London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202220110)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220110

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

12 July 2024


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:
    1. The landlord’s management of damp and mould reports and the associated repairs.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy agreement. The tenancy began on 6 September 1982. The property is a ground floor two-bed flat. The landlord held records of vulnerabilities for residents living in the property. The resident has advised this Service that her husband passed away last month.
  2. The resident first raised a damp and mould report in January 2021. In response, the landlord arranged for an inspection of the property. The inspection highlighted issues with the windows and suggested a repair or replacement of them. The resident raised a complaint in February 2022 as the windows had not been replaced. Following a further inspection in June 2022, the landlord said it would replace the windows. These were replaced in October 2022.
  3. On 22 November 2022, a continuous pinhole leak was identified in the property, with a full repair of the leaking water feed pipe completed on 22 December 2022. Following a visit from the water supplier, the resident reported a further potential leak on 1 February 2023. On 9 February 2023, the resident complained of continued damp in the property and the lack of proposed works to resolve this.
  4. The landlord provided a complaint response on 28 February 2023, in which it acknowledged that following treatment, it had been made aware of potential mould behind wallpaper. It offered decorating vouchers and a further inspection but rejected the resident’s request for pipes to be boxed in, offering lagging of the pipes instead. The resident requested escalation of the complaint on 25 March 2023 but a stage 2 response was not issued for this complaint. 
  5. Over the following months, the resident remained in contact with the landlord over outstanding works. These were to address the leak identified in February 2023 and to treat the damp and mould in the property. Another leak was then identified at the property on 25 October 2023 with mention of repairs needed to a downpipe and re-pointing.
  6. The resident raised another complaint on 3 November 2023. She said that despite several treatments, the damp and mould was still an issue in the property. The landlord responded the same day and issued a further stage 1 complaint response. It upheld the complaint and proposed a further surveyor visit to inspect the property.
  7. Further works were proposed to address the leak and treat the damp and mould. Some of these works did not go ahead and the resident escalated her complaint on 1 March 2024. The landlord responded on 7 March 2024 and advised that the required repair works were scheduled for 9 March 2024, with further damp and mould treatment to be carried out afterwards. The landlord offered compensation for the delays. 

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. It is acknowledged that in this case, the complaint process that was completed in April 2024 began on 3 November 2023. In line with section 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the investigation would only include complaints brought to the attention of the member within 12 months of the matters arising. However, it is the view of the Ombudsman that in this case, the landlord failed to address the resident’s complaints in February 2022 and February 2023, in line with its internal complaint policy. In view of these failures, the Ombudsman considers it reasonable that this investigation includes matters that were referred to the landlord within those complaints.   

The landlord’s management of damp and mould reports and the associated repairs

  1. It is evident that the landlord was told that windows were an issue “leading to year round condensation” in January 2021. As this was found following a report of damp and mould in the property, the landlord should have taken steps to either repair or replace the windows. However, the landlord took no action until the resident chased it over a year later. This is a service failing by the landlord, as it did not take reasonable steps to address the windows that were identified as a contributing factor in the formation of damp and mould in the property.
  2. After the resident chased these repairs with the landlord in February 2022, the landlord failed to take any action until 27 April 2022. Despite having had a report which said the window seals were broken and that the only room without damp and mould was the room with a double glazed window, a further inspection was arranged. This was not recorded as being completed until 18 June 2022, almost 2 months after it was raised. This shows a continued lack of urgency by the landlord to address damp and mould in the property.
  3. After conducting its own inspection, the landlord raised a works order to replace the windows on 23 June 2022. As the contractor and the landlord arrived at the same conclusion, that the windows should be replaced, it is the Ombudsman’s view that the delay of 18 months between inspections was unreasonable. This is a further service failing by the landlord as the resident had continued to experience condensation, damp and mould throughout the property during this time. She experienced distress and inconvenience as she had to monitor and clean the condensation forming around the property, following advice from the contractor in January 2021.
  4. Even after the landlord raised a works order for the windows to be replaced, the work was not completed until October 2022, some 4 months later. This means that after damp and mould was reported and an inspection found the windows to be a contributory factor, it took 22 months for the landlord to take the required action. This demonstrates a failure to act in line with Housing Ombudsman Service’s Spotlight on Damp and Mould Report 2021, which says that landlords should “ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue”. In this instance, the time taken to carry out the required works could not be considered reasonable. This is another service failing by the landlord.
  5. When a potential leak was reported on 5 October 2022, it took the landlord over 6 weeks (until 22 November 2022) to identify the cause of the leak through the use of a contractor. When the leak was identified, the contractor advised the resident that until the pipe was fixed, she would have to switch the water on whenever she wanted to use it in the bathroom. When the water was switched on, it meant that the leak started again and would continue until the resident switched it off again. Given the nature of this temporary measure, it would be reasonable for the landlord to have attended as a matter of urgency, in order to repair the problem and prevent any further water damage. However, it took 30 days to attend and repair the pipe on 22 December 2022. This is another example of the landlord failing to attend an urgent repair linked to damp and mould within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord acknowledged that the time taken was not reasonable in an internal email on 16 January 2023.
  6. After repairing the leaking pipe in December 2022 and installing a dehumidifier to dry out the property, the resident had to continue chasing the landlord for works to treat the damp and mould. Due to the longstanding nature of these issues, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided the resident with a schedule of works that demonstrated a desire to address these. The concerns over the lack of action were detailed in the resident’s complaint in February 2023. The resident had made the landlord aware of her husband being diagnosed as terminally ill at this time, expressing a concern over his welfare with the ongoing damp and mould issues present at the property. 
  7. At the time of the February 2023 complaint, an inspection had reported “possible leakage” in the property with low water pressure identified and continued evidence of damp and mould. Despite those concerns, no new works orders are recorded as being raised until 17 May 2023, almost 3 months after the complaint was acknowledged. The low water pressure issue was resolved but the related works order took over 3 months to be completed. These delays are further service failings by the landlord that demonstrate a continued lack of urgency to address reports of damp and mould related works at the property. This added to the resident’s frustrations, causing significant distress and inconvenience during these delays. The continued evidence of damp and mould would inevitably have added to the health and safety concerns she already had for her husband.
  8. It is evident that the resident and her MP continued to chase the landlord to discuss further repairs or treatment of damp and mould in the property between June 2023 and November 2023. Internal landlord emails show a clear lack of understanding of the situation at the resident’s property, with confirmation of completion of works being sought throughout by different departments. This demonstrates inaccurate record keeping, along with a lack of adequate oversight by the landlord in both the treatment of damp and mould, and management of any necessary repairs. This is another service failing by the landlord, showing a lack of importance being placed on damp and mould concerns in a property with noted vulnerabilities.
  9. Following a further contractor inspection on 25 October 2023, it was reported that the guttering on the property was leaking and the brickwork required pointing. The resident had mentioned scaffolding being erected at the property on 3 July 2023 for “guttering and roof repairs” and said that no work had been completed by 11 July 2023. Given that only 3 months later there were reports of leaks in the guttering, it would suggest that either the work did not go ahead, or it was not completed to a reasonable standard.
  10. After the stage 1 complaint on 3 November 2023, the landlord did attend the property again and ensured the guttering work was completed shortly after. However, it also identified further potential causes of damp and mould at the property. The landlord said rendering works were scheduled for 18 December 2023, however, this was then delayed awaiting approval and further inspection. The landlord sent out the same surveyor again on 1 February 2024 and the rendering works were then scheduled for 9 March 2024. This is a further example of duplicate inspections taking place and coming to the same conclusion. This caused another unnecessary delay of almost 3 months for the resident, with her having to continue to experience the same frustrations, distress and inconvenience as she had previously. This coupled with her concerns around the health implications the damp and mould could have on her husband are examples of the detriment suffered by the resident due to the landlord’s actions.
  11. The landlord’s final complaint response of 7 March 2024 acknowledged there had been failings and a compensation award of £480 was made for the distress and inconvenience caused. This level of compensation was however insufficient given the damp and mould concerns extended for a period of 3 years and the landlord was aware of the vulnerabilities in the household during this time.
  12. Ultimately, it is clear that the landlord failed to provide adequate oversight of the continued damp and mould issues at the resident’s property. Having first been made aware of damp and mould in the property in January 2021, repairs were still ongoing into 2024. Although not all of the repairs were apparent or required throughout this period, when they were reported, the landlord failed to apply adequate urgency to those repairs. In most cases, there were significant and unnecessary delays, with the landlord acknowledging on more than one occasion that the time taken was “unreasonable”. This is not in line with the landlord’s damp and mould policy which says that it will “take responsibility for identifying, investigating and resolving damp and mould as quickly and effectively as it can”.
  13. The landlord should have carried out inspections following each repair to ensure that there were no longer any potential issues that would lead to further damp and mould. Had it done so, this could have led to the property being rid of damp and mould sooner than it was. All landlords are aware of the health implications for residents when it comes to damp and mould and in this case the resident made it clear that her husband had been diagnosed as terminally ill during this period. Despite being made aware of this, the landlord failed to improve the service offered to the resident and they continued to have to manage the damp and mould themselves while awaiting the required repairs. After considering the service failings identified in this report, the Ombudsman makes a finding of severe maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. It is clear that the landlord failed to follow its own complaint policy in response to complaints from the resident. The landlord noted on 7 February 2022 that the resident “would now like to raise this as a formal complaint”; this was in relation to the window repairs or replacement. Despite recognising this as a request to raise a formal complaint, the landlord failed to provide any formal responses to the complaint. Had it managed the complaint in line with its policy, it is highly likely that this would have led to the works being completed sooner than the 8 months it took. This is a service failing by the landlord which likely contributed to the delays in completing the window works, meaning the resident did not receive the desired and required outcome in a reasonable timeframe.
  2. The landlord later failed to escalate a complaint to stage 2, following a request from the resident on 25 March 2023. The resident specifically requested an escalation due to issues remaining unresolved from stage 1 but no formal acknowledgement or response was provided. This is another service failing on the part of the landlord, as the resident was not afforded the opportunity to have a review of the initial decision and this delayed her access to utilising our Service.
  3. When addressing the resident’s complaint in November 2023, the landlord failed to provide an adequate response. Although the landlord upheld the complaint, it showed no real acknowledgement, understanding or investigation of the issues, including the historical elements of it. Instead, it just offered a further surveyor visit to the property. Rather than awaiting the outcome of that surveyor visit, the landlord provided a limited response on the same day the complaint was raised. Had the landlord waited a few days until the survey was done, it could have provided a detailed response, referencing the findings of the inspection and setting out a clear plan of action to address the complaint. This is service failing on the part of the landlord. It is understandable that the resident would have been disappointed with this limited response.
  4. It is clear that following both stage 1 responses, the landlord failed to take the actions agreed through its response. The resident had to continue to chase these works and actions with the landlord. Following the stage 1 response on 28 February 2023, the landlord failed to carry out pipe lagging works until 31 May 2023, over 3 months later. The decorating vouchers and compensation were also not provided until after 16 May 2023. Although the landlord did attend the inspection following its response on 3 November 2023, the works that were identified during that inspection took several months to be completed. During this time, the works were delayed pending further investigation but the time taken was excessive, given that it had been identified as a potential resolution to the long running damp and mould issues. These are further failings by the landlord to the detriment of the resident in the time and trouble involved in chasing the landlord for updates or actions around the complaint.
  5. Following each complaint, the resident and her MP had to chase responses from the landlord due to periods of inactivity. This demonstrates a continued lack of oversight to ensure that the actions proposed were completed. In line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, landlords should look to learn from complaints. However, this was not evident as following the initial complaint in February 2023, the landlord continued in the same manner and failed to provide any comprehensive ownership of the required actions in November 2023. This is another service failing on the part of the landlord.
  6. The landlord’s final complaint response of March 2024 led to an award of £160 for complaint handling failings. Although it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge failings, this compensation was insufficient given the extended period of time involved and there is little evidence that the landlord explored the reasons for the poor complaint handling.
  7. In conclusion, it is clear that the landlord failed to manage the resident’s complaints in line with its own complaint policy. One complaint was never recorded, one was not escalated following the resident’s request and no investigation took place at stage 1 of the final complaint. Had the landlord followed its complaint policy in each instance, it is likely that required works would have been completed sooner. Additionally, had it followed up on the actions proposed at each stage, this could have removed the need for further complaints. Instead, the works remained outstanding for significant periods which had a detrimental impact on the resident. The landlord’s compensation offer was insufficient given the circumstances of the case. Having considered the service failings, the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s management of damp and mould reports and the associated repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of this report, the chief executive or relevant senior manager of the landlord is required to provide an apology to the resident either in person, or in writing. The resident should be given the option as to how the apology will be delivered.
  2. Within 28 days of the date of this report, the landlord should complete a post-inspection following the recent works. This should ensure that all leaks and possible causes of damp and mould are now repaired/resolved.
  3. The landlord is ordered to make a compensation payment of £2,500 to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by its management of damp and mould reports and associated repairs. Previous compensation payments that have been made are to be deducted from this amount, excluding the reimbursement of dehumidifier costs from January 2023. This should be paid within 28 days of the date of this report.
  4. The landlord is ordered to make a compensation payment of £500 to the resident for the time and trouble caused by its handling of her complaints. Previous compensation payments that have been made are to be deducted from this amount. This should be paid within 28 days of the date of this report.
  5. The landlord must reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should offer to assist the resident in making a liability insurance claim for damages to any possessions caused by the damp and mould.