London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202015079)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015079

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

22 September 2021

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 Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

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

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The condition of the property when the resident moved in there.
2. The landlord’s handling of the subsequent repairs to the resident’s property.
3. The landlord’s associated complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Policies and procedures

Section 5 of the landlord’s void (empty) home standard policy confirms that, if mould is present during the void period when a property is empty, this should be washed off and treated with an anti-fungicidal solution. If mould is still evident after such a treatment, this should be painted over with an opaque sealer.
Section 3 of the void home standard policy states that the landlord should not carry out void work unless it is “clearly needed”. This also says that an asbestos survey must be carried out prior to undertaking any work that has the potential to disturb asbestos.
As per the landlord’s website’s repair update following the corona virus pandemic, it agreed that it would begin to contact residents with outstanding non-critical repairs in July 2021. It also informed its residents that it might only contact them a few days before the work was due to take place to avoid having to reschedule this.
The landlord’s compensation policy confirms that it may pay compensation where it has failed to follow its policies and procedures, but that it will not pay compensation for delays which are outside of its control. It will pay its residents £10 for a late response to a formal complaint.
As per the landlord’s complaints policy, it aims to respond to stage one complaints within 10 working days, and to final stage complaints within 20 working days, with the option of an additional 10 days if it informs its residents of this.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
The resident had moved into the property from 19 October 2020 after virtual viewing of this via video because of the restrictions imposed following the corona virus pandemic. She has stated that this meant that she could not see the “multiple issues” with the property, including the mould there.
The landlord’s records confirmed that it had completed a void inspection of the property on 25 September 2020.

Summary of events

This Service has not seen a copy of the resident’s stage one complaint to the landlord.
On 22 February 2021, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident, stating the following:
1. It had booked a repair to her front door, and a contractor would be addressing the property’s mould issue. The resident had also been asked for further information in respect to her request for grab rails to be installed in the property.
2. It recommended that she contact the dedicated repair telephone number to report her concerns regarding cracks in the wall. The landlord highlighted that, due to the backlog of repair requests following the corona virus pandemic, it expected to offer a full repairs service “in the next few months”. It apologised for the inconvenience that this had caused.
On 4 March 2021, the landlord’s records confirmed that a contractor had applied a mould wash to the affected areas in the resident’s property.
On 12 March 2021, the resident emailed the landlord’s contractor to request the escalation of her complaint, and a copy of the void report that it had completed of her property. She was unhappy that she was offered the property because this was not in a suitable condition, including because there was “no repointing at all on any of the affected walls”, and “rising damp” affecting her daughter’s bedroom.
On 29 March 2021, an asbestos survey was carried out at the resident’s property, which found that no further action was required for this.
On 14 April 2021, the landlord issued its final stage complaint response to the resident, which is summarised as follows:
1. It confirmed that it had carried out void repairs to her property in September 2020 before she had moved in, as per its above void (empty) home standard policy. The landlord had also reviewed the video which the resident had viewed prior to moving in, and it confirmed that “all [looked] well” with the property from this, although it acknowledged that outstanding repairs may not have been seen on the video.
2. It updated her on the following repairs:
  1. Having raised the request to repair the gap around the property’s front door on 22 February 2021, it carried out the work on 26 April 2021.
  2. Her concerns about mould in the property’s kitchen and second bedroom were first raised on 15 February 2021 to its contractor. They attended to this on 22 February 2021, and they washed and treated the affected areas. However, the landlord also reported that damaged pointing was contributing to the issue of mould. It inspected this on 24 April 2021, and it had scheduled the remedial work for 7 July 2021. This was later rescheduled to October 2021 by the contractor. As a result, the landlord had assigned the work to a different contractor with an appointment date to follow.
  3. In respect of the cracks to plastering in her living room and communal area, it had completed the necessary asbestos test for this on 26 March 2021. Following this, the landlord had completed the plastering repairs on 10 June 2021.
  4. It had raised a request for the installation of a grab rail in her bathroom on 2 March 2021, which was completed on 8 March 2021.
  5. As she had reported “various other concerns”, it would arrange for an inspection of her property.
3. To resolve the complaint, she wanted the repairs to be completed, and for her to be rehoused due to the ongoing repairs. The landlord explained to the resident that she would need to register with the appropriate websites and agencies in order to do so. Another option for this would be for her to look at a mutual exchange programme, for which it offered to help her.
4. It found that there had been a delay in her case being reviewed at the final stage of its internal complaints procedure, and that the plastering work to the kitchen and the pointing work was still outstanding. The landlord therefore offered the resident £125 total compensation, which was made up of £25 for its delayed final stage complaint response, £50 for her distress, and £50 for her inconvenience because of the complaint.
The resident subsequently complained to this Service that the property did not meet the landlord’s health homes policy, and that this was in the same condition as when it had purchased this in 2014, with mould, “rising damp”, old mouldy units, and a lack of external maintenance and asbestos testing records. She added that its surveyor had only visited the property after many complaint emails from her, and that they had declined to arrange almost all internal or external repairs there, other than rotten window ledge plastering and repointing works that were delayed due to a lack of manpower from July to September and October 2021, respectively.
The resident therefore asked to be rehoused in a better-quality property, and she reported that her mental and physical health had been affected by the stress associated with her case. The landlord subsequently provided this Service with the above information about her case, together with details suggesting that the above plastering work was completed at the property by a different contractor on 23 July 2021.

Assessment and findings

The resident has asked to be rehoused and has raised concerns over the effect of the stress associated with her complaint on her health and wellbeing. The Ombudsman does not dispute her comments regarding her health, but we are unable to order or recommend that she be rehoused or to determine the causes of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing or award damages for these. This because we do not have the authority or expertise to do so in the way that a court or insurer might. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation has caused her.
The resident has also subsequently referred to reports of noise nuisance, and to an outstanding request for a stair rail, in her communications with this Service. In respect to her reports of noise nuisance, this was not reviewed as part of this complaint. In respect to the stair rail, this was requested on 9 June 2021, which was after the landlord had exhausted its internal complaints procedure. Therefore, these matters are not something that this Service can investigate at this stage, as we cannot consider complaints made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. This is because it needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to these aspects of the resident’s complaint.

The condition of the property when the resident moved in there

When a property is void, the landlord is obliged by legislation and its above void (empty) home standard policy to ensure that, when a tenancy of a property commences, the property is fit for human habitation and free from specified hazards that might be prejudicial to health. During the void period, prospective residents can inspect the property to see if this is suitable for their needs.
If a prospective resident has raised issues relating to the condition of the property during the void period, any necessary repairs and alterations should be made before the resident moves in. Alternatively, the landlord and the resident can formally agree a timeframe in which the resident can expect works raised during the void period to be completed, which could potentially be following the commencement of the tenancy. On the other hand, the prospective resident could refuse the property as not being suitable for their needs.
In this case, the landlord confirmed in its final stage complaint response of 14 April 2021 that it had carried out void work to the property in September 2020, following its void inspection there of 25 September 2020. This was fair of it, and in line with its above obligations to do so prior to the start of the resident’s tenancy on 19 October 2020.
It is recognised that the resident did not have the opportunity to view the property in person before committing to the tenancy, which may have assisted her in identifying some of her concerns about the condition of this sooner. However, as the reasons for this were outside of its control due to her only being able to carry out a virtual viewing of the property via video as a result of restrictions caused by the corona virus pandemic, it was reasonable for it to have addressed the subsequent individual repair requests from her after she moved into the property, which are assessed below.
It is nevertheless of concern that the resident had to wait from the start of her tenancy on 19 October 2020 for the landlord to arrange the following works at her property. She was required to wait until 22 February and 4 March 2021 for mould washes and treatment at the property, until 8 March 2021 for the installation of a bathroom grab rail, until 26 April 2021 for the gap around her front door to be repaired, until 10 June 2021 for plastering crack repairs, and until 23 July 2021 for rotten window ledge plastering. It is also concerning that the resident reports that she is still awaiting the completion of outstanding repointing works at her property for damage contributing to the mould there, which are due by October 2021.
It would have been preferable for the landlord to have instead identified the above repairs at the property during its void inspection there on 25 September 2020, and for it to have completed these either prior to the start of the resident’s on 19 October 2020 or shortly afterwards with her agreement, as outlined above and in its void (empty) home standard policy. Its failure to do so would have caused her unnecessary distress and inconvenience, and so it was appropriate that it offered her £100 compensation in recognition of this on 14 April 2021.
However, the landlord’s website’s above repair update following the corona virus pandemic publicised the fact that it was having to address a backlog of outstanding non-critical repairs caused by this at a later date and at short notice. This Service’s remedies guidance also recommended that landlords award compensation from £50 for failures to meet such service standards. The landlord’s above offer of £100 compensation to the resident was therefore proportionate to recognise any distress and inconvenience that she had experienced as a result of the above delays.

The landlord’s handling of the subsequent repairs to the resident’s property

The landlord is responsible for carrying out repairs in line with its repair responsibilities, and such repairs would usually have had set timescales for completion, depending on how complex the repair was. In this case, the backlog created following the corona virus pandemic meant that the landlord was unable to commit to timescales for the completion of non-critical work. It communicated this to the resident in its stage one complaint response of 22 February 2021 by explaining that this meant that it expected to offer a full repairs service “in the next few months”, in addition to including the above update to this effect on its website.
Under the above circumstances, it was therefore not unreasonable that the landlord responded to the subsequent repairs to the resident’s property over a longer than usual timescale, and it was appropriate that it confirmed this to her in advance. It then did go on to repair her front door, which was reported to her by it on 22 February 2021 as having been booked, and went on to be completed on 26 April 2021, which was suitable given the above repairs backlog.
The resident also raised concerns with the landlord over mould in the property’s second bedroom and in her kitchen, with the mould spreading to the kitchen units. This was initially reported by her on 15 February 2021, following which it attended on 22 February 2021 to treat the mould. However, the landlord identified the cause of the mould to be damaged pointing, which meant that the mould would be likely to return until this repair was completed.
The landlord therefore inspected the above pointing repair required at the property on 24 April 2021, which was a reasonable action for it to take to confirm the work that were necessary for this. It had originally scheduled for this work to be carried out on 7 July 2021 by a contractor, which later rescheduled the appointment to October 2021 due to a backlog that they were also experiencing. In response, the landlord assigned the work to a different contractor. This was a fair action for it to take for the work to be completed as quickly as possible.
It is nevertheless of concern that the resident reports that she is still awaiting the completion of outstanding repointing work at her property for the damage contributing to the mould there that remain due by October 2021, despite the mould being caused by this first being raised with the landlord by her on 15 February 2021. It is additionally concerning that it did not recognise the further distress and inconvenience that this subsequent repair delay would have caused her after this issue was neither identified nor addressed during the property’s void period by offering her separate compensation for this. The landlord has therefore been ordered to do so below, as well as to provide her with a timescale for the completion of repointing work at her property, if it has not done so already.
The resident also raised concerns over cracks in the plasterwork within the property. The landlord had identified that it would need to complete an asbestos test before any work could be carried out for this, which was appropriate, and the asbestos test was completed on 26 March 2021. Its records confirmed that a subsequent appointment was scheduled for 10 June 2021 to carry out the work to plaster the property’s living room and communal area.
The resident nevertheless stated in her subsequent communication with this Service that repairs to her kitchen plasterwork remained outstanding. Although the landlord then suggested to us that this was completed as part of plastering work to her rotten window ledge by a different contractor on 23 July 2021. It was therefore appropriate that it went on to carry out the above plasterwork repairs at the resident’s property, but it should have recognised the distress and inconvenience that its above delays in completing this would have caused her with proportionate compensation, which has been ordered below.
In response to other outstanding repairs which had been referred to by the resident, the landlord took the opportunity to make use of its full complaints procedure to look to arrange an inspection of her property for these. It communicated its intention to do so to her in its final stage complaint response of 14 April 2021, although it quoted no timescale for the inspection. This was fair of the landlord to look to do in order to address the resident’s concerns about the remaining repairs at the property. This Service has been unable to determine whether this inspection has taken place, however, and therefore it has been ordered below for the resident to be given a timescale for this inspection by the landlord, if it has not done so already.

The landlord’s associated complaint handling

This Service has been unable to determine the date of the resident’s stage one complaint to the landlord. Her final stage complaint was sent to it on 12 March 2021, and it issued its final stage complaint response to her on 14 April 2021. This was outside of the landlord’s complaints policy’s above target timescale of 20 working days for final stage complaint responses, being 21 working days later.
The landlord nevertheless offered the resident £25 compensation for its delayed final stage complaint response to her, despite this being only one working day later than its complaints policy’s timescale for this. This was also particularly reasonable of it to award her, as its above compensation policy only recommended that it offer her £10 per delayed response to a formal complaint, and so it resolved this satisfactorily with a higher level of compensation than that suggested by the policy.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the subsequent repairs to the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaints about:
1. The condition of the property when the resident moved in there.
2. The landlord’s associated complaint handling.

Reasons

There were delays in the landlord’s completion of the subsequent repairs to the resident’s property, while some of these were caused by problems which were outside of its control, it explained this to her and via its website. Its repointing and kitchen plasterwork repairs at the property remained outstanding, however, and it did not recognise the distress and inconvenience that this would have caused her with proportionate compensation.
The landlord nevertheless did offer the resident compensation which was in proportion to the detriment experienced by her because of its failure to identify and address outstanding void works at her property at the time, and due to its brief delay in responding to her final stage complaint.

Orders and recommendation

The landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident the £125 compensation that it previously offered her within four weeks, if she has not received this already.
2. Pay the resident £125 further compensation within four weeks in recognition of any distress and inconvenience caused to her by its delayed repointing and plasterwork repairs at the property.
3. Write to the resident within four weeks to confirm, if it has not done so already, the timescale for:
  1. The completion of the repairs to the pointing in her property by the newly appointed contractor.
  2. The inspection to assess the outstanding issues with the property, as it committed to in its final stage complaint response of 14 April 2021.
It is recommended that the landlord review its staff training needs in relation to providing regular updates on and ensuring the timely completion of its non-critical repairs backlog, and on awarding proportionate compensation in recognition of any distress and inconvenience experienced by residents from its delays in doing so. This should include the completion of this Service’s free online dispute resolution training for landlords at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords-info/e-learning/, if this has not been done recently, and consideration of our remedies guidance at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/corporate-information/policies/dispute-resolution/policy-on-remedies/.
The Ombudsman accepts that, because of the present restrictions due to the corona virus pandemic, the timing of the above actions will depend on what is reasonable in the light of Government guidance regarding the health of the resident and of the landlord’s staff.