London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202105318)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202105318

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

30 November 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 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 refers to:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding overcrowding and her request to be transferred.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a ground-floor flat within a block of flats.
The landlord’s records show that the resident had previously reported issues with damp and mould at the property in 2018. Initially, a mould kit was delivered to the resident to treat the mould in the bedrooms of the property. The resident continued to report issues with damp and mould and a disrepair claim was submitted. This was dealt with by the landlord and the resident’s legal representatives.
A survey of the property took place in November 2018 and the damp and mould was found to be caused by a lack of ventilation. The report listed the remedial works required, including fitting vents at a high level in the bedrooms and hallway, treating the affected areas with mould wash and replacing extractor fans within the property with new fans with humidistats. The report concluded that the damp and mould should not return once the ventilation had been upgraded.
The landlord’s records show that work to treat the mould and replace the extractor fans took place in early 2019. Following this, the old vents in the bedroom and living room were replaced around September 2019. In December 2019, the resident reported that the property was cold as a result of the air vents. The landlord took steps to resolve this by fitting vent covers on the exterior of the building to prevent the draught into the property. The Ombudsman has not been provided with any further evidence which suggest that the resident had reported damp or mould within her property between September 2019 and February 2021.
The resident raised a complaint on 8 February 2021 and requested a direct transfer to an alternative property. She said that she had been informed when she signed up for the tenancy that she would be able to move to a larger property when her daughter turned nine years old. She was then told that this was incorrect as her eldest daughter would not be eligible for her own bedroom until she was 16 because the resident had two daughters. She said that she would not have accepted the property if she had been made aware of this. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 9 February 2021 and said it would provide a response within ten working days.
The resident asked for a further complaint to be raised on 11 February 2021. She explained that work had been carried out in 2019 due to excessive mould in the property. Upon completion, she was told that the mould would not return and that the cause of the mould was poor ventilation in the property. She asked how, if this was the case, the damp and mould had returned. She referred to her original complaint from 2019 and said that the damp and mould was ruining her personal belongings and documents. She asked the landlord to take further action immediately as she had believed that the issues were previously resolved. She also asked for compensation to reflect the damages to her belongings due to the landlord’s neglect and requested to be transferred to an alternative property as the issues were impacting her mental health.
The landlord responded to the resident on 12 February 2021 under stage one of its complaints procedure and upheld the resident’s complaint in relation to her reports of damp and mould in the property. It said that it had raised a work order for a specialist company to visit and that they would be in touch within five days ti arrange an appointment. It said that its repairs team worked with the specialist company to address the damp and mould in the property over a whole year to ensure it did not come back. The landlord confirmed that the resident could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on the same day. She advised that she was currently working away from the property and could not take time off work to allow access. She expressed dissatisfaction that the issue with mould had been ongoing for four years. She advised that the landlord’s proposed resolution was not one that she was willing to explore as this process had been carried out previously. She asked what the recommendations were following the previous survey of damp within the property and why these had not been acted on. She asked that her initial complaint in 2019 was reviewed as the circumstances were affecting her mental health. She asked for compensation in view of the damage caused to her belongings. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 15 February 2021.
The resident requested a call-back on 15 February 2021 as a surveyor had attended to inspect the damp and mould previously and she wanted feedback about any recommendations. She advised that she did not want the landlord’s specialist contractor to attend and was not available to provide access for appointments. She again asked for compensation for the damage to her belongings.
The landlord emailed the resident on 19 February 2021 following a phone conversation that day. It confirmed that it would prepare a report to request a direct offer of a move to a larger property due to the small bedroom and the historical and ongoing mould the resident had experienced. It added that it would call the resident the following week to advise her of when its housing panel would review the case. The evidence suggests that the resident called to follow-up with the landlord on multiple occasions as she had not received a call back.
The landlord issued its stage two complaint response to the resident regarding her reports of damp and mould on 8 March 2021 and explained the following:
1. It explained that during winter months, walls and windows in properties may collect condensation, caused by water in the air meeting a cold surface. It said that the resident could mitigate the moisture by turning on the heating regularly, opening a window and using any extractor fans in the property, it also advised the resident to wipe away any moisture to prevent mould growth. It said that condensation developed in most homes and was not necessarily the result of a structural defect. It relied on residents to manage the moisture in their properties to prevent mould build-up.
2. It noted that the resident had raised a previous complaint in 2019 related to mould and said that it could not review this complaint in line with its complaints policy as it was over six months old. It said that any matter concerning a financial claim for damaged goods, belongings or health fell outside of its complaints process. It said that in the first instance, the resident would need to claim through her own insurer for damage to her personal items. Alternatively, if the resident did not have insurance, she could claim through the landlord’s liability insurer. It provided the details of its insurer.
3. It confirmed that it had employed a specialist contractor for issues concerning damp and mould. They would identify the source of the moisture and provide a report to the landlord, arrange mould treatments and provide advice and guidance on managing moisture. If any structural issues were identified, the landlord would review the report and instruct repairs where required.
4. It noted that the resident explained that she was unable to provide access to the property as she was working away from home. It asked the resident to arrange an appointment when she was available. The landlord confirmed that it had adhered to its obligations and had not failed to provide service to the resident.
The landlord issued a stage one complaint response to the resident on 18 March 2021 regarding her request for a transfer and explained the following:
1. It referred to a call that took place with the resident on 5 March 2021 and confirmed that her request for a direct transfer did not meet the criteria for an urgent move. She was concerned that she may be overcrowded due to the small size of the second bedroom which her daughters shared. It added that the measurements of her bedrooms would need to be completed by its maintenance team and the resident could call to arrange this.
2. It said that due to the length of time that had passed, it was unable to confirm the content of the conversation which happened with its lettings officer regarding being transferred to another property at the start of the tenancy. It apologised if the resident was given incorrect information. It confirmed that the resident could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
The landlord’s specialist contractor issued its report following a visit to the property on 19 March 2021. The report highlighted that there was ongoing condensation and visible mould and mildew in the property. This mostly affected the resident’s bedrooms, bathroom and cupboard in the main bedroom. The resident was advised to close the kitchen door when cooking, to open windows of the room when clothes were being dried indoors and to wipe excess moisture from windows and window frames. She was also given guidance on heating the property and ventilation. The contractors also identified that plants were growing in the external guttering and noted that the bedroom wall backed onto an external bin store. It said that it was likely that there was poor insulation in this area which may be contributing to the mould growth. It was recommended that the mould was treated, the plants in the guttering were removed and the insulation was improved above the roof of the storeroom adjacent to the bin storage area. The contractors also established that the moisture reading on the ceiling of the store cupboard in the main bedroom was slightly elevated and further investigation was required to determine if there was a leak above the ceiling.
The resident called the landlord on 25 March 2021 for an update on what the specialist contractor had reported. She made the landlord aware that she was expecting a third child and was concerned about the impact of the damp and mould on her health.
The landlord’s records show that it had arranged for the mould in the resident’s property to be treated on 4 June 2021, however, the contractors could not gain access to the property on this date despite calling the resident. The appointment was cancelled at this stage and a follow-up appointment was arranged for August 2021.
Following contact from the resident, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 10 June 2021 and asked it to respond to the resident’s complaint regarding overcrowding and reports of damp and mould within ten working days.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage two escalation request on 11 June 2021. It confirmed that it had previously provided a stage two complaint response regarding her concerns about damp and mould, which had exhausted its complaints procedure and would not be considered further. It confirmed that it would provide its stage two complaint response related to her concerns about overcrowding within ten working days.
A work order to measure the bedrooms in the property was scheduled for 17 June 2021. The surveyor reported that the resident had said the appointment was not necessary as a visit had taken place in April 2021. They believed that the resident had confused this with a previous appointment for damp and mould.
The landlord issued its stage two complaint response to the resident on 23 June 2021 and explained the following:
1. It noted that the resident’s complaint centred around her request for a direct re-housing offer and poor customer service she had received. It summarised the previous communication it had with the resident regarding her housing options and found no evidence to confirm that she was informed that a larger home would be provided when her daughter became older.
2. It determined that the resident was notified about her moving options and given advice on this in October 2018. It had recommended that the resident pursue housing options such as mutual exchange and to make an application through the local authority. It had explained her moving options again since 2018 and noted that the resident’s application to the local authority had been approved in April 2021.
3. It confirmed that the resident did not meet the criteria for a direct transfer offer following a review by its rehousing panel. It explained that it would only consider a direct transfer in limited circumstances. This would include residents who were fleeing domestic abuse, had a significant medical need or disability which meant that they were unable to reside in their property, those who were overcrowded by two or more-bedroom spaces and have a medical need which was made significantly worse by overcrowding, and those who would like to downsize due to under occupying.
4. It explained that it was subject to a local authority nominations agreement, which meant that most of its properties were made available for reletting through the local authority. This meant that there were limited available properties it could offer the resident and she was more likely to be successful by registering with the local authority for the area she wished to move to. It said that due to the nomination agreement, 100% of its properties for the area the resident wished to move to were let through the local authority’s housing list. This meant that the landlord did not have any available properties it could let to her directly in that area. It explained that on 3 May 2021, it closed its internal rehousing transfer list because demand for housing outweighed supply. It confirmed that its decision remained unchanged and it was unable to provide a direct offer as the resident did not meet the criteria.
5. It had arranged for an appointment to take place to measure the size of the bedrooms on 17 June 2021, however, the operatives had been informed by the resident that there was no need for a visit as an appointment had taken place a few weeks before. It had asked its team to contact the resident to rebook the appointment for taking measurements.
6. It acknowledged that there were delays and responses were not always provided following communication directed towards its staff. It apologised for the inconvenience caused. In view of these errors it had discussed the resident’s case internally and training would be provided to improve its service. It offered the resident £100 compensation in recognition of its communication delays and time the resident had invested in making contact.
The appointment to treat the mould did not go ahead in August 2021 as the resident was self-isolating at that time. The resident advised the landlord on 6 September 2021 that she would call to arrange an appointment once her isolation period had ended. The mould treatment remained outstanding at the time the case was referred to the Ombudsman.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 2 September 2021 and said that it would be carrying out some roofing work to the resident’s property following the survey of damp and mould. It said that the relevant contractor would contact the resident to confirm what would be happening and when the works would take place.
The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she remained dissatisfied with the landlords offer of compensation and the lack of acknowledgement of a surveyor attending the property on 29 April 2021 to take measurements. She felt that the landlord had not adequately housed her in 2015 and she was overcrowded in the two-bedroom property. She added that she felt that the second bedroom was too small to be considered a bedroom. She said that the issues were affecting her mental health and was concerned that the damp and mould was affecting her family’s health.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has said she considers that the issues affecting her property have impacted her mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the damp and mould within the property and the resident’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.

In line with the repair policy, the resident would be responsible for treating minor condensation issues, including cleaning and treating mould found due to condensation. The landlord would be responsible for repairs needed to rising and penetrative damp affecting walls, floors and ceilings. When a landlord receives reports of damp and mould it would usually be expected to arrange an inspection of the issue and determine a course of action.
It is understandable, given the historical reports of damp and mould in the property, that the resident was frustrated that the issue had returned. Ultimately, the landlord was entitled to rely on the opinions of its qualified staff and contractors in 2018 who determined that following the work to improve the ventilation in the property, the issue should not return. It can be difficult to pinpoint the exact cause of damp and mould and in some cases, there may be more than one cause. Until measures recommended by specialists have been attempted, it is not possible to know how successful they will be. The resident did not report any further issues with damp and mould following the works in 2019 until February 2021. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to assume it had been resolved until February 2021, when it was made aware that the issue had reoccurred.
It was also reasonable for the landlord to arrange an inspection of the property following the resident’s further reports of damp and mould in early 2021, once it was made aware that the issue was ongoing. It was understandable that the resident expressed some concern about the specialist contractors attending her property as the previous works had not been successful, however, the landlord would need to arrange a further inspection to determine whether there was anything more that could be done to resolve the issue. It is noted that there was some delay to an inspection and subsequent works being carried out as the resident was not able to allow access to the property. The Ombudsman is not questioning the resident’s reasons for not allowing access for the contractors but the delay this caused was outside of the landlord’s control.
Following a survey in March 2021, the specialist contractors determined that the damp and mould was caused by a build–up of condensation in the property. The resident was provided with advice on how to reduce the level of condensation and further works were recommended to inspect the insulation in the roof above the resident’s storage cupboard in the bedroom and treat the mould. The report did not refer to any issues regarding the current structural ventilation elements in the property.
The landlord acted appropriately by referring the resident to her home contents insurer initially following her request for compensation for her damaged belongings. Alternatively, it said that the resident could approach its insurance company if she did not have her own. In line with the tenancy agreement, residents are encouraged to take out contents insurance to cover damage to their possessions caused by unforeseen events such as leaks, fire or theft etc. Landlords are not generally obliged to compensate residents for damage to their possessions caused by damp and mould. The exception to this would be if the damage occurred as a result of negligence by the landlord or its contractors. Landlords often have liability insurance to cover negligence claims and the landlord would be entitled to refer any negligence claims to its insurer. The landlord would not be expected to consider a negligence claim outside the insurance process.
It is noted that works to treat the mould in the property had not gone ahead at the time the complaint was referred to this Service as the resident had initially not been able to allow access to the property and was then self-isolating due to

covid 19. The work to the roof and insulation of the property was due to take place following the landlord’s correspondence in September 2021. It is not clear from the evidence provided whether this has since gone ahead. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to arrange these works given the report issued by its specialist damp and mould contractors. If the resident is able to allow access, the landlord should ensure this work is now carried out, if it has not been done already. Given the resident’s continued reports of damp and mould, it is recommended that a further inspection takes place six months after the works have been completed to determine whether the issue has been resolved.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be transferred.

The landlord’s allocation and lettings policy states that two children under the age of 18 of the same gender would be expected to share a bedroom. This is in line with the room standard guidance for overcrowding. Should a resident contact the landlord for advice on moving, it should present them with a range of options, including mutual exchange, application to the local authority’s housing register the private rented sector or a direct offer via its rehousing list. Due to a lack of available properties, the landlord would only directly rehouse existing residents who are in high priority need for alternative accommodation. For a resident to be added to the Rehousing list, their case will have to be presented to the landlord’s Rehousing Panel.
The resident must meet one of the following criteria for a direct offer of rehousing to be made:
1. The resident is at risk by remaining in their home due to domestic abuse, gang-related violence, or any other type of Anti-social Behaviour
2. Either the resident or a member of their household has a significant medical need or disability which means that they are unable to remain in their home.
3. The household is severely overcrowded (by two or more bedroom spaces) and has a medical condition or disability which is impacted by the overcrowding
4. The tenant wishes to downsize to a smaller property as their household is under-occupying their existing home.
The resident initially complained about the advice she had been given at the beginning of her tenancy. She claims that she was told that she would be offered a transfer once her eldest daughter turned nine years old. She then expressed concern that she was overcrowded and the small second bedroom was not suitable for her two daughters to share due to its size. It is noted that the resident is also expecting another child and has concerns about the size of her property.
Due to the amount of time that had passed, it was reasonable that the landlord did not have any records of information provided to the resident at the start of her tenancy in 2015. Whist we do not doubt the resident’s account of what she was told, without clear records of the conversation that took place, neither the landlord nor the Ombudsman can confirm whether the resident was misinformed at the time. The landlord has acted reasonably by apologising to the resident if she felt she had been misinformed. The evidence shows that the landlord also took appropriate steps to advise the resident of her re-housing options through mutual exchange or applying to the local authority’s transfer list on multiple occasions throughout her tenancy and managed her expectations satisfactorily.
The resident then asked for the landlord to consider providing her with a direct offer of rehousing due to her concerns related to damp and mould. The landlord offered a satisfactory explanation as to why it could not provide a direct rehousing offer to the resident. It took appropriate steps to refer the resident’s application to its rehousing panel, which determined that the resident did not meet the criteria as set out above. On 3 May 2021, the landlord closed its internal transfer list as demand for a transfer far outweighed the supply of available properties. This meant that the landlord could no longer offer the resident a place on its waiting list for an internal transfer to another of its properties through its choice-based letting system.
The landlord satisfactorily explained that it would not be able to offer the resident a direct transfer to a property in the area that she had chosen as each of its properties in that area were subject to the local authority’s nomination process. This meant that only the local authority could allocate a prospective tenant to the properties owned by the landlord in that area. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident to apply via the local authority’s housing register in order to be considered for a move to that area.
The resident then raised concern about overcrowding and maintained that the current second bedroom was too small for both of her daughters to share. The landlord took reasonable steps to advise the resident that the room could be measured to determine whether the property would be classed as overcrowded. She expressed concern that appointment had gone ahead to measure the rooms on 29 April 2021 and did not need to be completed again in June 2021. The landlord has confirmed that there is no record of an appointment to measure the rooms taking place on 29 April 2021 and as such it did not mention this in its complaint responses. As there is no record of the room size being measured, this Service is unable to determine whether the appointment went ahead. It is recommended that the landlord arranges an appointment with the resident at her earliest convenience to determine whether the property should be classed as overcrowded.
It should be noted that if the resident was found to be overcrowded, this would not necessarily mean that the landlord would be obliged to offer her a direct transfer to a larger property as the criteria for a direct transfer offer dictates that those that are overcrowded by two or more bed spaces would be considered if there were medical conditions that were impacted by the overcrowding. Due to the local authority’s nomination system, the landlord would still be unable to transfer the resident to a property within the area she wished to move to. Given that the resident is expecting another child, she may wish to contact the local authority regarding her concerns about overcrowding.
The landlord has acknowledged that the level of service the resident was provided was below the required standard. It noted that there had been delayed responses and lack of response from its staff on some occasions. It said that the resident should not have had to follow-up with the landlord to seek updates and it apologised for the inconvenience caused. In recognition of this, the landlord offered £100 compensation. This amount is considered proportionate to the impact the landlord’s failings had on the resident in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (published on our website). The guidance sates that amounts in this range are appropriate in instances of service failure which had an impact on the resident but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation in relation to its handling of the resident’s concerns regarding overcrowding and request to be transferred which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

The landlord was entitled to rely on the opinions of its qualified staff and contractors in 2018, who determined that the damp and mould should not return once the ventilation works were completed. The landlord acted appropriately once it was made aware that the issue had returned by arranging a survey of the property and work to be undertaken by its specialist contractors. The landlord has suitably directed the resident to its insurers if she wished to claim compensation for damages to her belongings.
There is a lack of evidence to confirm what the resident was told when her tenancy began regarding her housing options. The landlord took reasonable steps to inform the resident of her options in response to her complaint and satisfactorily explained why it would not consider her for a direct offer of rehousing. The landlord has acted reasonably by confirming its intention to measure the bedroom in the resident’s property to check if it is too small. The landlord has offered compensation which is proportionate to the impact its communication failures had on the resident throughout the course of the complaint.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident £100 as previously offered if it has not already done so as the Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress is based on this being paid.
It is recommended that the landlord arranges an appointment with the resident to treat the mould in the property as soon as she confirms her availability, if the treatment has not already gone ahead. It is also recommended that the landlord ensures that the works to the roofing go ahead as planned if they have not already been completed.
Given the resident’s continued reports of damp and mould, it is recommended that a further inspection takes place six months after the works have been completed to determine whether the issue has been resolved.