London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202347485)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202347485

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

27 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 the resident’s:
1. Reports of damp and mould.
2. Reports of damage to her possessions caused by damp and mould.
3. Formal complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. She resides in a 2-bedroom, ground-floor property with her 3 children. She has reported ongoing damp and mould to the landlord since she moved into the property in 2017.
In November 2023 the resident reported damp and mould in most rooms, including the bedrooms. The landlord’s surveyor inspected on 15 November 2023 and a follow-on job was raised for injections into the damp proof course (DPC) along the wall shared by the bedrooms. An external contractor attended on 23 November 2023 and, finding no mould present, determined that the DPC was intact. The landlord suspended further works.
The resident was upset to learn of this and complained to the landlord on 5 December 2023. She alleged that the contractor had not checked the external walls and said he was there for less than a minute. Despite informing him that she regularly cleaned the walls, he determined there was no issue with the DPC based on the absence of mould. She expressed distress at the situation, explaining that her children had been extremely unwell, her belongings were being ruined, and the house smelt disgusting.
The landlord responded 2 days later on 7 December 2023. It apologised for the inconvenience and frustration caused and said it had re-raised the repair. It said it would reassess her case for compensation when the repair had been scheduled.
The landlord’s surveyor conducted another inspection on 19 December 2023 and arranged for a further assessment by an external contractor on 17 January 2024. The contractor found no issue with the DPC but recommended thermal insulation boards to prevent cold spots which it considered to be the source of the damp.
The resident escalated her complaint on 5 February 2024. She said the landlord had taken no action in relation to the contractor’s recommendations and claimed it had only put short term fixes in place dating back to 2017, resulting in ongoing damp and mould. She expressed frustration that the initial contractor had provided false information about the conditions in the property, which had contributed to delays. She also claimed the landlord had failed to respond to her stage 1 complaint within a reasonable time.
In mid-February 2024 the landlord sought an external contractor to install cavity wall installation (CWI) as a cheaper alternative to thermal boarding. The contractor attended on 28 February 2024 and submitted a quote for both DPC injections and CWI. The landlord queried whether the DPC was breached and approved the quote following confirmation by the contractor in early April 2024.
Work was undertaken to clear the gutters to prevent water ingress through the walls in April 2024. Work to the DPC also commenced on 26 April 2024.
On 29 April 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It acknowledged the delay and awarded compensation for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble, totalling £400. It said it had approved DPC injections and advised the resident to claim for damages on her home contents insurance or via its insurer.
The resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the situation and considers further works necessary. She wants additional compensation for the stress caused, including the impact on her family’s health and the damage to her belongings.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident submits that the landlord’s handling of the repairs impacted on her children’s health, with the damp and mould causing, or contributing to, recurrent chest infections and respiratory illness. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s experience, but it is beyond the remit of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the family’s ill-health. She may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that their health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord (reflected at paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme). While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the family experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

The resident has also requested compensation for damage to personal belongings. While this Service can consider the impact of the damp and mould on the resident and whether the landlord acted reasonably, we cannot determine liability or issue a binding decision about the award of damages. These are legal aspects better suited to an insurance claim or court (reflected at paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme).
The resident has experienced damp and mould since she moved into the property and, while the landlord has taken action to address this over the years, it has not provided a lasting resolution. The resident brought previous complaints to the landlord on this matter, which it considered through its internal complaints procedure. The most recent of these was in February 2023 which was resolved at stage 1. While recognising the wider context, this investigation is focused on the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould following the resident’s subsequent reports about its reoccurrence in November 2023 and the complaint made by her in December 2023 (reflected at paragraphs 42(a) and (b) of the Scheme).

Handling of reports of damp and mould

Under the terms of the tenancy and section 11 of the the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is obliged to keep the structure and exterior of the property as well as internal walls in repair and working order. In its repairs policy the landlord also specifies its obligations to rectify penetrative and rising damp.
The landlord has devised an action plan to address damp and mould in response to recommendations made by this Service following our Spotlight report on Damp and Mould, which was issued in October 2021. Interventions implemented by the landlord include that residents receive a ‘healthy homes’ assessment within 5 days upon reports of damp and mould to identify any repairs.
The resident said she reported damp and mould on 1 November 2023 and the landlord’s records show that a job was raised to ‘inspect rising damp and mould in most rooms’. This took place after 10 working days on 15 November 2023 which was outside of the timeframe specified in its damp and mould action plan. There is also no evidence that the landlord conducted a ‘healthy homes’ assessment, which is a standardised check of the property to determine any damp and its causes.
Given the resident had reported ongoing damp and mould over several years, and said there was mould in most rooms, it was important for the landlord to conduct a holistic assessment of the reported issues, to direct ongoing intervention. While the landlord’s surveyor inspected the property, the scope of their inspection is unknown and there was no written report summarising their findings. However, it acted appropriately in arranging for a follow-up visit by a specialist contractor in relation to suspected rising damp.
The resident has alleged that the landlord did not accept its surveyor’s findings that the DPC had been breached and instead requested a survey by an external company for another opinion. The landlord’s job notes and internal correspondence suggest that the landlord was outsourcing the work to an external contractor for a professional opinion and to commission the work, with no indication it was trying to avoid or negate the issue.
The landlord was prompt in arranging for a contractor to attend. While it is reasonable for a landlord to rely on ‘expert’ findings, the report submitted by the contractor was arguably brief and, as the resident confirmed, indicated that there was no external inspection. The repairs team queried whether the job could be closed and, in the absence of a response from the surveyor, did so. The records indicate that this was due to the surveyor having left the organisation around this time, but ownership of the issue should have been transferred.
The landlord should also have engaged with the resident to feed back and explore the matter with her, given she had reported damp and mould contrary to the contractor’s findings. The notes indicate that the resident was only informed that no further action was being taken on 4 December 2023. While this was only 7 working days later, the job had been closed and it took the resident contacting the landlord to learn of this. She was understandably upset that the problem had been denied and that no further action was being taken, which could have been abated by proactive communication on the landlord’s part.
In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord acted appropriately and responsively in arranging for another of its surveyors to attend on 19 December 2023. She agreed with the previous surveyor and the resident that it was likely the DPC had been breached as the walls and floor were damp to the touch. Additional issues were also identified, including damp on the lounge wall which resulted in repointing work being undertaken promptly in January 2024. It is not clear why this issue was not identified during the previous inspection in November 2023 and raises questions about its scope.
Again, further investigation of the DPC by a specialist contractor was required and it was not until almost a month later, on 17 January 2024, that this took place. This was 2 and a half months since the resident reported the issue, with conditions exacerbating over the winter months.
The landlord informed the resident on 21 December 2023 that the contractor would contact her directly to arrange the appointment but, having heard nothing, the resident emailed the landlord on 1, 4, 5 and 8 January 2024 requesting an update. It was only in response to her last email that the landlord replied. It explained that its policy allows it 10 days to respond to emails. The Ombudsman also recognises that communications may have been impacted by the holiday period. As such, the landlord cannot be held at fault during this period. However, it is appreciated that this was frustrating for the resident who felt the landlord was not proactively managing and progressing the situation.
This was compounded when the landlord informed her on 8 January 2024 that there was no active request for the job on its system. Within the landlord’s internal correspondence, in response to queries from the complaint handler about the status of the job, the repairs team explained that they had been unable to find a contractor so had re-raised the repair on 10 January 2024. However, the repair log does not evidence that the job was raised prior to this. In the absence of information, the landlord cannot be held at fault, but questions remain about whether the job was initially raised.
There were further delays following the contractor’s visit. Due to the cost of the repair it had to be approved by its repairs panel. The quote was initially rejected as the contractor added redecorating costs following the repair which the landlord would not cover. The panel then raised queries about the cost of the repair and the surveyor asked the contractor if CWI would be a cheaper option. The contractor confirmed this would be but as they did not conduct this work a new job had to be raised and an alternative contractor sought.
The Ombudsman understands that landlords have a finite amount of resources and must manage their funds appropriately. It is therefore reasonable that the landlord explored more economical options. However, this was to the detriment of the resident who experienced further delays. It was not until 13 February 2024 that the job was raised, and the third contractor attended at the end of February 2024 to scope and quote for this work.
Throughout this period the resident chased the landlord frequently via the complaint handler and ultimately the CEO. While it is noted that the landlord responded within its 10-day timeframe, it could have done so more promptly on occasion given the resident’s clear distress at the ongoing situation and her lack of clarity with regards to how it was being progressed. Within her emails she described her fears about the safety of the property and the impact on her children, including that she had taken her daughter to accident and emergency due to ill health that she attributed to the conditions in the property.
Further, the information that was relayed to the resident was not always comprehensive and left her with additional questions, which it then took several days to respond to. This included the timeframe for the panel to consider and approve the quote for works and the nature of ‘discrepancies’ in the quote which had resulted in it being declined. It is appreciated that these queries were directed to the complaint handler as a single point of contact, who was solely responsible for responding and providing updates and had to source answers internally. However, it remains that the resident was left waiting at times.
The landlord informed the resident that it was, instead, progressing with CWI, which she contested was an appropriate intervention. She shared research that showed CWI can exacerbate conditions when the DPC is compromised. The landlord maintained that the DPC was intact and that this was therefore appropriate. The landlord’s position can be considered fair; it was reasonable for it to act on the findings of its contractors.
However, the third contractor discovered that the DPC was in fact breached as the resident had maintained. It was of great frustration to the resident that this was only determined after 2 internal and 3 external inspections, despite her suspecting this was the case all along.
The third contractor provided their quote for DPC injections and CWI on 7 March 2024. The landlord initially queried why the injections had been included and the contractor noted that it had requested this as part of the job description. In fact, the surveyor had made the request in error, by re-raising the job allocated to the previous contractor which included both DPC injections and CWI. The landlord took this to mean that the DPC injections were not required and declined the quote, asking that the contractor re-quote for CWI only.
This was a reasonable assumption as we would expect the contractor to have clarified at this point if they thought the injections were required. However, the surveyor should have made further checks with them. There is no report or details of the contractor’s findings which might have provided more clarity alongside the quote. The landlord is encouraged to ensure sufficient summaries are provided, by both its staff and external contractors, to establish what investigations have taken place and the resulting findings. This allows parties involved in progressing repairs to establish their status and ensure sound judgements are made on work required.
As a result of this, there were further delays. It took the resident asking the attending contractor to discuss the situation with the landlord before it was clarified that the injections were required on 5 April 2024. This was almost a month after the quote was submitted by the contractor.
The contractor then attended at the end of April 2024 to inject the wall, but was unable to complete the job as they discovered they had measured incorrectly and further injections were required. They submitted a further quote to the landlord for additional labour and materials.
There then ensued a confused and disjointed approach towards ownership of the work and its progression, with the resident left with a half-completed job. Within the landlord’s internal correspondence, queries were made between multiple teams about whether the case needed to be submitted to the panel for approval and on another occasion it was assumed to be with the panel. Ultimately, the Head of Special Projects took ownership of the works and established that it was still awaiting review by the panel.
Throughout this time the resident chased the landlord repeatedly for an update on whether the additional works had been approved and asked that the complaint be kept open as the matter had not been resolved. She directed her queries to the stage 2 complaint handler who responded on 2 May 2024 with a vague update that a request had been made to the relevant team and that the invoice may need to be reviewed by the panel. There was then no further response until 17 May 2024 when the Head of Special Projects contacted the resident. Internal correspondence shows a debate about whether the complaint handler should have remained the point of contact, or the relevant service area.
It was unacceptable that progress stalled and the resident’s correspondence was ignored throughout this period. It demonstrated a failing in the landlord’s internal processes. The landlord’s complaints policy states that following a final response it will monitor progress until all outstanding actions are complete but adds that this may be by an alternative team. The landlord should review this and consider how it can ensure prompt ownership is established to avoid the drift seen in this case.
From the records provided it is not clear when further injections were conducted. The notes suggest they were administered on 22 May 2024, following which the landlord inspected and found that additional ones were required. Work to the DPC was concluded on 4 July 2024, 8 months after the resident first reported rising damp.
The Ombudsman appreciates that the repairs were subject to some delays outside of the landlord’s control. However, at times there was a lack of ownership, and it failed to interrogate the status of the work and the findings of contractors which held things up unnecessarily. The landlord is a large organisation and its systems for approval and progression of works was protracted. It required someone to proactively project manage the process which was not consistently the case. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, which was exacerbated by further inconsistency in its communication.
It would have been prudent for a holistic assessment of the property at an early opportunity to establish all causes of damp and mould. There is no evidence that the landlord conducted a healthy homes assessment until June 2024, in contravention of its policy. Additional jobs were identified within surveys at different junctures, such as repointing. Following the latest inspection jobs were raised to install vents in the cupboards and service the living room extractor fan. The healthy homes assessment also identified measures the resident could take to reduce condensation. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that these issues could have been identified sooner by means of an overarching assessment of the property.
Overall, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s damp and mould reports. As a result, further action is required in order to ‘be fair’ and ‘put things right’, in accordance with our Dispute Resolution Principles.

The resident considers outstanding works necessary. She believes further treatment for damp is required under the floor in the bedrooms, necessitating the removal and replacement of floor boards and skirting. She also wants CWI to be installed. The landlord said it would re-assess whether CWI is necessary after works are completed on the internal ventilation. The resident is concerned that this means it will only act retrospectively if the damp and mould return and understandably wants to ensure a long-term resolution.
The Ombudsman is not able to determine whether CWI is necessary. Equally, we cannot establish whether further treatment is required under the floor and whether the floor and skirtings should be replaced. The landlord is ordered to assess these issues and update the resident and this Service about any action it will take. It should progress works to the internal ventilation and assess the requirements for CWI promptly afterwards. It should provide the resident and this Service with a schedule of works for these jobs.
The landlord’s damp and mould action plan affirms that it will take a proactive approach to damp and mould, which includes installing a damp sensor. This is so that it can remotely monitor temperature changes and intervene as appropriate. The landlord should ensure that it installs monitors in the property as per this policy.
The resident considers additional compensation due, given the level of distress and inconvenience caused. The landlord awarded £360 in its final response, for the distress, inconvenience, time and effort, caused by its handling of her reports of damp and mould. The Ombudsman finds that this sum was not sufficient for the level of distress and inconvenience caused by unnecessary delays and poor communication by the landlord.
The resident reported that, because of the damp and mould and her worries about her children’s health, she could not use the bedrooms and the family were sleeping in the living room between March and June 2024. The landlord was either unaware of this or did not reflect it in its calculation. Further, the delays extended beyond its final response. The landlord should award a further £400, to adequately reflect its failures and their impact, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Handling of reports of damage to possessions

In her stage 1 complaint the resident reported that her personal possessions had been ‘ruined’ due to damp and mould. The landlord did not address this in its initial response and there is no evidence that it contacted her to explore the issue or advise on, or offer, redress.
The resident reiterated her concerns in the escalation of her complaint, explaining that damage had been caused to her children’s toys and furniture. The landlord acknowledged this within its final response and directed her to her home contents insurer. It said she could also contact its insurer if she did not have contents insurance or if she considered that it had been negligent.
A claim on home insurance is appropriate where there has been accidental damage, but where a landlord bears responsibility for failing to resolve a matter within a reasonable timeframe, leading to further damage, the resident should have recourse to claim on its insurance. This aligns with the landlord’s compensation policy and it responded appropriately in informing the resident of this and sharing details of how she could progress a claim.
Its policy states that it may consider discretionary compensation instead of referring to its insurer, but it did not do so in this case. While frustrating for the resident that the landlord did not compensate her for damage to her items, it was reasonable for the landlord to refer to its insurers to protect its financial resources.
Ultimately, the landlord acted appropriately in informing the resident of her right to make a claim for damage to her personal items. However, it failed to act appropriately on her initial reports about this, causing her further frustration. For this reason, the Ombudsman finds service failure.
Should she wish, the resident should make a claim to the landlord’s insurance team. The landlord should offer any necessary support to the resident with this process. It should also pay compensation of £50 for its failure to act promptly on the resident’s reports of damage.

Handling of the formal complaint

The landlord’s complaints policy sets out requirements for handling complaints in line with this Service’s Complaint Handling Code. This includes timeframes for responding to complaints. Stage 1 complaints must be responded to within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The landlord should also acknowledge complaints within 5 working days.
The landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint within 2 days and took immediate steps to schedule a further survey. In escalating the complaint, she said the landlord had failed to respond to her complaint at stage 1 within a reasonable time. However, according to relevant policy the landlord acted promptly at this juncture.
Within her escalation request the resident was clear that she wished to ‘formally’ move to stage 2 of the process. Despite this, the landlord did not acknowledge or log the complaint within the required 5 days. It did so only when the resident chased it, after 8 working days, on 13 February 2024. In its acknowledgement it explained that it was experiencing a backlog and warned its response may be delayed. In fact, the response came a further 53 working days later.
Not only did the landlord delay, but it failed to proactively communicate with the resident throughout this period and to manage her expectations about when it would respond. It was only when the resident contacted it on 16 April 2024 that it progressed the complaint. For this reason, the Ombudsman finds service failure. While in its final response the landlord offered an apology and compensation, this was not sufficient. The landlord is therefore ordered to pay further compensation of £40 considering the delays and its poor communication.
The Ombudsman understands that the landlord has implemented quality assurance checks with complaint handling performance reviewed on a quarterly basis by the Governance Board and Resident Service Board. Findings relating to individual cases are fed back to individuals and managers. Staff have received refresher training and are set individual complaint handling objectives. These interventions followed recommendations made as part of a special investigation conducted by this Service under paragraph 49 of the Scheme, which identified issues including the landlord’s complaint handling.
The Ombudsman appreciates that these measures are newly implemented and remain in progress. As a result, no further orders have been made with regard these issues. However, the landlord should review the measures it has in place to reduce complaint handling delays and update this Service with its plan going forward.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
  1. Reports of damage to her personal items.
  2. Formal complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £490 compensation (£400 for failings in its handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould, £50 for its delay in responding to the resident’s reports of damage to her possessions, and £40 for failings in its handling of the complaint).
2. Where there are outstanding repairs at the conclusion of the complaints process, the landlord should identify who will oversee these and remain the point of contact for a resident. It should make this clear to the resident within the final response. It should consider adapting its complaints policy to add this requirement, or otherwise communicate this to relevant staff. The landlord should update this Service with how it intends to provide clarity here and ensure ownership of ongoing repairs.
3. Ensure that relevant staff review its damp and mould action plan and are aware of the obligations under this policy, including the requirement to conduct healthy homes assessments within 5 days.
4. Assess whether further treatment is required under the floor in the resident’s bedrooms. The landlord should update the resident and this Service with any work to be undertaken or explain why it does not consider this to be necessary.
5. Schedule and complete outstanding works to improve internal ventilation, as identified during its latest inspection. Upon completion of these works it should assess whether CWI should be installed and update the resident accordingly.
6. Apply sensors to the property to adequately monitor temperatures and identify risk of damp and mould, as part of its proactive damp and mould strategy.
7. Devise a schedule of works to include the above and share this with the resident and this Service. This should be dynamic and include any further works identified as being necessary based on its assessments.
8. Ensure the resident has a dedicated point of contact going forward.
9. Write a letter of apology to the resident acknowledging the failings identified in this report and the steps it will take to ensure these are not repeated.
10. Review the measures it has in place to reduce complaint handling delays and update this Service with its plan going forward.

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to ensure that repairs operatives (both internal and external) complete sufficiently detailed summaries of visits to establish what work has been assessed and undertaken.