London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202319427)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319427

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

21 August 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:
  1. Damp and mould in the property.
  2. Electrical work.
  3. The complaint and the level of compensation offered including the resident’s damaged personal belongings and furniture.

Background

  1. The resident moved into the property, a 3-bedroom house in 2016. The resident holds an assured tenancy.
  2. The landlord provided the Ombudsman with evidence that the resident reported damp and mould in the property in 2018, 2019, and 2021.
  3. The resident reported damp and mould in her property on 4 November 2022. The landlord completed a healthy homes inspection and a mould wash at the property. It identified an issue with the guttering.
  4. When the resident noticed that the damp and mould returned much quicker than after previous mould washes, she raised a complaint on 23 January 2023. The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould. She did not believe the landlord was interested in resolving the underlying cause of this. The resident also advised she did not have any working electric sockets upstairs and she thought there was a hole in the roof. She advised the landlord of her son’s heart disease, that he was struggling to cope with the damp and mould, and it was severely affecting his health.
  5. The landlord responded the following day, it attended to make the electrics safe and organised for a roof inspection and mould wash on 26 January 2023. The resident could not keep this appointment and it was rearranged to 22 February 2023.
  6. The resident reminded the landlord on 2 April 2023 that the mould wash needed doing and an electric socket was still disconnected. On 26 April 2023, the landlord received approval for the guttering repair, and this was fixed on 4 May 2023. The landlord wrote to the resident and offered £200 as a goodwill gesture. The resident refused this and asked to escalate her complaint.
  7. The landlord provided its final resolution on 23 August 2023. It offered the resident £350. £250 was for the resident’s time, trouble, and distress and £100 for the delayed final resolution. The resident was not happy with this and brought her complaint to the Ombudsman to investigate.
  8. The Ombudsman understands the resident has continued to report ongoing damp and mould issues to the landlord.

Assessment and findings

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only 3 principles driving effective dispute resolution:
    1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
    2. Put things right.
    3. Learn from outcomes.
  2. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.

Scope of the investigation

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is governed by the Scheme. In deciding whether a complaint falls within jurisdiction, the Ombudsman will carefully consider all the evidence provided by the parties and the circumstances of the case.
  2. The resident raised concerns that this situation has affected her son’s health. The Ombudsman does not have the expertise to determine whether there was any causal link between the landlord’s actions or inactions and any reported health concerns. The resident may therefore wish to seek independent advice regarding this if she has not already done so.
  3. The landlord’s records show the resident reported damp and mould from 2018. However, 42.c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme outlines that we may not consider complaints which were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. As the resident raised a formal complaint in January 2023, the investigation will not consider historical damp and mould issues. This assessment will focus on the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property from 2022 onwards.

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property

  1. The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by the Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord must consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard that may require remedy. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS and are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
  2. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 holds the landlord responsible for keeping the structure and installations of the property in good repair. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states it will complete routine repairs in 28 days.
  3. The landlord’s damp and mould policy stated once it received a report it will establish if an immediate repair is necessary. It will then complete a healthy homes property inspection in 20 working days. The assessment will identify the underlining cause and provide the resident with a guide on managing mould. The landlord will record remedial works and raise to maintenance teams in 10 working days. The landlord will be clear with the resident about timescales and keep the resident informed throughout.
  4. The Ombudsman’s spotlight on damp and mould report states, among other things, the landlord should implement a data driven, risk-based approach, avoid using language that leaves a resident feeling blamed, and ensure staff have appropriate expertise to properly diagnose damp and mould reports.
  5. The landlord’s repairs policy states that a vulnerable person is someone who is at risk in their home. The landlord will consider whether a defect puts the resident at risk due to their physical health. The landlord can give escalated priority, where a delay would put a resident at risk because of their condition.
  6. In response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould, the landlord visited the property to carry out an inspection. It produced a healthy homes report on 8 November 2022 and the Ombudsman believes it carried out a mould wash on this day. This was positive repairs management and was in line with its damp and mould policy.
  7. The landlord in its report identified the gutter was leaking, but highlighted it looked cleaner than in photographs of earlier visits so questioned whether it had carried out a previously recommended guttering repair. The resident advised the landlord that the repair had not been completed. The landlord should be confident in what repairs have been actioned at its properties.
  8. Following the resident’s complaint on 23 January 2023, the landlord raised the electrics as an emergency repair and said it would visit to complete a mould wash and roof inspection on 26 January 2023. This was an appropriate response to the resident’s request and in line with the landlord’s policy. Unfortunately, the resident could not make the appointment, so the landlord rearranged this to 22 February 2023. The Ombudsman finds this was a satisfactory response to the resident’s report.
  9. The landlord contacted the resident on 24 February 2023 to say the roofers attended, but they needed scaffolding, and it would provide an update when there was more news. The Ombudsman has not been provided with evidence the landlord provided further updates until the resident chased the landlord on 2 April 2023 asking for a date when it would complete the mould wash. She also reiterated her son has heart disease and that an electric socket still did not work, the landlord had made it safe, but it did not repair it. The landlord did not provide any evidence it kept the resident updated as promised. The resident had to chase to progress the mould wash, electric socket repair, and for an update from the roofers.
  10. The Ombudsman remains unclear when the mould wash was carried out and whether it was supposed to be completed during the rearranged appointment on 22 February 2023. The landlord agreed a mould wash was needed in the property on 26 January 2023, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence this was completed before 2 April 2023 as such the landlord did not adhere to its repair policy timescales. It is disappointing the landlord did not prioritise this quick solution which would have provided the resident temporary respite from the mould.
  11. The landlord completed the guttering repair on 4 May 2023, 6 months after it identified this as an issue on 8 November 2022. This was not in line with the timescales in the landlord’s repair policy. In further breach of the repairs policy, the landlord has not evidenced it advised the resident of the timescales and kept her informed of developments.
  12. On the landlord’s repair log, it stated it completed the roof inspection on 10 July 2023 after raising it on 24 January 2023. The Ombudsman has not seen the outcome of this inspection and we are concerned about the landlord’s lack of records. The resident stated the landlord’s roof inspection identified it was the cause of the damp and mould. The Ombudsman noted that the landlord did not act in accordance with its repair policy as it took 6 months to complete the inspection instead of the stated 28 days. Confirmation of the report and any findings will form an order of this report.
  13. The resident should be confident in the landlord’s ability to diagnose and resolve repairs, however she has repeatedly reported damp and mould issues which the landlord has not resolved. The Ombudsman understands the causes of damp and mould can be difficult to diagnose however it has repeatedly been to the property offering the same mould wash solution. The landlord hoped the guttering repair would resolve the issue, but it delayed in getting this completed. In the Ombudsman’s spotlight report we advise landlords to ensure it has staff who have expertise in damp and mould and to approach an independent surveyor in difficult cases. The Ombudsman also advises landlords to take a data driven, risk-based approach which as the resident has repeatedly contacted the landlord, indicates this has not been adopted.
  14. The Ombudsman acknowledges there are occasions when landlords need to give residents tips and information about managing mould. However, the Ombudsman’s spotlight report clearly states landlords should avoid automatically apportioning blame or using language that leaves a resident feeling blamed. In the landlord’s healthy home report dated 8 November 2022 despite identifying the guttering may be leaking, it stated very high moisture readings were due to inadequate heating and ventilation. The landlord noted it needed to replace the thermostatic radiator values which may have contributed to the lack of regulated heating in the property. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that this has been completed. Despite this the resident clearly felt the landlord was blaming her for the damp and mould in her escalation request dated 5 May 2023 when she said the landlord had told her for years “it was down to us why there was damp and mould”. When the resident has received the same advice on multiple occasions and then repeatedly raised further damp and mould repairs the landlord should address what was causing the problems to continue.
  15. The resident was clear in her communication with the landlord that her son has heart disease and stated that sleeping in a room with damp and mould was not healthy for him. Predominantly the landlord did not meet its published repairs timeframes, this indicates it either had not considered the son’s health or it believed it was not necessary to award extra priority. The landlord had provision under its repairs policy to make allowances and it has not evidenced it acted in line with this.
  16. The landlord did not fully adhere to its own repair, damp and mould policy, and has not evidenced compliance under HHSRS. It did not implement the recommendations from the Ombudsman’s spotlight report. The lack of urgency to address this issue is concerning especially considering the landlord was aware of the resident’s son’s heart disease. As such the Ombudsman finds there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property.
  17. The Ombudsman has used its own remedies guide to arrive at the compensation award. The landlord did not adequately recognise its failings and the significant impact on the resident and her family. Due to this and the length of time the issue has been outstanding the award has been made at the higher rate of maladministration.
  18. The Ombudsman is aware the resident has reported continuing damp and mould problems. This indicates the work the landlord carried out did not provide a resolution. These continuing problems are likely to be very frustrating for the resident and cause her to question the landlord’s ability to manage the situation. The orders made in this report have been designed to address these ongoing concerns. ⁠

The landlord’s handling of the electrical work.

  1. The resident reported to the landlord that there were no electric sockets working upstairs on 23 January 2023. The landlord attended within 24 hours, this was in line with the policy.
  2. The Ombudsman has not seen a report of the work the landlord carried out, however the resident reported that the landlord disconnected an electric socket to make it safe. The resident advised the landlord this was still disconnected on 2 April 2023. The resident advised the Ombudsman this socket remains disconnected.
  3. While the landlord appropriately made the electric socket safe within 24 hours, it should have taken steps to resolve the situation, understand the reasons for the socket not to work and reinstate it. The landlord should have completed the follow-on repair in 28 days, as such the landlord did not act in accordance with its repair policy.
  4. The resident also had to chase the landlord in an attempt to achieve a resolution to reinstate the socket. This remains outstanding over 18 months later. The landlord did not evidence it regularly updated the resident concerning this matter. Therefore, the Ombudsman finds there was service failure on behalf of the landlord’s handling of the electrical work. Using the Ombudsman’s own remedies guide for the compensation award, the landlord has not appropriately acknowledged or put right this failure. This is a long-standing issue which remains outstanding, as such the award has been made at a higher rate for service failure.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint and the level of compensation offered including the resident’s damaged personal belongings and furniture.

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states it will acknowledge a complaint in 5 working days. It will then investigate and provide a stage 1 response in 10 working days. If the resident is not satisfied after receiving the stage 1 response, they can escalate the complaint. After 20 working days of the resident’s request to escalate they can expect the landlord’s final resolution. Once the landlord has provided the complaint responses it will monitor progress until all outstanding actions have been resolved.
  2. If the landlord needs more time for either complaint response, it will explain why to the resident within 10 working days. If the landlord needs longer than this, it will try to agree this with the resident.
  3. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) stated that landlords should keep residents regularly updated even when there is no new substantive information to provide. Landlords should also address all points raised in the complaint.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 1 response to the resident on 24 January 2023 which was the day after she made her complaint. The landlord had responded in line with its policy and appropriately put measures in place to remedy the resident’s complaints. The landlord said it would continue to oversee and monitor the complaint, and the case was finalised, unless the resident was dissatisfied in which case it would escalate to the next stage of the process.
  5. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction, she raised her concerns about her damaged personal belongings and furniture and said she wanted compensating for these. The landlord appropriately pointed her in the direction of either her contents insurance or for her to claim on its insurance. The Ombudsman finds this was correct advice, in line with the landlord’s compensation policy, and it would be appropriate for the resident to take this route.
  6. The landlord updated the resident on 24 February 2023 to say the roofers had been, but they needed to erect scaffolding. It was positive that the landlord was keeping the resident informed however the complaint was a month old, and the lack of progress was likely to be frustrating for the resident.
  7. The landlord sent a further response on 5 May 2023 once it had completed the guttering repair. In recognition of the resident’s distress and inconvenience caused by the repair delays, the landlord offered her a £200 goodwill gesture. The landlord did not adequately acknowledge the 6 months it had taken to complete the guttering repair. It did not provide a response about the electric socket or the roof inspection, therefore the landlord did not address all the complaint points. This was not in line with the Code. The landlord sent 2 stage 1 responses and did not evidence its attempts to agree longer timescales with the resident, this was not in line with its policy.
  8. The resident escalated her complaint on 5 May 2023. The landlord acknowledged this in time advising the resident she may experience delays receiving her final resolution to its published timeframe of 20 working days due to an increased workload. The resident contacted the landlord to chase for its response on 16 June 2023. This was 2 weeks after the landlord should have produced the final resolution and indicates the resident did not feel updated about the progression of her complaint. The landlord reiterated the delays due to workload and advised that she could come to the Ombudsman.
  9. The landlord provided its final resolution on 23 August 2023. This was not in line with the landlord’s policy, being 76 working days after her escalation request and the Ombudsman has not seen evidence the landlord adhered to the Code and adequately kept the resident informed.
  10. The landlord stated it had tried to speak to the resident however it was using an old number, previously the resident had confirmed she had updated the landlord’s records. The landlord tried again to call the resident on the day of the final resolution letter but was not able to speak with her. After the resident had waited so long for communication, it seems a rushed response and meant the landlord provided a final resolution letter without being aware of the current position.
  11. The landlord confirmed it had completed the guttering repair and was looking for reasons why this was delayed. It referred to an occasion the landlord was not able to contact the resident. It was unnecessary to blame the resident for any delays and does not represent positive complaint handling. It further identified delays with the contractor.
  12. As the resident had not reported any further damp and mould issues the landlord trusted the guttering repair had resolved the issue. The landlord apologised for the time taken to identify the damp and mould issues. It increased its offer for the resident’s distress and inconvenience to £250. The landlord recognised the delay in issuing the final resolution and offered £100 compensation for this. The £100 compensation did not adequately reflect the resident’s experience of the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord only recognised the final resolution delay and did not allow for the additional complaint handling failures identified in this report. The Ombudsman notes the landlord took 70 working days to produce both its stage 1 responses and 76 working days for its final resolution letter.
  13. The Ombudsman found the landlord’s responses were not adequately empathetic to the resident given the length of time she had been living with damp and mould, especially given her son’s medical condition. The complaint responses did not follow the Ombudsman’s guidance of treating residents reporting damp and mould with respect and empathy.  
  14. The landlord did not adhere to the Ombudsman’s Code or the dispute resolution principles which are: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. Through its complaint responses the landlord did not fairly recognise the resident’s experience, did not adequately put things right for her, and did not exhibit any learning. As such the Ombudsman finds there was service failure in its complaint handling.
  15. The Ombudsman has used its own remedies guide to decide the compensation award. The award has been made to recognise the landlord failed to adequately address the detriment to the resident through its complaints system. The complaints system is there to restore the landlord resident relationship, this was not achieved in this case.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property.
    2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of electrical issues.
    3. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and the level of compensation offered including the resident’s damaged personal belongings and furniture.

Orders

  1. The landlord is to issue the resident a written apology for the failings identified in this report.
  2. The landlord is to pay the resident compensation totalling £1,150. This is inclusive of any previous compensation payment made on this issue and comprises of:
    1. £800 for the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property.
    2. £150 for the landlord’s handling of electrical issues.
    3. £200 for the landlord’s handling of the complaint and the level of compensation offered including the resident’s damaged personal belongings and furniture.
  3. The landlord is to contact the resident to confirm whether there are works outstanding. It is to update the Ombudsman what has been agreed.
  4. The landlord is to provide the Ombudsman with a copy of the roof inspection report, confirming all action points and repairs have been completed.
  5. The landlord is to confirm compliance with the orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this report.