London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202207761)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207761

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

31 March 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

This complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to several leaks, mould and condensation;
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured shorthold tenant and her original tenancy began in 2012. The property is a two-bedroom flat on the second floor of a block. The resident occupies the property with her two young children. The Ombudsman has seen a copy of her original tenancy agreement.
More recent tenancy documents, from May 2017, confirm the landlord is responsible for ensuring the structure and exterior of the property are “kept repaired”. The landlord is also obliged to apply this approach to the block’s communal areas. The documents suggest the resident’s monthly rent is £1,100.67.
The landlord’s repairs policy shows it will attend emergency repairs, which are considered to present an immediate danger, within 24 hours. It also shows the landlord will complete routine repairs at the earliest mutually convenient appointment.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. Its complaints policy shows it aims to respond to complaints within ten working days at stage one. At stage two, it aims to respond within 20 working days. A further ten working days is available at both stages providing the resident is kept informed.

Summary of events

On 28 October 2021 the resident reported a leak from the property was affecting the communal hallway outside. The landlord’s contact records said she reported there was no obvious leak in the property’s main rooms. However, she said there was a loose title above her basin.
On 15 November 2021 the resident reported damp in the hallway was getting progressively worse. She said the block’s caretaker was concerned it related to the property. However, an engineer had checked the property around two weeks ago.
On 26 November 2021 the resident raised a formal complaint by email. She said works were underway to trace the leak. However, she came home to find dust, sand and water in the hallway outside the property. Further, these materials were seeping under her front door. The resident was concerned about their impact on her children’s eczema. She said the situation was unacceptable and all second floor residents were affected.
The resident sent a follow up email three days later. She said the leak was impacting other floors in the block. As a result, she was concerned for the safety of block residents. She also said her daughter had tripped on a raised carpet which engineers left in the hallway. Further, her tiles had not been repaired.
The resident called the landlord on 30 November 2021. Call notes said she raised a repair to address uneven flooring in the hallway. They suggest the resident was concerned the ongoing hallway works had not progressed since 26 November 2021. Contact records show the landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day. Nevertheless, no information was seen to show it ultimately responded at stage one.
The landlord updated the resident by email on 2 December 2021. It said its engineer had removed trip-hazards and made the hallway safe. Further, a repair order had been raised check the property and a neighbouring flat for leaks. Once the area was dry, the hallway’s flooring and carpet could be replaced. The landlord also said the complaint had been assigned to a surveyor.
The Ombudsman has seen several undated images that appear to show the hallway stripped-back to its concrete floor. Further images appeared to show damp patches on the walls around ankle height. From these images, grit was evident across the concrete floor, which also appeared damp in patches.
The resident replied the following day. She said both flats had already been checked and a relevant repair order should have been raised over a month ago. Further, since it had been ongoing for several months, she was surprised routine block inspections failed to identify the damp. She said a wet patch on the carpet had expanded before travelling up the hallway walls discolouring the paint. She also said the smell of damp had increased over time.
On 9 December 2021 the landlord asked the resident whether the leak was ongoing. This was on the basis a plumber attended on 2 December 2021 and advised the landlord it was resolved. Around one week later, the landlord chased its contractor for an update on the flooring repairs.
In an email update on 20 December 2021, the resident told the landlord she was unhappy it closed her complaint. She said its communication to date was inadequate and repairs were incomplete. Though an engineer recently traced a leak in the property’s bathroom, the works caused significant damage. Further, the bathroom had been left in an unsafe and unpleasant condition for her young family. Her main points were:
1. The engineer found a pipe attached to the toilet was not fitted properly. The resident moved in when the property was new and the bathroom had been repainted several times due to staining. She was worried damp from the long-term leak had damaged the family’s health. For example, her daughter recently experienced a severe eczema flare-up and a lingering cough. The resident did not feel “at peace” within the property.
2. Two previous inspections failed to identify the leak and a repair order for the property’s floor tiles and bath panel was outstanding. Recent interactions with the landlord highlighted issues with its record keeping and there was a delay in obtaining an inspection report from a contractor.
3. The following actions were necessary to resolve matters: the complaint to be reopened an allocated to a senior manager, major repairs to the bathroom and hallway to be scheduled urgently, inspection by an independent surveyor, the family to be decanted due to health risks associated with dust and debris and adequate ventilation to be installed in the bathroom.
The Ombudsman has seen several undated images that appear to record the landlord’s efforts to trace the leak in the property’s bathroom. They show several large floor tiles were removed, along with pipe boxing and a bath panel. They indicate damp floorboards below the tiles were left exposed. They also appear to show damp woodwork and black mould in areas usually covered by the pipe boxing.
During internal correspondence the following day, the landlord confirmed the complaint had been “reactivated”. It said the case may need escalating. No information was seen to show the resident was updated at this point.
The landlord’s correspondence shows the following events occurred on 5 January 2022:
1. A local MP contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf. They said it had not responded to the resident’s previous email.
2. The landlord apologised for closing the resident’s case. It confirmed her complaint had been reopened and escalated. However, it said the stage two response was likely to be delayed.
3. The landlord’s surveyor said an inspection was already scheduled to take place the following day.
The landlord emailed its contractor on 7 February 2022. It said it was disappointed not to receive a response to a previous chaser email. Since, it was aware the contractor had not updated the resident either, the landlord said the relevant works order would be cancelled and an alternative contractor would be found.
On 2 March 2022 the landlord apologised for its delayed complaint response. Its holding correspondence said a complaint handler would get in touch with the resident soon.
On 4 April 2022 the resident chased the landlord’s surveyor. She said the new contractor had not scheduled an appointment and it failed to call her back as promised. Further, the landlord was failing in its duty of care and the building was not fit for purpose. She also said there was a large amount of water in the hallway and her mental and physical health were being impacted.
The same day, the surveyor replied they had chased the contractor and they would monitor the situation. Further, the contractor was asked to address mould and condensation in the property’s utility cupboard. The surveyor confirmed the landlord was aware of the leak in the communal hallway and said an engineer would attend within 24 hours. They also confirmed they were leading the response to the resident’s complaint.
Two days later, the surveyor updated the resident by email. They said a leak from a neighbouring flat, that was affecting both the property and the hallway, had been repaired the previous day. However, both areas needed to dry before follow up repairs could begin. A repair order would be raised with the new contractor to complete the works.
The landlord’s correspondence confirms the following events occurred between 9 and 15 June 2022:
1. The resident updated the landlord by email. She said more than six months had passed and, despite three separate chaser emails, no repair date was scheduled. Further, the family had been living with a “half ripped out” bathroom and an “industrial sized” dehumidifier had been left at the property. During internal correspondence the same day, the landlord told the surveyor it would “re-open” the complaint.
2. In internal correspondence the following day, the surveyor said works to the property’s bathroom were postponed because a new leak from a neighbouring flat had been discovered. They also said the dehumidifier was issued because this leak had “re-affected” the property. Further, the original repair order had to be cancelled in line with the landlord’s procedures.
3. The surveyor apologised to the resident for the delay. They said they had instructed the contractor to return when the property was dry. However, they since learned the contractor had been instructed, by the landlord’s Commercial Team, to close the repair order. This was due to the length of time it remained open. They surveyor said they were not informed about this decision. They asked the resident if she needed a new inspection.
The resident asked the Ombudsman to intervene in July 2022. The following month, we asked the landlord to clarify its position within ten working days.
The landlord’s repair history shows a works order to: repair wall, renew skirting boards and paint in the hallway was marked complete on 3 August 2022.
The parties exchanged emails on 24 August 2022. The exchange was prompted by the landlord’s confirmation the complaint had been allocated for investigation. It said it would respond to the following issues by 7 September 2021: raised carpet, bathroom tiles and leak to communal wall. The resident replied additional issues needed including in the response. This was because: bathroom floor tiles needed repairing, there had been two new leaks to the communal hallway and a dehumidifier, hired by the landlord, had been left at the property since April 2022.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 7 September 2022. It acknowledged repairs to the property were incomplete. It awarded the resident £630 in compensation comprising: £80 for delayed complaint escalation; £150 for communication issues, including delays and incorrect information; £100 for facilitating access on “numerous” occasions; £250 for the delayed repairs to the property and £50 for costs incurred running the dehumidifier for one month. The main points were:
1. Though they were reported in November 2021, works to the communal hallway were not fully completed until 10 August 2022. The extensive works were delayed by an additional leak which impacted some areas the landlord previously repaired.
2. The first reported leak to the property was repaired in December 2021. During 2022, several works orders were raised to address additional leaks, including one from a neighbouring flat. Repairs to the bathroom and storage area remained incomplete.
3. The landlord’s contractor had been instructed to complete all repairs identified during the surveyor’s inspection on 1 September 2022. It would contact the resident the following week to arrange them. The landlord understood the dehumidifier was collected around 5 September 2022. The property’s kitchen and bathroom fans would be overhauled.
4. The landlord understood the resident was told she would need to raise her complaint with a different member of staff. This was on the basis her main complaint point of contact had left the organisation. It was sorry the resident had been advised incorrectly. It understood this information prompted the resident to contact her MP and the Ombudsman.
The resident replied the same day. She said, contrary to the landlord’s response, she was told the complaint would remain open until the repairs were complete. Further, the response was inadequate since the family were unable to use their main bathroom for around ten months. As a result, their shower room was now in poor condition. Additionally, it took the Ombudsman’s intervention to progress her complaint. She said the compensation was insufficient given the various impacts to the family.
The resident’s correspondence prompted the landlord to reconsider its position. It subsequently issued a follow up response on 8 September 2022. It said its overall compensation award would be increased to £980 in total. This was based on an additional £100 for communication issues and a further £250 for delayed repairs to the property. The main points were:
1. The landlord was sorry to hear about the resident’s distress and inconvenience. It had increased its compensation based on her comments. She should contact the landlord’s Insurance Team if she wanted to pursue her reported health impacts further. Contact details were provided.
2. The landlord would monitor the repairs and check in with the resident regularly until they were complete. The resident could contact the landlord if she needed any assistance during these works.
The landlord’s repair history shows a repair order for works to the bathroom and washing machine cupboard following leaks into the property was marked complete on 28 October 2022. This was around eleven months after the landlord traced and repaired the leak in the property’s bathroom. It was also around seven weeks after the landlord’s follow up response.
The repair history shows a works order to overhaul extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom was marked complete on 25 January 2023. This was around 13 months after the resident raised the issue of ventilation in the bathroom. It was also around five months after the refurbishment works were highlighted by the surveyor’s inspection.
The resident updated the Ombudsman during a phone call on 15 March 2023. She said all the repairs raised during her complaint were complete. However, she had chased outstanding repairs on several occasions and the overall delays needed to be addressed.

Assessment and findings

It is recognised the situation was distressing for the resident. The timeline shows it took considerable time to complete the repairs. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. Unlike a court, we are unable to establish liability or award damages. In other words, we cannot establish whether damp and mould related to the leaks caused the family any health issues.

The landlord’s response to several leaks, mould and condensation

The landlord recognised it was responsible for delays and failures in relation to the leaks. It also acknowledged the impact to the resident and her family. It correctly awarded her compensation to put things right. Its complaint correspondence suggests, in total, its relevant compensation award amounted to £600 after the landlord’s follow-up response. This figure excludes the £50 awarded to cover the costs of running the dehumidifier. The resident has said thelandlord’s award was disproportionate given its overall response to the leaks.
In relation to the failures identified the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
In relation to the bathroom, the timeline points to an inappropriate delay of around ten months. This was based on the period between 2 December 2021 and 28 October 2022. This calculation was based on the premise that remedial works to the bathroom should have reasonably been completed around one month after the landlord traced and repaired the leak. During the above timeframe the resident reported the repair had caused significant damage to the bathroom. She later described the bathroom as half ripped out.
Images the resident provided appear to support this description. They show pipe boxing and a large bath panel were removed. They suggest pipework, debris and mould were left exposed. The information seen indicates floorboards around the basin and toilet were also left exposed. No information was seen to suggest any of these issues were addressed before October 2022. It is accepted the landlord postponed the repairs due to further leaks elsewhere. Nevertheless, the evidence suggests the family had to live with an incomplete bathroom through no fault of their own.
No evidence was seen to show the bathroom was uninhabitable. However, given the circumstances, it is reasonable to conclude the resident’s enjoyment of the room was severely reduced whilst it remained incomplete. In April 2022 she told the landlord repairs in and around the property were impacting her physical and mental health. Her comments confirm she found the situation distressing. Given the above, the resident cannot fairly be expected to pay her full rent given the condition of the bathroom. The Ombudsman’s redress calculation will be based on a 5% rent refund over the duration of the above identified delay period.
The timeline confirms there were other significant delays. For example, it suggests it took around nine months to repair the communal hallway following the leaks. This is based on the period between 28 October 2021 and 10 August 2022. The resident has not disputed the completion date in the landlord’s stage two response, which was broadly supported by its repair history. Again, one month would represent a reasonable repair timescale.
It is reasonable to conclude the condition of the hallway also impacted the resident’s enjoyment of her home. The information seen indicates the family could have trailed dust into the property when they crossed the exposed concrete floor. Regardless, the resident’s images suggest the stripped back hallway was unpleasant. Given the above, the Ombudsman will order separate compensation to address the distress and inconvenience caused by this delay. This calculation will be based on a flat rate of £30 per month during the above identified delay period.
The timeline points to additional delays in respect of the extractor fans and the utility cupboard. It suggests the resident first raised the issue of ventilation on 20 December 2021. Since the refurbishment works were not completed until 25 January 2023, the evidence indicates there was an inappropriate delay of around 12 months. It is reasonable to conclude the landlord should have promptly inspected the fans following the resident’s initial report. No information was seen to indicate it did this. Its eventual completion of the works suggests it agreed the ventilation was inadequate.
The timeline suggests the resident raised concerns about condensation and mould in the utility cupboard around 4 April 2022. The repair history suggests remedial works were completed on 28 October 2022. This points to a similar delay of around six months. The information seen indicates these issues had a lesser, but nevertheless significant, impact on the resident and her family. The Ombudsman’s redress calculation will be based on a proportionate compensation rate, given the information seen, of £10 per month for each identified delay period.
Having carefully considered the key delays and failures, the landlord’s compensation award was disproportionate given both what went wrong and the associated impact to the resident and her family. Measuring the impacts in the manner shown above may have helped the landlord reach a more proportionate compensation figure. Given the above, there was service failure in respect of this complaint point. This finding reflects the landlord’s acceptance of it various failings and it efforts to redress the resident accordingly.

The landlord’s complaint handling

Its complaint correspondence confirms the landlord also accepted responsibility for several complaint handling delays and failures that impacted the resident. The wording of the correspondence suggests it awarded her a total of £330 in related compensation. This was based on the £80 it awarded for delayed complaint escalation, and the £250 it awarded for relevant communication failures, including incorrect information about her point of contact. It shows the landlord recognised its poor communication prompted the resident to approach third parties for help.
The above suggests the landlord understood that involving third-parties should not have been necessary. Further, that involving them caused the resident additional distress and inconvenience. The timeline shows the landlord was right to award the resident compensation given the circumstances. It also shows it took the landlord around nine months to issue a formal complaint response. This was based on the period between 26 November 2021 and 7 September 2022. This was an inappropriate timeframe given the landlord’s response timescales.
Considering what went wrong, and the associated impact to the resident, the evidence suggests the landlord’s compensation was proportionate. In other words, the level of compensation awarded reflected the landlord’s key failures and was consistent with the Ombudsman’s expectations for cases of this type. However, no information was seen to show the landlord attempted to use the resident’s poor experience to improve its service for other residents. Its complaint correspondence should have reasonably signposted any identified learnings.
The timeline suggests the landlord overlooked key learnings in this case. For example, it shows the landlord unfairly closed the resident’s complaint on two occasions without issuing a formal complaint response. This was based on the resident’s correspondence from 20 December 2021, and the landlord’s internal correspondence from 9 June 2022. It was noted the landlord was unable to provide a stage one response letter. This was contrary to section 3.10 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), as published in July 2020, which said landlords should keep full complaint records including the outcomes issued at each stage.
It was also noted the landlord’s 2 December 2021 correspondence said the complaint had been allocated to a surveyor. The same surveyor subsequently received the landlord’s internal correspondence in June 2022. This indicates they were also tasked with issuing the resident’s stage two response. It is reasonable to conclude complaint handling was not the surveyor’s area of expertise. Further, any staff involved in complaint handling should receive dedicated complaints training to ensure they can comply with appropriate standards.
Closing the resident’s complaint without responding was both unfair and inappropriate. The evidence indicates the surveyor may have been responsible for the landlord’s error. This should have been reasonably apparent during the landlord’s complaint investigation. Regardless, the landlord should have made some attempt to address the internal failures it identified. For example, it could have, at least, provided feedback to the department responsible for providing incorrect information about the resident’s point of contact.
The above suggests the landlord failed to demonstrate an appropriate willingness to learn from outcomes, which was also contrary to the Code. Section 6.6 of the Code said “an effective complaints process” enables a landlord to learn from issues and take steps to improve its services and internal processes. It is reasonable to conclude that signposting improvements in complaint responses can be a valuable tool for reassuring residents. This approach also demonstrates a positive and transparent complaints culture.
Given the above, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling. Though it awarded the resident proportionate compensation, the landlord, contrary to the Code, failed to demonstrate an appropriate willingness to learn from outcomes. In this case, it should have reasonably identified key learnings and taken steps to embed them. From the information seen, the landlord should review its complaint allocation process to ensure complaints are being allocated to relevant staff.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling
2. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to several leaks.

Reasons

The landlord’s compensation award was disproportionate given both what went wrong and the associated impact to the resident and her family. Measuring the impacts in the manner shown above may have helped the landlord reach a more proportionate compensation figure. That said, the landlord accepted various delays and failures and attempted to put things right.
Though it awarded the resident proportionate compensation in respect of its complaint handling failures, the landlord failed to demonstrate an appropriate willingness to learn from outcomes. In this case, it should have reasonably identified key learnings and taken steps to embed them.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £1,300.34 in compensation within four weeks. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. This figure supersedes the landlord’s previous award of £980. The landlord should deduct any amount it has already paid, from the £980, from the above total. The compensation comprises:
1. £550.34 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s response to the bathroom leak.
2. £240 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s response to the hallway leaks.
3. £120 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s response to her ventilation concerns.
4. £60 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused the landlord’s response to her concerns about mould in the utility cupboard.
5. £330 the landlord awarded at stage two to reflect its complaint handling delays and failures.
Within four weeks, the landlord’s leadership to review the report’s key findings and provide the Ombudsman a report detailing how it intends to improve and what changes have been implemented to avoid similar failures in the future. Particular attention should be paid to allocating complaints to relevant staff, closing complaints, learning from outcomes and calculating redress. The landlord should cascade its learnings to any relevant staff.

Recommendations

The landlord to review its procedures for monitoring outstanding repair orders. This is with a view to ensuring overdue orders are chased periodically, and relevant stakeholders are notified when incomplete orders are closed.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders and confirm its intentions with regards to the recommendation within four weeks.