London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202229078)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229078

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

23 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 the landlord’s handling of:

a. leaks;

b. damage to the resident’s kitchen;

c. damp and mould; and

d. damage to the resident’s flooring and carpet.

  1. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant under an agreement dated August 2006. He lives in a 1 bedroom flat.
  2. According to the records available, between November 2021 and November 2022, the resident made various repair requests to the landlord for damage to the property caused by leaks, and by damp and mould.
  3. On 28 November 2022, the resident raised a formal complaint. He explained that there was damp and mould in the bathroom, his kitchen was unusable, and the carpet and flooring at the property were damp. He also said he had been told that major work would be done to resolve the problems, but nothing was happening.
  1. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 2 December 2022. It said:
    1. It had completed some repairs at the property for windows and a kitchen leak.
    2. An asbestos test had been raised for the kitchen, and once that was completed work would be done on the kitchen cupboards.
    3. The kitchen extractor fan would be repaired on 3 January 2023.
    4. A mould wash had been raised and that once all repairs were completed, remedial work would go ahead.
    5. Claims for carpet damage would need to go through the landlord’s liability insurance. It also offered the resident £100 in compensation as a goodwill gesture.
  2. The resident said he was dissatisfied with the decision on the same date. He told the landlord that it had not addressed the fact that his kitchen was not functional and his bathroom was rotten from damp.
  3. The landlord provided its final response on 4 April 2023. It said:
    1. It had replaced a mouldy bath panel on 12 October 2021, repaired his bathroom extractor fan on 17 November 2021, and fitted a new toilet on 20 November 2021.
    2. On 28 November 2022 it repaired a leaking mains tap.
    3. Its contractor had attended the property on 20 March 2023 to inspect what repairs were needed, and raised a quote for work that was awaiting approval.
    4. Outstanding repairs had been scheduled for 9, 11, and 16 May 2023, and a kitchen replacement was awaiting approval. Once all works were completed, it said it would be possible for the carpets to be repaired.
  4. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint for “poor service”, delays in carrying out repair works, and delays in addressing issues with damp and mould. To recognise this, it offered him £1,406 in compensation. In May 2023, after the resident raised further issues with some of the repair work that had been carried out, the landlord awarded him a further £440. This consisted of £30 for further repair delays, £30 for inconvenience, and £380 as a goodwill gesture.
  5. When the resident contacted the Ombudsman, he explained that the compensation offered would not cover his damaged items or the distress caused, and that the issues had been going on for at least 19 months. To resolve his complaint he is seeking:
    1. Increased compensation.
    2. Compensation for damaged personal items.
    3. Completion of outstanding repairs. In an update to this Service, the landlord explained that the resident had confirmed to it in January 2024 that all outstanding repairs had been completed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has said that as part of the resolution to his complaint he wants the landlord to reimburse him for damage to personal items. The Ombudsman’s remit in relation to complaints is set out by its Scheme, and paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion “concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.” This means it is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to determine cause, liability or negligence for damage to the resident’s personal items.

Leaks

  1. The landlord’s tenancy agreement says that it is responsible for making sure that all fixtures and fittings are kept in working order, and that it will carry out repairs it is responsible for.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states that for routine repairs, it will aim to complete the repair at the earliest mutually convenient appointment. For emergency works, where there is an immediate danger to the occupant or members of the public, it will attend within 24 hours. For out of hours emergencies, the policy states that the landlord will attend within 4 hours. The out of hours service will be to make safe, and lower the risk. Any follow on repairs will then be completed at the earliest mutually convenient appointment. The policy also says that the landlord will repair leaks, bathroom basins, bath taps, tiles, and extractor fans.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy also says that it will repair penetrative and rising damp, and that it is responsible for preventing condensation, as well as treating and cleaning mould.
  4. Landlords are required to create and maintain adequate records to be able to demonstrate that they have complied with their repair obligations. There was a clear failure in this case to fully and appropriately record what actions it had taken to resolve the multiple issues reported by the resident. To add to this, whilst appointments for repairs are listed in the landlord’s repair logs, it is not clear when the issues were resolved. This means it is not clear from the information provided whether the landlord always responded to repair requests in an appropriate manner. In short, the landlord’s record keeping was not appropriate in this case. A recommendation has therefore been made for the landlord to review its record keeping process. The purpose of this recommendation is to ensure any actions it or its contractors have taken are clearly indicated, with a date for when said actions took place and what the result of these actions were.
  5. The records that have been made available indicate that on 18 February 2022, a work order was raised to repair a leak behind the washing machine in the resident’s kitchen, “causing it to flood.” According to the records, a repair was completed on 21 February 2022. The Ombudsman would expect a leak to be resolved as a matter of urgency, particularly when a contractor appears to have noted that a flood is being caused as a result. It is unclear why it took the landlord 4 days to repair the issue.
  6. Further, on 10 October 2022, the landlord noted that there was a leak under the resident’s bath. This does not appear to have been resolved until August 2023, almost a year later. According to the landlord’s records, part of the reason for the delays was an asbestos check being required, and a work order being cancelled by it in error. There were also some attempts at making appointments in December 2022 and January 2023 that were refused by the resident. However, despite these issues it is not clear why it took over 8 months for the landlord to carry out the necessary repairs, and its repair records do not confirm what works were carried out. This was an unreasonable delay, and would have likely caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
  7. On 21 November 2022, the resident reported another leak into his kitchen and living room from the property above his own. It is unclear what actions the landlord took to resolve this or support the resident. Its repair records note only that “the flat above was having the leak sorted.” No information is available to show what the landlord did, and concerningly, the work order is marked as “cancelled”, implying that it took no action at all.
  8. On 28 November 2022, its repair records indicate that there was a leak in the resident’s kitchen and bathroom. Again, it is unclear what, if any, action the landlord took to resolve these leaks. In its stage 1 response in December 2022, the landlord noted the kitchen leak had been resolved, but provided no confirmation of when this was. It also made no reference to the bathroom leak. This suggests that its unclear record keeping prevented it from addressing the issues experienced by the resident properly, which was unreasonable.
  9. On 4 February 2023, the landlord’s repair records indicate that there was an “uncontainable” leak in the resident’s kitchen, going into the flat below. Concerningly, the work order for this is marked as complete on 2 March 2023, which appears to indicate this problem was not resolved for almost a month, which was an unreasonable length of time and meant that the resident suffered the distress and inconvenience of a leak in his home for a prolonged period of time. Whether this was the length of time the leak was ongoing for, or the length of time it took the landlord to resolve problems caused by the leak is unclear, but either way, the delay was unreasonable.
  10. The landlord’s records do indicate that it provided the resident with dehumidifiers and arranged a “wet vac” to dry out his property following the leak. However, according to the records it attempted this on 17 February 2023 but was unable to due to having no access to the property. The job is then marked as completed on 2 March 2023. It is unclear why it took the landlord over a month to provide this assistance to the resident.
  11. Upon reviewing the information available, the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration for the landlord’s handling of the leaks the resident reported. It has been unable to demonstrate that it dealt with the leaks appropriately, in a timely manner, and in line with its own repair obligations. The repeated leaks also caused the resident understandable distress and inconvenience, and the landlord does not appear to have fully recognised this in its complaint responses.
  12. As a result, the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £400 in compensation. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failings which a landlord has failed to acknowledge.

Damage to the resident’s kitchen

  1. On 28 November 2022, the landlord’s repair records note that the resident had reported his kitchen cupboards were “unsafe” because they were damp as a result of previous leaks. In its stage 1 complaint to the resident in December 2022, the landlord confirmed it had arranged a repair for the kitchen extractor fan on 3 January 2023. However, it did not address the issues with the damage to the kitchen caused by the leak. This caused frustration for the resident, as reflected in his complaint escalation.
  2. On 11 January 2023, a neighbourhood officer visited the property. They then reported to the landlord that there were “mushrooms” growing out of the kitchen carpet, and that the kitchen cupboards were “very damp” as a result of previous leaks.
  3. According to the landlord’s records, the damage to the kitchen was not repaired until 17 March 2023. Given what the neighbourhood officer had reported to the landlord, it is concerning that it took the landlord over 4 months to action repairs. Further, by its own admission the resident first told it his kitchen cupboards were rotten and broken on 27 July 2021.
  4. Positively, the landlord acknowledged the delays in its stage 2 response. It appropriately recognised that it had failed to complete repairs in a timely manner, and that it had given the resident a “poor service”. It set out a schedule for when outstanding works would be completed, apologised, and offered the resident £1,406 in compensation.
  5. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, 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 looks at 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.
  6. As confirmed in its stage 2 response, it took the landlord around 19 months to fix the issues with the resident’s damp kitchen in full. The landlord awarded the resident a total of £1,406. This consisted of £300 for service failure concerning repairs and 2 missed appointments. £760 for delays in repairing the resident’s kitchen (£40 x 19 months). £16 for the time taken to dry out the property (£2 x 8 days). £180 for inconvenience and distress (£30 x 6 months), and £100 for the resident’s time and effort in trying to get the issue resolved.
  7. After the resident raised further issues with some of the repair work in May 2023, the landlord awarded him a further £440. This consisted of £30 for further repair delays, £30 for inconvenience, and £380 as a goodwill gesture.
  8. It is unclear why the landlord awarded the resident £40 for 19 months, but £30 for only 6 months inconvenience. Given that repairs remained outstanding for 19 months, it would be expected that the resident was also inconvenienced for that amount of time. The landlord has therefore been ordered below to pay the resident £390 (£30 x 19 months, minus the 6 months already paid by the landlord) to recognise the duration of inconvenience suffered by the resident. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failures where the landlord has made some attempt to put things right, but has failed to fully address the detriment caused to the resident.

Damp and mould

  1. The landlord’s repair records indicate that on 17 June 2021 it had identified a faulty extractor fan in the resident’s bathroom, and missing tiles. It suspected that both of these were contributing to mould through condensation, as the bathroom had no windows.
  2. A lasting repair on the extractor fan was not completed until November 2021. There is no explanation for why the repair took this long, and this meant that the resident was left with a bathroom susceptible to damp and mould for an unreasonable length of time.
  3. In addition, the missing tiles were not replaced until May 2023. The landlord has said that it cancelled a work order in February 2022 after it had been unable to contact the resident on 3 occasions. While this is understandable, it is unclear why it took the landlord over a year to reschedule this repair. This was an unreasonable delay, and meant that issues in the resident’s bathroom that, according to its own contractors, were potentially contributing to mould, were ongoing for longer than necessary.
  4. On 28 November 2022, its records show there was “damp in the kitchen cupboards, and the living room carpet, and mouldy/rusted/damaged pipes” as a result of previous leaks. It told the resident on 2 December 2022 that it had arranged for a mould wash. According to its records, a mould wash does not appear to have been carried out until May 2023, when a “cleaning and shielding” was carried out. This was an unreasonable period of time for the resident be in a property suffering from damp and mould due to previous leaks and lack of ventilation. There is no evidence that the landlord managed the resident’s expectations during this time or explored options for temporary respite while it sought to resolve the issue, which would have been reasonable in the circumstances.
  5. Additionally, the landlord has not recognised the level of damp and mould the resident was left to deal with in its complaint responses. While the Ombudsman is unable to accurately discern the extent of the issue, it was reported by the neighbourhood officer that mushrooms were growing in the property because it was so damp. This Service has subsequently determined that there was maladministration.
  6. The landlord has therefore been ordered to pay the resident an additional £500 in compensation. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failings that the landlord has made some attempt to put right, but has failed to fully address the detriment to the resident.

Damage to the resident’s flooring and carpet

  1. On 28 November 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that the floorboards in his bathroom were unsafe, and that the living room carpet was damp. According to the landlord’s records, a test for asbestos was raised for the bathroom and living room floors on 1 December 2022. This was reasonable, as it needed to ascertain it was safe to go ahead with any needed repairs. However, the test for the bathroom seems to have been completed on 21 December 2022. There is no information on when the living room test was completed. It is also unclear what repairs were needed. According to the landlord’s records, repairs were needed for the kitchen flooring as it was “lifting in places.” This does not seem to have been completed until 9 May 2023.
  2. Given that asbestos tests seem to have been completed in December 2022, it is unclear why it took the landlord a further 5 months to action flooring repairs. This was an unreasonable delay, and meant the resident was left without a fully usable kitchen for a significant period of time.
  3. However, the landlord did recognise its delay in repairing the kitchen flooring in its stage 2 response, and offered reasonable redress to recognise the delay. It also offered further compensation in a new stage 1 complaint response in June 2023, which was appropriate. Additionally, the landlord confirmed that it would arrange a repair for the resident’s living room carpet once all repair work was completed, which was reasonable, and a change of approach from what it had initially told the resident at stage 1. The landlord has also confirmed all repairs have been completed as of January 2024. The Ombudsman therefore finds that the landlord has taken reasonable steps to resolve this element of the resident’s complaint.

Complaint Handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (CHC) is a guidance document that sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. The code encourages landlords to adopt a positive complaint-handling culture that enables them to resolve disputes, improve the quality of the service it provides to residents, and ensure that complaints provide an opportunity for learning and positive improvement.
  2. The landlord’s complaint policy says that it operates a two-stage complaints process. The landlord ought to provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the complaint being raised, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. These timescales are in accordance with the CHC.
  3. The resident raised his complaint on 28 November 2022. In accordance with its policy and the CHC, the landlord ought to have issued a response on 12 December 2022. The CHC states that any delays in providing a complaint response must not exceed an additional ten working days without good reason.
  4. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 2 December 2022, in line with both the CHC and its own complaint handling policy.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint on 2 December 2022. In accordance with its policy, the landlord should have issued its stage 2 response on 1 January 2023.
  6. A stage 2 response was issued on 4 April 2023; 4 months after the resident escalated his complaint, and after it was asked to provide a response by this Service. This was outside the 20 working-day response timescale outlined within the CHC. The landlord offered the resident £50 in compensation for its delayed stage 2 response. This was in line with its own compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for service delays. Therefore, the redress offered to the resident by the landlord to recognise this delay was reasonable.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of:

a. leaks,

b. damage to the resident’s kitchen,

c. damp and mould.

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident for damage to his flooring and carpet prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident for its complaint handling prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £400 in compensation to recognise its delays in resolving the leaks at the resident’s property.
  2. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £390 (£30 x 19 months, minus the 6 months already paid by the landlord) to recognise the duration of inconvenience suffered by the resident.
  3. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £500 in compensation for its delay in resolving the damp and mould.
  4. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service, within 4 weeks from the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should review its record-keeping process to ensure any actions it or its contractors have taken are indicated, with a date for when said actions took place and what the result of these actions are.