London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202110294)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202110294

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

9 November 2023

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 handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. Damp and mould within the property.
2. Noise nuisance (Antisocial behaviour) from the neighbour upstairs.
3. Residents and visitors slamming the main entrance door causing noise disturbance.
We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The tenancy commenced on 11 March 2016 and the property is a one bedroom ground floor flat.
During 2020, the resident raised reports concerning noise nuisance from her neighbour above. The landlord looked into these concerns at the time, found the noise to be from children playing and considered this to be general living noise.
On 22 June 2021, the resident contacted the landlord concerning damp and mould. It then arranged for an operative to attend on 1 July 2021 to inspect the property. This visit found there to be mould within the property and recommended:
1. Mould clean and shield.
2. Replacement of extractor fan in kitchen.
3. Repair moisture damage to bathroom ceiling and wall.
4. Look further into ongoing leak from property above and repair.
A further survey took place on 27 July 2021. The surveyor found the mould in the bathroom had returned, and the extractor fan in the kitchen could not be turned on due to a faulty cord. During the visit a mould wash was completed.
During August 2021, the resident raised further concerns about noise nuisance from her neighbours, slamming of the communal door, and having to clear rubbish and cigarettes in the garden.
On 16 August 2021, the landlord issued a stage one complaint response. It understood the resident’s complaint to be about:
1. Reported damp and mould within the property.
2. Noise nuisance (Antisocial behaviour – ASB) from the neighbour upstairs.
3. Residents and visitors slamming the main entrance door causing a noise disturbance
4. The resident’s request to move.

With regards to the damp and mould the landlord stated that, following its recent inspection, it had arranged for follow-up works to be completed. This included booking further appointments for:
1. Extractor fan in the kitchen – scheduled for 2 September 2021.
1. Identification of the cause of leaks and repairs – scheduled for 24 August 2021.
2. Follow up appointment for damage to bathroom ceiling and walls – scheduled for 29 September 2021.
In response to the resident’s ASB complaint, the landlord stated it did not have a recent record of reports. The last reported incident was during April 2020 which it investigated. During this investigation it concluded the noise being reported by the resident was general living noise.
In relation to the noise nuisance concerning the entrance door, the landlord noted that it had d offered to write to all the residents in the block about the door at the time when the resident reported this, however this was declined by the resident initially. The resident then agreed for the landlord to send a text message to all residents. As the resident was unable to identify the perpetrator, the landlord explained that if she was able to identify which household was responsible it would look into the matter further.
The landlord recognised the resident wanted to move properties, but explained its processes were resident driven and relied on residents actively registering with local council sites and HomeSwapper.

During October 2021 the repairs to the extractor fan were completed. However in November 2021 the mould growth returned, and the resident further reported this to the landlord. A follow up appointment was completed on 1 November 2021, which confirmed the mould growth had reappeared and the landlord arranged for further a mould wash to be carried out.
On 21 December 2021, the resident’s MP contacted the landlord about the ongoing issues which the resident was having and the impact on her health.
The MP further chased a response on 14 February 2022 as they had not had a response. The landlord responded the following day, apologising for the delay and explained the correspondence was not previous picked up. It explained this had now been assigned to its team for investigation and a response would be provided within 10 working days. On 22 March 2022, the MP chased again for a further response to the resident’s complaint.
On 25 March 2022, the landlord discussed the recent report and pictures internally. It stated the resident needed to be informed that clutter stops air circulation, and this could contribute to the mould returning. It also would not be in a position to keep returning to remove the mould. As per the resident’s handbook, residents were responsible for cleaning mould before it becomes a problem and they should not leave it, expecting the landlord to continually return to clean it. Given the resident’s concerns, the landlord considered whether to instruct a further survey to be carried out in more depth using thermal imaging and damp meters. We have not seen further records to show this was done.
The landlord issued a stage two complaint response on 22 April 2022. It apologised for the delay in providing the response and explained this was due to a high demand for complaint escalations. In this response it set out the following points –
1. It raised a further investigation to be carried out for the damp and mould and provided the resident with details on how mould and damp can be prevented within homes.
2. It reiterated it did not have any recent record of the resident reporting noise nuisance and the last report was in April 2020. The landlord had arranged for noise machines to be installed but it was unable to retrieve any recordings, and its IT department was also not able to retrieve these. The landlord further explained the neighbour responsible for the reported noise nuisance had since moved out of the building.
3. No further action was taken with regard to the door slamming as the resident agreed to identify which flat was causing the noise in order for the landlord to take this forward.
4. The landlord explained that, following its medical advisors’ recommendations and careful consideration, the resident was not approved to move to another property. It stated she would need to consider a mutual exchange which is resident driven.
5. The landlord acknowledged its significant delay in responding to the resident’s complaint and offered £220. This was comprised of:
  1. £100 for delay with stage 2 response.
  2. £60 time and effort.
  3. £60 inconvenience caused.
As the resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response to her concerns, the complaint was brought to this service for adjudication. She would like the landlord to:
1. Remedy mould growth in the property which is spreading and damaging belongings.
2. Assist with rehousing, preferably in the resident’s local area.
3. Take action to ensure the resident is not affected by noise nuisance and ASB.
4. Pay additional compensation for the stress and inconvenience experienced and for damage caused to belongings.

Assessment and findings

We understand the resident has expressed distress over the issues, stating this has affected her health and wellbeing. Whilst we have noted this as context, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing as claims of personal injury must, ultimately, be decided by courts of law who can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

Damp and mould within the property

In accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is obliged to keep the structure and the exterior of the property in repair. Section 8 of the landlord’s repairs policy also states it is responsible for penetrative and rising damp. Therefore, when the resident informed the landlord of a potential leak, damp and mould within the property, it was appropriate that it investigated the matter.
The resident expressed upset over the landlord’s communication regarding the damp and mould, which had been ongoing following a leak from the neighbouring property upstairs which occurred before 2019.
We can see that there have been issues concerning damp within the property several times, the first of which was reported in 2017. We have not seen a record which reflects a leak from the neighbouring property above. The most recent report relating to this complaint was logged on 22 June 2021. Following this report, the landlord arranged to have this inspected on 1 July 2021. The Ombudsman finds the landlord was proactive in attending to the report of damp and mould within a reasonable period of time from the report made on 22 June 2021.
We have reviewed the survey reports dated 1 July 2021 and 27 July 2021. It was stated that there was no indication of damp within the property but then stated there was moisture damage to the bathroom ceiling and wall. It also noted a possible leak from the property above which needed a repair. In these reports it was recommended a mould clean and shield be completed, the kitchen extractor fan be replaced, repair to the damage in the bathroom and a possible leak be looked into.
The evidence shows the mould clean and shield had been completed during July 2021. In the report dated 27 July 2021, the surveyor noted the resident had told him that the repair to the neighbouring leak above had been completed two weeks prior to that appointment. However this is not reflected in the resident’s property repairs history. As this was concerning the neighbours’ property, it is likely this repair was recorded against the neighbours’ property. However the parties are in agreement that the leak was resolved.
The landlord sent a letter to the resident dated 16 August 2021, which stated it arranged for the following works to be carried out:
1. Identification of possible leak from flat above – 24 August 2021.
2. Extractor fan replacement – 2 September 2021.
3. Repair moisture damage to bathroom ceiling and walls – 29 September 2021.
The repairs history shows the extractor fan was not repaired until 8 October 2021. It is clear this was outside of the landlord’s expected timeframes provided to the resident and we have seen evidence to show the resident was chasing an update, which suggest the delay was not adequately communicated to the resident. With regards to the other repairs, it is not clearly reflected in the repairs history if these repairs were done within the expected timeframe. However we are satisfied that the neighbour’s possible leak was attended to, as stated by the resident. With regards to the damp and mould, the evidence shows that during a follow up visit to inspect the resident’s property on 1 November 2021 the mould had returned. We have not seen that any further works were carried out following this.
We understand the resident was still experiencing these issues at a later date, as stated in her communication with us in 2022, and she was seeking for the landlord to remedy the mould growth in the property. In the landlord’s stage two response dated 22 April 2022, it also explained it would arrange a further inspection of the damp and mould.
In circumstances where there is reoccurring damp and mould within the property, we expect the landlord to be taking reasonable steps to ensure the cause of any issue is correctly identified and rectified for the resident.
Whilst we recognise the landlord followed the surveyors’ recommendations, it is clear that repairs to the extractor fan were not completed within a reasonable timeframe. Furthermore when the issue reoccurred, the landlord ought to have looked into the matter further. In this case it did not do so, which resulted in the resident needing her local MP to contact it on her behalf.
We understand the landlord spoke to the resident about ways to prevent mould within the home, however given the longstanding issue and reoccurrence and to satisfy the resident’s concerns and ensure there was no further cause for the regrowth of mould, the landlord should have conducted further checks sooner. We recognise that, in the stage two complaint response, it stated it had asked its surveyors to carry out a more in-depth investigation using thermal imaging, however we have not seen evidence that this was done. This ought to have been considered sooner than March 2022, as it was confirmed in November 2021 that the mould growth had returned.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports concerning damp and mould could have been improved in terms of communications, timeframes and reassuring her so she felt more supported. Whilst we recognise the landlord’s attempts to resolve the issue, there were service failures with the length of time taken to look into the matter and the communication between the landlord, resident and MP. Whilst we can see it responded to the MP, its response was delayed by 3 months.
If this is a matter concerning condensation, the landlord should consider what other measures can be put in place to help alleviate the issue. Whilst we recognise it recommended the resident de-clutter and conduct mould washes when needed, when condensation affects a property there are also other measures which can be considered, such as additional ventilation or installing a positive input ventilation system.
As evidenced above, there were failings in the landlord’s handling of the issues concerning damp and mould within the property, therefore we will be making an order of compensation to reflect the inconvenience, distress and delays caused.

Noise nuisance (ASB) from neighbour upstairs.

Section 4.5 of the landlord’s ASB policy states that noise which is persistent deliberate or targeted may be categorised as ASB. Section 4.6 of the landlord’s ASB policy states it does not consider noise caused by people going about their daily lives to be ASB.
The resident made numerous complaints to the landlord about noise nuisance being experienced from her neighbour. These reports were in reference to children playing.
At the time of this complaint, we have not seen evidence to suggest there were any open ASB case records. The landlord’s last ASB report was received in March 2020. This was investigated and closed as it did not find the noise to be considered statutory noise nuisance, it was considered to be general living noise. The landlord appropriately asked the resident’s neighbour to place additional carpet on the floor, which was adhered to.
The evidence shows the resident raised further reports throughout the internal complaints procedure. This is in reference to the use of a sewing machine, children playing, and her neighbour throwing rubbish and cigarettes into the garden which she was having to clear. We understand the neighbour has since moved out.
In accordance with the ASB policy, children playing and use of a sewing machine would be considered general living noise and not classified as ASB. However it is understood that at the time the landlord visited the resident’s property and arranged to have a noise machine installed. This was appropriate given the circumstances. When the landlord received the recordings back it was unable to retrieve any evidence. We understand how frustrating this would have been for the resident, however we recognise it was a technical error outside of the landlord’s control and that it did attempt to retrieve information via an IT specialist.
Overall the evidence demonstrates the landlord looked at the resident reports of noise nuisance and the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s actions were reasonable throughout.

Residents and visitors slamming the main entrance door causing noise disturbance.

A resident should have the right to enjoy their home without substantial noise nuisance. However we understand that at times it can be challenging for landlords to manage this. In this instance the resident made a report to the landlord about noise disturbance being caused by other residents and visitors slamming the main entrance door. This caused her disturbance as she was able to hear this within her property.
The landlord’s ASB policy does not mention whether noise concerning the communal door slamming could be classified as noise nuisance. Nonetheless when the resident reported this to the landlord, it proceeded to contact her to discuss the issues further. The landlord also offered to contact residents of the block via letter and text message. As the resident was unable to identify the perpetrator and there was no evidence to suggest who was contributing to the noise, it agreed to also look further into the matter and to directly contact the neighbour responsible for the noise nuisance once the resident was able to confirm who it was.
The evidence shows the landlord proceeded to follow up the report and it was informed this was no longer an issue by the resident.
In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord’s actions when the noise nuisance from the use of the communal door was reported to it were proportionate and reasonable, given the fact that there was limited information available about who was causing the noise.

Request to move

It is understood the resident wished to move home because of ASB and on medical grounds but was not successful. The evidence shows the landlord explained this is not something it can do and the resident would need to go through registering with the local council or through HomeSwapper, a mutual exchange service which allows residents looking to move homes to swap with each other. In the Ombudsman’s view the landlord reached a decision based on the evidence available and this was reasonable.
The landlord’s allocation & lettings policy states that when a resident requests a move it will assess the request and provide the resident with a range of options which are appropriate to their need. These include:
1. Mutual exchange.
2. Application to local authority’s housing register.
3. Mobility schemes.
4. Shared ownership.
5. Private rented sector.
6. Older peoples accommodation.
7. Direct offer via the rehousing list.
With regard to direct housing, the landlord would only offer this in exceptional circumstances or on an emergency temporary or permanent basis.
In order to be added to the rehousing list, a resident’s circumstances must meet one or more of the following criteria:
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 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.
5. A temporary move is required to carry out repairs to the resident’s permanent home.
6. The resident’s home is to be demolished or disposed of in line with our Asset Management Strategy.
7. Exceptional circumstances as approved by senior management.
It is important to recognise landlord resources are very limited, and it is often likely that there is a number of residents looking to move homes. In such circumstances landlords are responsible for managing resources appropriately, identifying those most in need given their circumstances. We understand the resident’s frustration and experiences within the property, however in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord acted appropriately in the advice which it provided to her. We have not seen evidence to suggest it ought to have considered her for its direct rehousing list. Noise nuisance from the front door slamming would not be a substantial reason for such consideration, nor would noise nuisance complaints considered to be general living noise from neighbours.
Therefore when looking at the options offered by the landlord in order to facilitate the resident’s request to move, the two options provided to the resident of mutual exchange and registering via the local council were appropriate.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould within the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance (ASB) from the neighbour upstairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of residents and visitors slamming the main entrance door causing noise disturbance.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request to move home.

Reasons

The landlord was proactive in arranging for surveys to be completed concerning the damp and mould, however it was delayed in carrying out the recommendations made by the surveyor. There was also a lack of communication which caused the resident further distress. Taken altogether, the landlord did not do all it could to remedy the issues concerning damp and mould within the property within a reasonable period of time.
There was no service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance. It was proactive in investigating the resident’s concerns, visiting the property, and it provided her with noise equipment in attempts to identify noise nuisance. It did not find any evidence of noise nuisance and its actions in response to the resident’s reports were proportionate.
The landlord correctly addressed the resident’s concerns about the slamming of the communal door and contacted residents of the estate about the noise disturbance. It appropriately agreed to follow up on the matter should the perpetrator be identified.
The landlord appropriately considered the resident’s request to move in line with its guidelines and adequately advised her of her options.

Orders

The landlord to compensate the resident £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its service failure concerning her reports of damp and mould. This should be paid within four weeks of the date of this investigation and the landlord should confirm payment to the Ombudsman.
The landlord to contact the resident to confirm if issues with damp and mould are still ongoing within the property. If there is an indication of damp and mould, the landlord should arrange a further inspection with a surveyor and consider what else could be done to help alleviate the issue. This should be completed within eight weeks of the date of this letter.