London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202323031)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323031

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

23 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. Reports of damp and mould.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint and the level of compensation offered.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the property which is a 2-bedroom flat. The resident has myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME).
On 14 February 2023, the resident contacted the landlord in relation to her neighbour who lived in the property above. She said he used his washing machine all day and night, and it was very loud. She reported hearing it at 3:48am that day and in the early hours during the previous week. The resident said it was affecting her and it left her being unable to function during the day. She said she thought he was running a laundry business. The resident was sent diary sheets to complete and instructions on how to download the noise app.
The resident continued to report the issue throughout March and April 2023. On 17 April 2023, the resident referred to loud banging noises which were ongoing from her neighbour. She said they would wake her up several times a night and she had not slept properly in weeks. The landlord advised her to complete diary sheets and contact her local council’s noise team. On 24 April 2023, the landlord said it had advised her that it would carry out a full investigation. It said once a full investigation was carried out and if it had evidence of a tenancy breach, it would take action in line with the tenancy terms and conditions. The landlord said it would contact her neighbour.
On 6 September 2023, the resident raised a formal complaint. She said it was in relation to the landlord’s inadequate response to her reports of ASB. The resident said she was expecting to receive recording equipment to be set up at her home, but nothing had happened. She said she had also suggested the landlord set up CCTV to monitor the neighbour’s laundry business. The resident said she had completed many diary sheets and used the noise app but had not received any feedback. She asked the landlord to respond and explain what it had done in relation to the case. The resident said that she could not take it anymore and it was ruining her life.
The resident’s formal complaint also referred to a long-standing repairs issue of damp and mould in the property, she said it had been ongoing for 7 years. She said she could not use the downstairs bedrooms due to damp and mould. She felt that she should not have to pay full rent and be subjected to “bedroom tax” for rooms which she was unable to use. The resident said the landlord had a court order in 2019 to do the works required and she was told in August 2023 that the repairs had been cancelled. The resident said she suffered with ME and became ill from living with the conditions. She said she had to sleep on the sofa in her living room where she was subjected to the ASB from her neighbour. She said her livelihood and wellbeing was affected by both the long term ASB and inability to sleep in a room which was not fit for human habitation.
The landlord responded on 12 September 2023. It said it had upheld the complaint and had arranged for a surveyor to inspect her home on 29 September 2023. The resident responded on the same day. She said the response was inadequate and there were questions which had not been answered. She referred to the ASB and asked for a response to that also. The landlord responded to confirm that the response was only in relation to the damp and mould part of the complaint. It said once the inspection had taken place it would update the resident regarding next steps.
The resident continued to report the issues raised and on occasions she would also contact the police. The resident said she contacted the police as she felt afraid and helpless. On 26 September 2023, the resident reported that her neighbour had hacked into her devices and that he flew into a temper when she confronted him. On 12 October 2023, she reported a heavy leak through her living room which she believed was from the neighbour’s washing machine. In the following months, she said the neighbour had filmed her, shouted abuse at her, and posted a video of her online. The resident also believed that the neighbour had urinated on her shirt which was in the garden after being washed. She said he played loud music early in the morning and she was unable to sleep.
On 1 November 2023, the landlord provided a further response to the resident. It confirmed that an inspection had taken place at her property that day and once a resolution had been identified, it would look to award compensation, if warranted. It said she would need to discuss a rent reduction and bedroom tax with the revenue team. It apologised that the resident was unhappy with the decision regarding the noise disturbance. It said the neighbourhood housing lead officer would be in touch with the resident to discuss her case and the ongoing issues. It said as the resident was not happy with the handling of the ASB case it had escalated her case to stage 2. The landlord stated that the complaint was not upheld.
The neighbourhood lead officer contacted the resident on 11 December 2023. They said the resident had reported ASB on 31 March 2023, and that they wanted to follow up on the report and see how things had been since then. The resident responded and arranged a call on 15 December 2023 to discuss the issues further. The Ombudsman has not been provided with the landlord’s notes from the call. The resident, however, was not satisfied with the call and stated in an email to the landlord that it left her feeling very anxious. She said she expected the neighbourhood lead officer to be up to date with the case, supportive, and proactive. The resident reiterated all the issues she had experienced with her neighbour and how it was not just noise nuisance.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 21 December 2023. It said in relation to the ASB, the case was ongoing since March 2023. It confirmed the following:
1. It understood the resident’s frustration by the classification of the issue as noise nuisance.
2. It said the neighbourhood lead officer was in regular contact with the resident and they had a telephone call on 15 December 2023. It said following the call, action would be taken to make further assessments and visit her home to conduct a sound survey.
3. It acknowledged and apologised for the significant amount of distress caused to the resident and the impact on her psychological and physical welfare. It said it was hopeful that with the support of the neighbourhood lead officer, the resident would be able to enjoy and relax in her home.
The landlord referred to the resident wanting to be moved due to the issues in the property. It said it could see the damp and mould was first raised in 2019 and stated that:
1. The previous disrepair case had been closed down in 2021 due to a lack of engagement from the resident and her solicitors. It said since then there had been periods of communication, but it had been very challenging trying to find a solution to carry out the works.
2. A temporary decant was required and the case was referred to the rehousing team. It said it had had difficulty contacting the resident for the work to be completed. It said the resident wanted to move on a permanent basis and had expressed a desire to move to the south coast of England. It said she was advised it could not assist and it had provided her with relevant information for support with that.
3. Due to her lack of engagement to move out temporarily, the process had been paused. It said it expected residents to enable it the opportunity to resolve the repair prior to considering a complaint.
4. It recognised there were extensiverepairs requiredin the property and the disrepair manager was happy toarrange the works and re-engage with the resident. It said another survey would be needed due to the time lapsed.
5. The resident was not eligible for compensation for the loss of a room as it had provided alternative accommodation options but had not received any communication back.
6. It awarded £490 in compensation for the delays in complaint responses and the distress, inconvenience, time, and effort caused to the resident.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said she still did not know why the landlord had not responded to her recordings and diary sheets, or if any action had been taken. The resident said the ASB had escalated, she described it as “hell” and “awful.” She said it scared her that the landlord did not care and had disregarded her safety. The resident reiterated the issues with the damp and mould, she said it made her feel ill. She said she had not disengaged, rather, the landlord had not sanctioned the works.
The resident’s neighbour moved out of their property in June 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has referred to her health and how the landlord’s handling of the repairs could have had an impact on this. It is beyond the remit of the Ombudsman to determine whether there would have been a direct link between the actions or lack of action by the landlord and any subsequent impact on the resident’s health. Although we cannot assess the impact of the landlord’s actions on the resident’s health, consideration has been given to any likely distress and inconvenience which the resident may have experienced as a result of the situation.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident has been living with and complaining about damp and mould over a lengthy period of time, which likely caused considerable distress and inconvenience. However, paragraph 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 her formal complaint in September 2023, the investigation will not consider the historical complaints. However, this assessment will focus on the landlord’s actions in response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould from September 2022 onwards.

The landlord’s handling of reports of ASB

The Ombudsman’s role is to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s actions in responding to reports of ASB and the fairness and reasonableness of its response to the related formal complaint. This does not include establishing whether an individual party is responsible for ASB or noise nuisance.
The resident first complained of noise nuisance from her neighbour’s washing machine being used all day and night on 14 February 2023. The use of a washing machine is something that would normally be considered ‘ordinary living noise.’ However, ordinary living noise becomes a noise nuisance, if it is excessive or carried out at unsociable hours, as was being complained about by the resident. Therefore, the appropriate course of action to take by the landlord would be to investigate the alleged noise nuisance in accordance with its ASB policy.
The landlord’s initial steps to address the issue by requesting that the resident send diary sheets and download the noise app were appropriate. When dealing with complaints about noise nuisance, the landlord is requiredto assess whether the noise amounts to a statutory noise nuisance and this includes looking at the frequency and times that the noise occurs. This can be supported by the submission of diary incident sheets and noise app recordings.
The landlord requested that the resident provide a record of 10 consecutive days for it to then be able to assess the evidence. This was reasonable and set parameters around the issue. On 24 April 2023, the landlord confirmed it would carry out a full investigation and if it found evidence of a tenancy breach it would take action. It advised the resident to keep submitting evidence. While its proposed actions were reasonable, it was not appropriate that the landlord has never confirmed if or when the investigation had been carried out and what next steps it would take.
In an internal email dated 17 May 2023, the landlord stated that it would review the noise app to see if any new recordings were submitted. It said it would arrange a home visit to carry out a noise test and it would consider asking both parties to agree an acceptable behaviour contract if there were no further incidents reported. Again, while these were all positive actions to consider, there is no evidence of the landlord carrying out any of them, which is a failing. The landlord’s apparent lack of action caused avoidable delays of approximately 7 months where the resident continued to raise the issues, with little or no response from the landlord. She eventually submitted a formal complaint on 6 September 2023.
In her formal complaint the resident referred to her difficulties with the noise app and stated that the landlord had offered to install noise monitoring equipment. This would have been a reasonable next step given the frequency of the reports and if the recordings from the noise app were inconclusive. However, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence of the landlord suggesting this or reaching a conclusion based on the evidence which was submitted to it. The landlord provided a stage 1 response to the ASB complaint on 1 November 2023. It would have been reasonable for it to have provided its position on its actions so far, and it is disappointing that it did not do so.
On 12 September 2023, the landlord received an email from the police in relation to the reports made by the resident and they wanted to discuss the situation with the landlord further. There is no evidence of the landlord responding to the police, which is concerning. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on noise complaints highlights the importance of working with other agencies such as the police and local councils when responding to noise reports. The resident said she contacted the police as she felt afraid and helpless. The resident continued to report issues to the police throughout the following months. By not liaising with the police and local council, the landlord missed an opportunity to gather further evidence, assess the risks, and define its role and responsibilities.
The Ombudsman has seen a copy of an email from the council’s noise team to the landlord dated 18 October 2023. The council confirmed that it had visited the resident’s property and did not witness any statutory noise nuisance at the time of the visit. They said as it was a long-standing issue, the landlord should contact the resident in relation to the diary sheets and recordings provided to clarify what action could be taken. The council also referred to the resident’s welfare and that she required support. There is no evidence of the landlord responding to the council or contacting the resident about what action it had taken or could take.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that a vulnerability risk assessment matrix will be completed on all high priority cases and where relevant on standard priority cases. It said this is to measure the harm caused to the victims and to guide staff on the actions to take to protect victims from further harm. There are a number of significant occasions where it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have completed a risk assessment. This includes when the resident referred to contacting the police due to fear, when the council raised welfare concerns, and when the reports of ASB escalated. It is a failing that the landlord did not monitor the risks posed or consider its safeguarding responsibilities, in line with its policy.
By the time of the second stage 1 response, the resident had reported incidents with the neighbour which had escalated from the initial washing machine noise. The landlord has not shown how it assessed the seriousness of these allegations, and whether it had considered any enforcement action with the neighbour at the time. This was not in line with the landlord’s ASB policy which states that when new information or incidents are reported it will update its action plan. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of any action plan for this case, which should have been agreed with the resident, and would have shown decisive actions taken by the landlord.
The contact from the neighbourhood lead officer on 11 December 2023 was a further indicator of the landlord’s failure to follow its ASB policy. If the landlord had followed its policy, it would have had a clear record of all the reports made and action taken since the case was opened. This would have allowed any relevant staff member to keep track of the events which had happened. The contact from the neighbourhood lead officer was likely frustrating for the resident who had to repeat all the events again. It is concerning that the landlord did not acknowledge these failings in its stage 2 response and therefore it did not put things right for the resident.
Overall, it is noted that there were counter allegations made against the resident and the landlord was having to balance different resident’s needs. However, this should not have impacted the service the resident was entitled to. The landlord should have demonstrated that it reviewed and set out its position about reports it received. It should have considered the risks posed as the situation escalated and demonstrated a multi-agency approach by working with the police and local council. The landlord should have also evidenced that it had taken appropriate action with the neighbour in line with its policy and tenancy agreements. It is a failing that the landlord cannot evidence its decision making in this case.
The Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould

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 is required to consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard that may require remedy. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under the HHSRS, and they are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
The tenancy agreement states that the landlord will normally give at least 24 hours’ notice but immediate access may be required and shall be given in an emergency.
The resident referred to a longstanding issue of damp and mould in her property in her formal complaint. She said she believed her health condition stemmed from living with the ill effects of the conditions of the property. She said she had not been able to sleep in the bedrooms for 7 years due to the damp and mould.
The resident reported that she had contacted the landlord in relation to the issues in Autumn 2022. While the Ombudsman does not dispute the resident’s account, the landlord’s records do not evidence the contact made or its actions as a result of it. The Ombudsman has noted, however, that other works raised by the landlord in this complaint were not evidenced in the records either. Given the resident’s reports and the delay since her previous report, it was reasonable for the landlord to arrange for a surveyor to inspect the property.
The inspection did not go ahead on 29 September 2023 as originally arranged by the landlord as the resident did not feel she was provided with enough notice. The resident reported a leak through her ceiling on 12 October 2023 and the property was inspected on 1 November 2023. The surveyor outlined the works required which included attending to ivy growing up the wall of the property and they said, “a lot of pointing needs doing.” The surveyor also identified drainage works required to the front and back of the property. They said it was likely the works would need to go to panel approval. It is unclear what action was taken by the landlord following this and whether orders were raised for the works.
An internal email from the landlord dated 18 December 2023 queried whether it was still looking to temporarily decant the resident or if it was considering a permanent decant due to the cost of the work required. A response was provided the same day to state that a temporary decant was required, however it had been difficult to agree this with the resident. It said the disrepair case was closed in 2021 and there had been periods of communication but it was difficult and challenging to get the works carried out at the property. It referred to the resident’s requests to move on a permanent basis to a barn in Cornwall and said her lack of engagement had stalled the process. This was reiterated to the resident in the stage 2 response.
The Ombudsman finds the landlord’s response appeared to be dismissive of the impact on the resident. It is unclear which periods of communication the landlord was referring to and whether they were still relevant to the resident’s most recent communication in which she had been asking for the work to be carried out. It would have been reasonable for it to have outlined what temporary accommodation it had offered to the resident and when.
While it is noted that the landlord identified that a temporary decant was necessary, it remains unclear whether the property was fit for occupation. There is no evidence of the landlord completing a risk assessment in line with the HHSRS,despite the concerns raised and references to the impact on her health. The resident had reported that she could not use her bedrooms and it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have provided its position on whether they were habitable.
There were occasions when the resident did not provide access to the property, she said this was due to short notice. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence to suggest that the landlord acted unreasonably when arranging repairs with the resident. However, it is clear from the resident’s reports that she did want to work with the landlord to get the issues resolved. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord should have considered what additional support it could have offered to the resident, to enable the works to be completed. This would have been reasonable in view of the concerns raised and the length of time the issue had been ongoing.
Overall, the Ombudsman accepts that the landlord experienced difficulty in gaining access to the property at times to carry out inspections and to complete works to address the reports made. While this offers some mitigation for the delays, the Ombudsman remains concerned at the length of time the issue has been ongoing and the lack of action plan to progress the works. The Ombudsman has therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould in the property.
An order will be made for the landlord to carry out a survey of the property, outlining the works required, and a timeframe for completion. The landlord should complete a risk assessment for the resident, and this should be used to determine the urgency for the temporary decant.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint and level of compensation offered

There were delays in the landlord’s responses to the resident’s complaint at both stage 1 and 2. The delays were not acceptable, nor were they in line with the landlord’s policy or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. The landlord acknowledged the delays in its stage 2 response and offered £70. While it is positive that the landlord acknowledged the delays and offered some redress, it would have been reasonable for it to outline what steps it would take to ensure it would not happen again.
The landlord provided a stage 1 response in relation to the damp and mould on 12 September 2023. It provided a further stage 1 response in relation to both the damp and mould and ASB on 1 November 2023. It is unclear why the landlord chose to only respond to the damp and mould initially and not address the whole complaint. The landlord’s approach was confusing and suggests a lack of oversight in its handling of the complaint and record keeping. This was not in line with its policy and left the resident to question why her complaint had not been fully addressed. This approach also delayed the resident in escalating her complaint to stage 2, which is a failing.
As already identified, the complaint responses did not adequately respond to all the issues and queries raised by the resident, specifically around its response to the ASB. Its responses appeared dismissive and lacked empathy with the resident’s situation. This led to the resident having to raise the issues again and bring her complaint to the Ombudsman. The stage 2 response was an opportunity for the landlord to reclaim oversight of the issues, to learn from its mistakes, and offer appropriate redress. It was a failing that it did not do so.
The landlord offered a total of £490 in compensation which was broken down as follows:
1. £180 for distress.
2. £180 for inconvenience.
3. £60 for time and effort.
4. £70 for the complaint response delays.
While the compensation goes some way to account for the landlord’s failures, it does not go far enough. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay a total of £1,200 which accounts for the following:
1. £600 in recognition of the landlord’s poor handling of the ASB and the distress, inconvenience, time, and effort likely caused to the resident as a result.
2. £400 for the landlord’s failure to address the detriment to the resident caused by its handling of the damp and mould in the property.
3. £200 for the landlord’s delays in responding to the complaint, limited investigation into the resident’s complaint, and lack of learning shown from its outcomes.
The compensation has been calculated in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The above amount replaces the £490 previously offered by the landlord and if any of the previous compensation has already been paid, it can be deducted from the total amount.
Overall, the Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and level of compensation offered.

Special report on London and Quadrant.

In July 2023, the Ombudsman issued a special report about the landlord following an investigation carried out under paragraph 49 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which allows the Ombudsman to conduct further investigations to establish whether any presenting evidence is indicative of a systemic failing.
Some of the concerns relevant to this report centred around its handling of ASB, repairs (particularly damp and mould), vulnerabilities, complaint handling, and record keeping. The report recommended the landlord independently review those areas and develop an action plan based on the findings.
While the landlord has engaged with the Ombudsman and progress has been made, we have continued to identify problems with the landlord’s performance. This is evidenced in the similar and more recent failings which have been identified in this report. The landlord should reflect on its approach to damp and mould and consider whether further changes are required for it to adopt a zero-tolerance approach to resolve the issue.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. Reports of ASB.
2. Reports of damp and mould.
3. The complaint and level of compensation offered.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

A senior member of the landlord staff must apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this case.
The landlord must arrange for a surveyor to inspect the resident’s property. Where possible it should provide the resident with at least 1 weeks’ notice of the date of the inspection. The surveyor must produce a report identifying the likely cause of the damp and mould, recommendations to remedy this, and a schedule of works with defined timescales for the work to be completed. A copy of this report must be shared with the Ombudsman and the resident.
Alongside the report, the landlord must complete a risk assessment and provide the resident with the available option(s) for the temporary decant, if it is still deemed necessary.
The landlord must pay the resident a total of £1,200. This is inclusive of the £490 it previously offered.
The landlord must provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders within 6 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

The landlord should reflect on its approach to damp and mould and consider whether further changes are required for it to adopt a zero-tolerance approach to resolve the issue.