London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202201626)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201626

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

31 October 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:
1. a roof leak and associated damp and mould.
2. reports of loose floorboards.
3. replastering work.
4. and the associated complaint.

Background

The resident had an assured shorthold tenancy that started on 15 February 2021. This converted to an assured tenancy after 12 months. The resident’s property has two bedrooms.
On 27 May 2021, the resident reported water staining on the ceiling of her large bedroom. She also told her landlord there was water staining on the side of the wall and ceiling in the smaller bedroom. She referred to mould being present. The resident also reported on the same day that she had creaky floorboards throughout her property.
The resident called her landlord on 5 July 2021 to complain as no one had turned up when she was expecting a visit. The landlord apologised because it had asked a private roofing contractor to arrange a visit instead. The landlord sent the resident £20 compensation for the missed appointment. It arranged for a mould wash on 8 July 2021 and closed the resident’s complaint.
On 5 August 2021, the resident asked her landlord to reopen her complaint and escalate it to stage 2. She reported to her landlord that the damp had now spread to her inbuilt wardrobe, and she believed this was caused by a leaking roof. The landlord inspected the resident’s floorboards a day later and agreed they were loose.
The landlord informed the resident on 9 August 2021 that the work to correct the floorboards was with its major works department.
The landlord arranged to inspect the resident’s roof and loft on 12 August 2021. On 19 August 2021, the landlord informed the resident that the roofing contractors were waiting to obtain a quote for scaffolding.
The resident complained to her landlord on 26 August 2021 that it had asked its major works department to look at her floorboards. The landlord arranged another mould wash on 26 August 2021.
The landlord erected the scaffolding at the end of September 2021 and extended it to cover the valley of the roof and flank. The landlord completed the repair work to the roof by 27 October 2021. The landlord conducted another mould wash on 4 November 2021 and 11 December 2021.
On 22 December 2021, the landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaint procedure and upheld the resident’s complaint. It explained it had fixed the roof. It said that it had asked its contractors to inspect the resident’s property the same day. This was to identify if it needed to do any other repairs to reduce the chance of mould reoccurring. The landlord closed the resident’s complaint.
With the roof work completed, the landlord set to repair the damage to the plasterwork which affected the smaller bedroom. It arranged for an asbestos test on 28 January 2022. The landlord instructed a contractor to look at the resident’s flooring on 21 January 2022 and the contractor booked an initial appointment for 29 April 2022.
The landlord intended to visit the resident in March 2022 to do the replastering, but this was rearranged three times. The landlord completed the replastering work on 17 May 2022.
The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaint procedure on 10 May 2022 and stated:
1. The delays in repairing the resident’s roof were due to delays in getting scaffolders because of a petrol shortage.
2. It repaired the roof on 26 October 2021.
3. It needed to do mould washes and an asbestos survey before it could replaster, and these were done by 8 February 2022.
4. The initial appointment to look at the floorboards was on 29 April 2022 with follow-up works.
5. The appointment for replastering was rebooked for 16 May 2022 having been rescheduled from 1 April 2022.
6. It accepted it should have communicated to the resident sooner that a roofing contractor was needed.
7. It accepted that the level of service was below standard and that its communication could have been better. It said this was due to communication delays with different departments and contractors, a repairs backlog, and a severe lack of operative availability.
8. The landlord also acknowledged the distress caused to the resident by having multiple repairs and waiting for appointments when she needed to collect her daughter from school. The landlord offered the resident £740 in compensation.
The resident asked her landlord to rearrange an appointment in June 2022 to look at the floorboards. She suggested to her landlord that it may wish to look at the flooring in neighbouring properties. The surveyor’s appointment was rebooked for 27 July 2022 and the surveyor agreed to investigate.
The resident asked her landlord to escalate her complaint about the flooring on 12 August 2022. The landlord told the resident it could not do this as it had not failed to resolve the issue and a contractor would be in touch.
The resident referred her complaint to this service about the time taken by her landlord to repair her roof and replaster the small bedroom. She also asked this service to consider the outstanding work to the floorboards.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s policies and legal framework

The resident’s tenancy agreement requires the landlord to keep the exterior and structure of the resident’s property in repair, this includes the roof.
The landlord’s routine repairs policy indicates that the void standard must be met at the point the property is let. It also states that any planned work must be done in line with its programmed maintenance policy. It clarifies that the landlord is responsible for repairing internal walls, ceilings, floorboards, and plasterwork.
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a duty on the landlord to repair and keep in repair the roof, gutters, and external pipes where any disrepair affects a resident’s enjoyment of their home. Section 9A of the Act creates a legal duty to ensure the property is fit for human habitation before and during a resident’s occupation.
The homes standard of the Regulator for Social Housing requires landlords to meet each standard in the UK government’s decent homes standard. Under the decent homes standard, a property will fail the reasonable state of repair condition if it has an old roof in need of major repair.
As part of the homes standard landlords should assess their housing stock for hazards identified in the Housing Health and Safety Rating System. This includes mould growth and damp. Landlords should put in place additional monitoring and remedial action where such risks are identified.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on repairs contains several recommendations for landlords including:
1. Agreeing actions and timescales for responding and informing residents of any delays and why these are necessary.
2. Monitoring progress and setting out any further actions needed with timescales, even where these are provisional.
3. Offering compensation in line with their policies.
Under the landlord’s complaint policy, it must respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days. It has 20 working days to respond at stage 2. The landlord can award discretionary compensation. The landlord can also offer a rent refund if a resident is unable to fully use a room due to a disrepair it is responsible for.

The landlord’s handling of the roof repair, including dealing with the damp and mould

The landlord was responsible for any roof repairs. The landlord was on notice of disrepair in May 2021 and was under a duty to investigate this within a reasonable time. This was to establish the cause of the water penetration and assess any hazards caused by the mould. There is no evidence the landlord inspected the property before July 2021.
The landlord’s repairs policy does not say how quickly it should respond to a roof disrepair. However, the Ombudsman considers the delay of 2 months, without any explanation, was unreasonable as repairs to roofs are usually prioritised.
The evidence shows that the landlord visited the resident on 28 July 2021 and identified that it needed to erect scaffolding. The landlord inspected the resident’s roof and loft on 12 August 2021. These were reasonable steps to take to allow the repair of the roof leak. It showed the landlord was trying to put things right which is one of the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles.
There was a delay in the roofing repairs because the landlord’s contractors reported difficulty in getting a scaffolder. The roof repair could not start without scaffolding, and this was not in place until the end of September 2021. The landlord completed the roof works by 27 October 2021. Whilst the resident was waiting for scaffolding the landlord arranged for mould washes to help reduce the effects of the mould.
The Ombudsman considers that whilst the initial delay in dealing with the roof leak between May and July 2021 was unreasonable the subsequent actions of the landlord were satisfactory. This is because the landlord inspected the resident’s property in July and August 2021 and identified the need for roof repairs. It erected scaffolding as soon as it could and arranged mould washes to contain the mould whilst the roof works were pending.
This service has seen no evidence that the resident could not use the bedrooms or that the roof leak and damp and mould caused health problems. The Ombudsman considers the landlord acted to put things right by completing the work and offering compensation to the resident. The total amount of compensation offered is in line with the amount this service would expect.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord has adopted a new policy on damp and mould which was effective from May 2023. This demonstrates a commitment to resolving damp and mould issues and keeping residents updated.

The landlord’s handling of reports of loose floorboards

The resident first reported issues with her floorboards being loose and creaky in May 2021. The landlord is responsible for keeping in repair the floorboards. This service understands this issue is still outstanding although the landlord disputes this. It is unclear whether the floorboards are in disrepair as this service has not seen any reports about their condition. The landlord would only be under a duty to repair them if they were defective or if their condition had worsened.
What is clear is that the landlord intended to visit the resident’s property on 22 July 2021 in connection with the floorboards, but the resident rebooked this for 18 August 2021. It is unclear what the landlord did at this appointment or the reason the landlord took no action to inspect the floorboards before July 2021. This was a service failure as the landlord failed to communicate with the resident about its responsibilities and what it planned.
It was appropriate for the landlord to inspect the resident’s property on 6 August 2021. However, this service considers the landlord’s decision to refer the issue to its major works team was inappropriate. This is because the landlord’s major works standing operating procedure only deals with kitchens, bathrooms, windows, and doors.
According to the evidence it took the landlord 5 months to appoint a contractor. It took a further 3 months for the contractor to offer an initial appointment on 29 April 2022. This service has not seen any repair survey reports or repair records to understand the nature of the problem. The landlord has not explained why it told the resident it would treat the floorboards as requiring major works. It also failed to explain what work, if any, it had agreed or how long it might take.
The resident requested the landlord reschedule an appointment with the landlord’s surveyor booked for 28 June 2022. This was rescheduled for 27 July 2022, but it is unclear what action the landlord took subsequently. The landlord states it resolved the floorboard issue by January 2023 but the resident disputes this. However, the landlord has provided no evidence to show how it resolved the loose floorboards.
The Ombudsman considers that the level of communication and information given to the resident was unreasonable. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on repairs recommends landlords agree on timescales for work with residents and monitor progress. This is to satisfy another of the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles which requires landlords to treat people fairly.
This service has not seen any evidence that the landlord actively chased any outstanding work to the floorboards, agreed timescales, or updated the resident. This increased the resident’s frustration and distress and amounted to maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of replastering

The landlord was under a legal duty to repair the damaged plasterwork within a reasonable time. Realistically the landlord was unable to replaster the bedroom until October 2021. This is because the internal repair work could not start until the landlord repaired the cause of the leak. The landlord also needed to do an asbestos test on the bedroom wall and ceiling before it could start the replastering. The landlord booked this test in December for 28 January 2022.
There was a significant delay in arranging the test between October 2021 and December 2021 and another delay in an appointment to repair the damaged plasterwork. This amounts to a failure.
However overall, the landlord’s response to the replastering work was satisfactory. When the landlord knew that it would be unable to make the appointment for 8 March 2022 it contacted the resident several days beforehand and rescheduled this. It also acted reasonably in rescheduling the appointment for 16 March 2022 and 1 April 2022 at the resident’s request.
These actions showed the landlord was responsive to the resident when it came to arranging appointments for replastering work. The landlord was not fully responsible for the delays and there was no evidence the resident experienced a detriment.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The resident complained about the non-attendance of an operative on 5 July 2021. The landlord responded by explaining it had booked a private contractor who would attend. It apologised and sent the resident a £20 voucher. This was a reasonable step to take as it was in line with its compensation policy.
When the resident requested an escalation of her complaint on 5 August 2021 the landlord reopened her complaint. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 22 December 2021. This was 87 working days after it should have responded.
Although it upheld the resident’s complaint about the leak and said it would do any work needed to reduce the risk of mould regrowth it did not offer redress. The landlord’s response failed to address the outstanding plastering work or comment on the flooring. It was therefore unsatisfactory.
Although it is unclear when the resident escalated the complaint there was a further delay responding at stage 2. This is because the landlord told the resident in February 2022 that it was still investigating. The landlord responded on 10 May 2022. It offered the resident £740. This included an amount of £100 for the delays, £200 for distress and inconvenience, and £150 for time and trouble. It did not comment on the delays in complaint handling or show how it had learnt from the complaint.
The landlord’s compensation policy allows for a payment of £200 for poor complaint handling, where there have been long delays that caused a detriment. The delay in complaint handling delayed the referral of the complaint to this service. The Ombudsman considers that this meant that the resident experienced a detriment by not being able to have her complaint considered earlier.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has offered the resident redress prior to the investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the handling of the roof leak, damp, and mould satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of loose floorboards.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the way the landlord handled the replastering work.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered, within 28 days of the date of this determination, to:
1. Pay the resident the additional sum of £100 for the failures in complaint handling leading to a delay in referral of the complaint.
2. Pay the resident an additional sum of £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the handling of the plastering and its lack of communication regarding the floorboards.
3. Write to the resident with details of any further work that it proposes in connection with the floorboards, including a timescale for completion. If no additional work is required, the landlord should confirm this in writing to the resident with reasons.
4. Provide evidence to the Ombudsman of compliance with these orders.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident the sum of £740 that it offered the resident within 28 days of the date of this determination unless it has already done so.