believed the contractor had resolved the issue. There is no evidence of maladministration.

Overcrowding

The ‘rehousing’ page on the landlord’s website says that “Unfortunately, our limited housing stock means we are unable to consider applications that relate to overcrowding. If you are experiencing overcrowding, we encourage you to explore other housing options. These include mutual exchange, the private rented sector, seeking advice from your local authority, or considering shared ownership.”
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was in keeping with this position. It advised the resident that it would not move his family due to overcrowding. It appropriately signposted him to register with the local authority to bid for a transfer property and to explore a mutual exchange.
On 22 September 2023, the landlord sent a surveyor to inspect the property. The surveyor reported back to the landlord that they felt the issues with damp and mould were due to the fact the flat was small and overcrowded. They said that the property “would be always prone to excessive humidity, condensation and mould growth as long as will stay overcrowded”. They recommended that the landlord permanently move the resident and his family into a larger property.
It is evident from communications between the landlord and the resident that the surveyor made the resident aware of their assessment and recommendation. On 31 October 2023, the resident contacted the landlord for an update on the move. The landlord advised him that it would not be offering a move – which was in keeping with its policy position. The resident contested the landlord’s position, based upon what the surveyor had said to him.
The surveyor advising the resident that he was recommending a permanent move, despite this not being possible under the landlord’s policy, inappropriately raised the resident’s expectations. This led to him being disappointed, and in dispute with the landlord, when later told it would not be offering him a move.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response confirmed its position that it would not move the resident due to overcrowding. It again offered the appropriate signposting to the local authority and mutual exchange.
The Ombudsman is sympathetic to the difficult living conditions the resident and his family are experiencing due to their overcrowding. However, the landlord has no obligation to move residents due to overcrowding. Whether a household is overcrowded is a factor which is appropriately considered as part of a housing application to the local authority, with applicants’ bandings reflecting this.
In summary, the landlord’s decision not to rehouse the resident was reasonable and in keeping with its policy. Its complaint responses offered appropriate advice and signposting to rehousing options. However, the landlord’s surveyor inappropriately raised the resident’s expectations that it would move him, causing damage to the landlord-tenant relationship. The Ombudsman makes a finding of service failure due to this.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will provide a stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days of receiving a complaint. It states that “If the complainant is dissatisfied with our decision and asks us to, we will escalate to Stage Two…where possible, we will try to reach a resolution without the need for escalation. Otherwise, the case will be escalated without delay.” The policy says that the landlord will provide its stage 2 response within 20 working days of escalating the complaint.
The resident made his complaint on 9 December 2022. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 15 December 2022. This was within the 10 working day timescale.
Following this, the resident wrote to the landlord on 2 March 2023 outlining outstanding concerns with the property. These included the issues raised in his original complaint. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have treated this as an escalation request and moved to stage 2 of its complaints process.
On 22 May 2023, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf asking it to provide its complaint response. There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged or acted upon this request.
The Ombudsman made a second request on 30 November 2023. On this occasion the landlord contacted the resident the same day to acknowledge the escalation. It then provided its stage 2 complaint response on 7 December 2023. This was within the 20 working day timescale.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord offered the resident compensation of £240 for poor complaint handling and a further £200 for the time and trouble he had taken in pursuing his complaint. This total of £440 is in keeping with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for instances of maladministration. It is the Ombudsman’s view that this provides reasonable redress for the landlord’s failure to appropriately escalate the resident’s complaint until almost 9 months after he first requested this.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of damp and mould in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to a storage heater.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of overcrowding in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Pay the resident compensation of:
  1. The £500 offered in its stage 2 complaint response for its failings in managing repairs to the property.
  2. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of damp and mould in the property.
  3. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of overcrowding in the property.
2. Apologise to the resident for the service failure and maladministration identified by this report.
3. Arrange a surveyor’s inspection of the resident’s bathroom to assess:
  1. The walls and ceiling, including use of a damp meter.
  2. The ventilation and any works which it could carry out to improve this if necessary.
4. Speak with the resident about his application for rehousing via the local authority. The landlord should check that this has the appropriate banding to reflect the overcrowding and any associated medical concerns. The landlord should provide any relevant supporting evidence it feels the local authority has not previously considered.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders to this Service.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that, if it has not done so already, the landlord makes payment of the £440 offered in its stage 2 complaint response for its complaint handling. The finding of reasonable redress is contingent upon this.