London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202208960)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208960

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

24 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
   2. The window repair issues.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
3. The resident initially reported damp and mould in the property in December 2021. A surveyor subsequently attended on 28 January 2022 and follow-on works were raised. The resident reported a recurrence of the mould on 13 July 2022 and a further survey was completed.
4. The resident raised a complaint on 23 July 2022 as she said there had been damp and mould in the property 3 times since she moved in. She said the issues had impacted her health. She did not want to pay rent for the period between moving in and the damp and mould being resolved. She also requested compensation for damaged items and time taken off work for appointments.
5. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 27 July 2022.
   1. It said that a contractor completed an assessment and a clean and shield on 24 February 2022. A surveyor attended on 1 March 2022 and works were subsequently completed to clear the external air vents and the external gully and repair the external concrete.
   2. A further work order had been raised to clean and shield the affected areas and a contractor would call her to schedule repairs to the second bedroom blown window gasket.
   3. It would assess whether the external area could be used for drying clothes.
   4. It signposted the resident to her content’s insurance and its liability insurance for compensation for damaged personal items.
   5. It would continue to monitor the outstanding issues.
6. The resident raised a second complaint on 9 September 2022 as the window gasket in her son’s bedroom had been blown since she moved in on 5 July 2021. The issue had been reported 3 times by the contractors that had attended to assess the damp and mould. She requested compensation.
7. In the landlord’s stage 1 response on 7 November 2022, it apologised for the delays and said the repair would be completed on 10 November 2022. It offered £210 compensation, comprised of £80 for the delay, £80 for inconvenience, and £50 for time and effort.
8. On 2 November 2022, the resident requested to escalate her complaint. She said her son was unable to sleep in his room due to damp.
9. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 17 March 2023. It stated:
   1. It reiterated the actions taken, outlined in its stage 1 response. It apologised that the repairs had not resolved the damp and mould.
   2. The resident reported a recurrence of damp in July 2022 and a contractor attended on 21 July 2022. The contractor reported the same causes of damp and that the repairs had been completed. A clean and shield and a repair to the thermostatic radiator valve in the bedroom were also completed.
   3. On 2 November 2022, the resident reported her son’s room smelt of damp but it was not visible. The landlord attended on 24 November 2022 and found evidence of damp in both rooms. The resident declined a clean and shield and the matter was referred to the surveyor.
   4. It apologised that the ongoing issues had impacted her health.
   5. It explained that several repairs can be required to resolve damp and mould and it must allow time for the repairs to work and the areas to dry out to assess whether the repairs were successful.
   6. It was unable to offer a rent reduction as the rent covered the whole property, and the damp and mould only impacted certain rooms. The impacted rooms were useable.
   7. It said it had not received prior reports of damp and mould before she moved in, and it had completed numerous repairs during the void period to ensure the property was liveable.
   8. It asked the resident to confirm whether the surveyor could attend on 24 March 2022, to ensure the works had been completed correctly. It also asked whether she would agree to an intrusive cavity wall survey, recommended by the surveyor.
   9. It had escalated the resident’s request to investigate the bin storage to enable her to dry clothes outside. It could cover the cost of the dehumidifier up to £60, to help manage the damp as she currently dried clothes inside.
   10. It offered £80 compensation for distress and inconvenience and £100 for poor complaint handling and the delay in escalating the complaint. It provided its insurers details for compensation for damaged personal belongings.
10. In the resident’s complaint to the Service, she said she remained dissatisfied as the damp issues were still ongoing, there was poor ventilation, the flat was cold, and the walls were wet. She said environmental health had found rising damp. She wanted to be moved to a suitable property.

Scope of investigation

11. The Ombudsman notes the resident’s assertion that the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould has negatively impacted her health. She has also provided supporting evidence from her doctor. While the Ombudsman is sorry to hear this, it is beyond the expertise of the Service to determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or lack thereof) and the impact on the resident’s health.
12. Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts are able to rely on expert evidence in the form of a medico-legal report. This will give an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. This would be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation and so should the resident wish to pursue this matter, she should do so via this route. This investigation will only consider whether the landlord acted in accordance with its policy / its legal obligations, and fairly in the circumstances.
13. The resident raised concerns that she was unsuitably housed into her current property by the local authority. Complaints about local authorities and the suitability of their housing allocations are a matter for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). In accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints that “fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”. As a result, this element of the complaint will not be considered within the report, and if the resident remains dissatisfied, she should refer the matter to the LGSCO. Nonetheless, the landlord should ensure it addresses any repair issues that impact the suitability of the property.
14. The resident has also raised concerns about ongoing noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour issues from the flat above. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of the Service. As this issue has not completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, it will not be assessed within the report. If the resident remains dissatisfied, she can raise a formal complaint directly with the landlord and progress as a new formal complaint if required. The Service may then be able to consider the issue as a new complaint.

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

15. The tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the structure and exterior of the property. Its repairs policy also states it is responsible for repairs to penetrative and rising damp. As such, it would be expected to carry out any repairs to the structure of the property which were giving rise to damp and mould. The landlord also has a duty under the Housing Act 2004 to assess a property for potential hazards to a resident’s health. One such hazard is the risk to health from damp and mould. Therefore, it had a responsibility to carry out any work to the structure of the property and mitigate any issues which were contributing to the damp and mould. The landlord’s repairs policy, states “for routine day to day repairs, we will aim to complete the repair in an average of 25 calendar days.”
16. The resident initially reported damp and mould in the property on 30 December 2021. The landlord responded appropriately as a survey was completed on 28 January 2022. The surveyor found that there was a possible failure of the damp proof course on the main bedroom external wall, which required specialist investigation, and repairs were required to the second bedroom window. It was appropriate that a clean and shield was completed in the interim, to improve the resident’s living environment.
17. The surveyor’s report also noted condensation in the property. It was therefore appropriate that they provided the resident with advice on effectively heating the property to prevent the issue. It is important to note, that if the resident has followed the landlord’s advice but this has not resolved the problem, the landlord would be expected to investigate the matter further and consider whether any other measures may be needed to reduce condensation.
18. In its complaint response, the landlord said a survey was completed on 1 March 2022. The Service has not seen a copy of the report, but the repair records show the associated work orders were raised on 7 March 2022. The vents in the external wall render were cleared on 6 June 2022 and repairs to the cracks along the external concrete plinth and to clear the external gully were completed on 30 June 2022. It therefore took almost 4 months to complete the required repairs, following the issues being identified. This was an unreasonable delay.
19. The landlord has not acknowledged or commented on any reasons for the delays. If repair timeframes cannot be met, the landlord’s primary focus should be on taking clear and appropriate steps to resolve the issue in a reasonable timeframe, arranging temporary fixes in the interim, keeping the resident appropriately up to date, and managing their expectations. As the landlord failed to inform the resident of any reasons for the delay or manage her expectations regarding the timeframe for the works, this was a failing.
20. The landlord also said it would assess whether the external drying area could be changed, as it was currently next to the bin storage, so the resident had to dry her clothes inside. However, despite repeated reassurances that the issue would be addressed, the resident informed the Service no changes have been made. In its stage 2 response, the landlord offered the resident £60 for a dehumidifier, to manage the damp caused by drying clothes inside. While this was a reasonable step, given the length of time the issues had been ongoing, it would have been helpful to have offered it at an earlier stage.
21. The resident reported a recurrence of the mould on 13 July 2022. It was appropriate that another survey was completed on 21 July 2022. The surveyor reiterated there was a possible damp proof course failure and issues with the bedroom window. A repair was also raised for the thermostatic radiator valve and a clean and shield was completed.
22. The resident raised a complaint on 23 July 2022, due to the recurrence of damp. In response, the landlord outlined the repairs it had completed and said the contractor would contact her directly to arrange an appointment to repair the window. It should have been more proactive to ensure the issues were resolved.
23. The resident reported her son’s room smelt of damp on 2 November 2022. The landlord attended on 24 November 2022 and found evidence of damp in both bedrooms. It offered a clean and shield, which was declined by the resident as there was no visible mould, and it referred the matter to the surveyor. There is no evidence that the surveyor attended until 27 April 2023, despite the resident reporting in February 2023 that mould was present in her son’s room and was impacting his health. This was an unreasonable delay, which caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
24. Following the visit on 27 April 2023, the surveyor said that the cavity insulation should be inspected, the air bricks should be cleared again, and the extractor fans needed to be replaced. In correspondence with the resident’s MP in September 2023, the landlord confirmed the air bricks had been cleared, it would request an update on the extractor fan replacement and arrange a further inspection.
25. It is evident from the recent findings of environmental health, that the damp and mould is still ongoing in the property. It was reasonable that the landlord explained to the resident that there is “no one size fits all approach” to resolving damp and mould issues, and multiple repairs are sometimes necessary. It also said it must allow time for the repairs to work and areas to dry out to know if it’s been successful. However, the damp and mould issues have been intermittently ongoing for almost 2 years. While numerous repairs can be necessary, the landlord’s failure to promptly complete the repairs identified by the surveyor caused delays in putting in place a lasting and effective fix and reaching a full resolution.
26. In her complaint, the resident requested compensation for damage to her belongings and for time taken off work to accommodate the repairs. The landlord signposted the resident to her content’s insurance, and its liability insurance, which was in line with its compensation policy. It therefore would not be required to assess the resident’s request within the complaints process. The landlord also would not be expected to reimburse the resident for time off work. Although it is recognised the repair appointments will have inevitably caused some inconvenience, the tenancy agreement requires the resident to give access for repairs.
27. The resident also requested a rent reimbursement from the date she moved into the property, until the issues were resolved. The resident moved into the property in July 2021, and she initially reported damp and mould on 30 December 2021. The landlord explained that a full inspection and numerous repairs were completed before she moved in to ensure it was in a livable condition. The landlord therefore demonstrated that it took the appropriate steps to ensure that the property was in a lettable standard at the beginning of the tenancy. As a result, it would not be appropriate to consider compensation for this period as there is no indication that the landlord would reasonably have been aware of damp and mould issues within the property at an earlier stage or could have taken actions to prevent the issues. There is also no evidence that the property was uninhabitable due to the mould, so it was not unreasonable that the landlord declined to reimburse the rent paid. Nonetheless, in view of the failings identified in this report, compensation is warranted.
28. Overall, it is evident that there were several failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. There were significant delays in completing the recommended repairs, which it failed to acknowledge. There was also a substantial delay in arranging the survey when the resident reported a recurrence of damp in November 2022. In addition, the landlord does not seem to have considered or addressed the resident’s medical concerns when determining how best to proceed with the repairs. This is of particular concern as the resident has provided the landlord with supporting evidence from her doctor, explaining that the property is impacting both her and her son’s health. It also failed to manage the resident’s expectations regarding changes to the external drying area. The failings caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident, particularly as she was concerned about the impact on her family’s health.
29. In its final response, the landlord offered £80 compensation for distress and inconvenience, £100 for poor complaint handling, and £60 towards a dehumidifier. In view of the failings identified, the compensation was not proportionate. In line with the Service’s remedies guidance, awards of £100-£600 are appropriate when the landlord has acknowledged failings but failed to address the detriment to the resident and the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified in the investigation. The landlord is therefore ordered to pay the resident an additional £400 compensation.

The window repair issues

30. The tenancy agreement states the landlord “will carry out repairs we are responsible for, such as repairing or replacing fixtures and fitting”. As such, it should complete any necessary repairs within its repair timeframes.
31. The contractor identified that repairs were required to the second bedroom window on 28 January 2022 as the window gaskets had blown and there was condensation between the glazing. The landlord did not raise a work order for the repairs until 25 February 2022, which was an avoidable delay.
32. On 31 March 2022, the resident rang to chase the repair, as a contractor was due to attend, and she subsequently requested to cancel it. It is unclear why the resident cancelled the initial appointment, but the landlord should have promptly rearranged it to prevent further delays, which it failed to do. A second appointment was attended on 30 June 2022 and the contractor was unable to gain access, but the resident disputed this as she was at the property with another contractor.
33. In response to the resident’s complaint regarding damp and mould, on 27 July 2022, the landlord said the contractor would contact her directly to arrange an appointment to repair the window and advised her to call it if the contractor had not contacted her. Given that the repairs had been identified in January 2022 and remained outstanding, the landlord’s response was somewhat inappropriate. The landlord should have chased the contractor to ensure the window repair was progressing, instead of placing the onus on the resident to pursue the repair.
34. The resident raised a further complaint on 9 September 2022 specifically relating to the window repairs. The landlord’s failure to ensure the window repair was completed, despite the recognition that it remained outstanding at the time of the resident’s previous complaint, meant the issue remained ongoing. This caused the resident additional time and effort pursuing the repair as part of a separate complaint. The window repairs were subsequently completed on 10 November 2022, over 9 months after they were identified, which was a significant delay.
35. The landlord offered £210 compensation, comprised of £80 for the delay, £80 for inconvenience, and £50 for time and effort. The amount was in line with the Service’s remedies guidance for instances where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident., and as such, it has been determined that the landlord offered reasonable redress in resolution. However, the landlord did not recognise any reasons for the delay, so it failed to learn from the outcome of the complaint. It should ensure it learns from the outcome of the investigation and take steps to prevent a recurrence of the issue.

Determination

36. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
37. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b), the landlord has made an offer of redress, prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint regarding the handling of the window repair issues satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

38. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should:
    1. Pay the resident a further £400 for the failings identified in this report relating to its handling of the damp and mould, in addition to the £240 compensation already offered.
    2. Provide the resident and the Service with a copy of the environmental health report. It should establish whether further works are required to address any ongoing damp and mould and confirm in writing to the resident and the Service what works will be carried out and the target date for these to be completed.
    3. The landlord should write to the resident to confirm the actions it can take regarding changes to the external drying area. If no further action can be taken, it should provide reasons for its decision. It should share a copy of the letter with the Service.
39. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the orders to the Service within the designated timeframes.

Recommendations

40. If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the resident £210, as previously offered for its failings in handling the window repair issues.