Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202323037)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323037

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

31 October 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 the resident’s:
    1. Reports of damp and mould.
    2. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    3. Concerns about the rent increase.
    4. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. She holds a fixed term assured shorthold tenancy which was renewed on 4 May 2024. The property is a 2-bedroom flat situated within a block.
  2. On 22 February 2022, the resident reported concerns of damp and mould in the bedrooms, believed to be a result of historical leaks within the bathroom. A repair was raised and marked as complete on 25 February 2022. However, there are no job notes to indicate what investigations, if any, the landlord carried out following this report.
  3. Between September 2022 and August 2023, the resident made several reports to the landlord regarding incidents of ASB. She reported that non-residents had been gaining access to the communal areas of the building and drug use had been witnessed. The evidence shows that the landlord took measures to alleviate the issue before implementing 24–hour on site security sometime in 2023. Although this was a short–term measure, the resident confirmed that it did resolve the main concerns.
  4. Throughout August 2023 the resident was in communication with the landlord regarding the upcoming renewal of the tenancy. On the 29 August 2023 the landlord informed the resident via email that her rent increase had been agreed at 4%. Several days later she was informed that this was an error and the increase would be 7%.
  5. On 11 September 2023 the resident raised a complaint with the landlord about the level of proposed rent increase and the conduct of a staff member during the negotiations. The resident said that the staff member was unprofessional and abrupt and had failed to honour the original agreed increase of 4%.
  6. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 19 September 2023 and said that the reference to 4% was made in error. In recognition of the poor service the resident had received, it said it was willing to reduce the increase from 7% to 5% and award £150 compensation. It also apologised for the conduct of the staff member and said that this was not the standard of service it expected.
  7. The resident escalated her complaint on 26 September 2023, saying that although the conduct of the staff member was acknowledged, the landlord had failed to demonstrate any learning or explain what measures it had taken to ensure this did not happen again. In addition, the resident said that there was an ongoing issue with damp and mould in the property following a historical leak. This was reported on 26 August 2023, but no action had been taken. The resident said that her son’s bedframe would need to be replaced and that he was now being treated for asthma.
  8. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 8 December 2023. It said that:
    1. Within its stage 1 response it had failed to fully address the measures taken in relation to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct. It confirmed that a discussion had taken place with the staff member and further training identified.
    2. It acknowledged an error had been made in an email exchange regarding the percentage increase of rent. It had compensated the resident for the inconvenience caused and would not be reducing the rent any further.
    3. It was unable to award any damages in respect of damp and mould, but would provide the resident with instructions of how to make a claim via its insurance.
    4. In recognition of the delay in issuing its stage 2 response it awarded an additional £100 compensation, taking the total redress amount to £250.
  9. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction and scope of investigation

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all of the evidence, we have determined that the following aspect of the complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  3. Paragraph 42(a) of The Housing Ombudsman Scheme states: “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.” In this case the ASB did not form part of the resident’s complaint to the landlord. It therefore will not be considered as part of this investigation, as the landlord needs to be given the opportunity to respond. The resident may choose to make a further complaint about the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports, which she may subsequently refer to this Service if she is dissatisfied with its final response.
  4. In addition, the resident has raised concerns about the level of rent increase applied.
  5. Paragraph 42(d) of The Housing Ombudsman Scheme states: “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase.” Therefore, the level of the rent will not be considered as part of this investigation. Instead, we will assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the rent increase.

Damp and mould

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that for routine repairs, it will aim to complete the repair at the earliest mutually convenient appointment. The 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.

 

  1. In addition, 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 potential hazards. The landlord is therefore required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and address them in line with its repair responsibilities.
  2. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould (2021) says: “Landlords should ensure they have strategies in place to manage these types of cases with an emphasis on ensuring that the resident is kept informed, feels that the landlord is taking the issue seriously and that the matter is progressing.” In this case, while the landlord documented that it responded to the initial report in February 2022 within an appropriate timeframe of 3 working days, its records did not state what action it took. This was evidence of inadequate record keeping and would have made it difficult for the LL to adopt an incremental approach to treating the damp and mould in the event of further reports. We would expect it to have carried out a timely inspection to determine if any works were required and to have recorded the outcome on its system.
  3. Within her stage 2 complaint on 26 September 2023, the resident said that a further report of damp and mould was made on 26 August 2023. There is no evidence that the landlord raised a repair following this report. This is particularly concerning given the fact the resident explained that the damp was affecting her son’s health, and he was now being treated for asthma. In addition to the landlord’s failure to act promptly, it also failed to appropriately address the concerns about damp and mould within its complaint response. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have acknowledged this recent report, raised a repair, and made an appointment for an inspection to take place.
  4. Within the same complaint, the resident informed the landlord that the damp in her son’s bedroom had damaged a bedframe. The landlord responded by saying that it was unable to cover any damages and advised the resident to submit a claim via its insurers. Although this response was in line with the landlord’s internal policy, it would have been appropriate for it to have considered whether its actions may have contributed to the damage. There is no evidence that any such consideration was given to the resident’s request or that any inspection took place.
  5. In conducting investigations, the Ombudsman relies on contemporaneous documentary evidence to ascertain what events took place and reach conclusions on whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable in all the circumstances. Although we have determined this case using the information available, there were significant gaps in the evidence provided by the landlord, demonstrating a record keeping failure. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
  6. In summary, the landlord has failed to provide any evidence to demonstrate that it acted quickly, carried out sufficient investigations, or offered any solutions to the resident in managing the ongoing damp and mould in the property. The resident has informed this Service that she remains impacted by the historical water ingress and signs of damp are still present. Therefore, the landlord has failed in its obligations to the resident and has not ‘put things right’. We find that this failure amounts to maladministration.

Concerns about the rent increase

  1. The resident raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of the rent increase and the lack of transparency in its calculations. The evidence shows that she asked the landlord for clarification on how it calculated her increase in comparison to her neighbours. It was reasonable for the landlord to explain that it was unable to discuss other rent accounts. However, its response lacked the appropriate detail. It said that the calculation was based on a comparison of other properties in the area, but it did not provide any evidence to support this. The resident disputed this explanation and presented the landlord with her own comparison, which she felt was dismissed. Although this in itself does not amount to a service failure, a recommendation has been made below regarding the importance of transparency around such matters.
  2. It is not disputed that the resident received an unacceptable standard of service from the landlord, which had a direct impact upon the prolonged tenancy renewal negotiations. The evidence shows that the resident was given misleading information in relation to the rent increase. While it is recognised that administrative errors can occur, it is reasonable to conclude that this caused distress for the resident as she spent a considerable amount of time seeking a resolution. Furthermore, the communications she received were unsympathetic and insensitively worded at times.
  3. Although the landlord offered an apology and £150 compensation for the distress caused within its stage 1 response, it failed to demonstrate appropriate learning at this point and re-assure the resident that her concerns had been taken seriously.
  4. The landlord did appropriately acknowledge this failure within its stage 2 response, advising that a “discussion” had taken place with relevant staff and further training identified. As such, although it should have clearly explained this at an earlier stage, this Service is satisfied that the landlord took reasonable steps to address the resident’s concerns about staff conduct. It offered compensation and took action that the Ombudsman considers was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to this failing. A finding of reasonable redress has therefore been made.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy says that it operates a 2-stage complaints process. The landlord will 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.
  2. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 19 September 2023, in line with its complaint policy. However, its stage 2 response was issued 53 working days after the resident’s escalation. This was outside of the 20–working-day response timescale outlined within its policy. The landlord offered the resident £100 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.
  3. Within the resident’s complaint escalation on 26 September 2023, she raised new concerns regarding damp and mould. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to open a new complaint regarding these matters, rather than include them in its stage 2 response. In doing so, it denied the resident access to its 2–stage complaints process. This failure was not accounted for by the landlord’s offer of £100, and has resulted in a finding of service failure rather than reasonable redress.
  4. In July 2023, the Ombudsman published a special report following an in-depth investigation into the landlord and made 10 recommendations for service improvements, including in relation to record keeping and complaint handling. The Ombudsman has therefore not made duplicate recommendations within this report. Nonetheless, we expect the landlord to take all relevant learning points from this case into account in its future service provision.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns about the rent increase.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of this report and provide evidence of compliance to this Service:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £300 compensation, broken down as follows:
      1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in its handling of her reports of damp and mould.
      2. £100 it already offered for complaint handling.
      3. This amount must be paid directly to the resident. The landlord may deduct any amounts already paid.
    3. Contact the resident to arrange for a damp and mould inspection to be carried out. The findings must be documented and a copy provided to the resident and this Service. Any remedial works must then be completed within the timescales set out in the landlord’s policies.

Recommendations

  1. In addition to the compensation ordered above, it is recommended that the landlord pays the resident the £150 compensation it offered in relation to its handling of her concerns about the rent increase. The Ombudsman’s reasonable redress determination has been made on the basis that this payment is made (if it has not been made already).
  2. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its rent renewal communications and includes a detailed explanation of how any increases in rent have been calculated in future.