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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202340688)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202340688

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

31 January 2025


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:
    1. Response to the resident’s concerns about ventilation in the bathroom.
    2. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident and her mother have had a shared ownership lease at the property since 2003. The property is a 2 bedroom, ground floor flat. The resident does not live at the property, however her mother and sister do. Her sister has a mould allergy, other health conditions (not disclosed), an auto immune disorder and Fibromyalgia.
  2. On 31 December 2021, the resident reported that the communal fan system for the building did not appear to be working. The landlord subsequently completed a repair on 4 January 2022. The resident submitted a complaint (referred to in this report as complaint A) on 10 February 2022. She stated that the communal fan system was not working and that the landlord had not checked that the extractor fan in her property was working either.
  3. The landlord responded to complaint A at stage 1 on 11 February 2022. It acknowledged that the repair to the building ventilation system had taken longer than it should have as an electrician had been sent, rather than a ventilation specialist. It advised that it had asked for a specialist to attend as soon as possible and it would update the resident. The resident escalated complaint A on 15 February 2022. There was a gap in the correspondence seen by the Ombudsman until 10 and 26 January 2023 when the resident advised the landlord that the communal ventilation was not working. The landlord subsequently carried out a repair on 17 February 2023. The resident reported the issue again on 13 March 2023 and further works were completed on 20 March 2023. 3 new ventilation units were subsequently installed in the communal loft area on 28 April 2023.
  4. On 15 June 2023, the resident submitted a complaint (referred to as complaint B in this report). She stated that, following the work to fix the communal ventilation system, the face plate of her bathroom extractor fan had not been replaced. She stated that this had caused mould. (It appears from photographs seen by the Ombudsman that the fan had been taped over, making it unusable). The landlord acknowledged the complaint and noted that the resident had requested a mould wash. It subsequently responded to complaint B at stage 1 on 19 June 2023. It apologised that the face plate had not been replaced and advised that it had raised a job for this. The landlord signposted the resident to her contents insurance or the landlord’s insurers, in respect of the mould and any damage caused by this. It provided details of how to submit a claim to its insurers.
  5. On 20 June 2023, the landlord advised the resident that its contractor had recommended that a new communal extraction system be installed. As such, it would pass complaint B to the relevant department. It had cancelled the job to replace the extractor face plate and had instead raised this with the contractor. The resident asked the landlord not to cancel the job and stated that it needed to be carried out due to health and safety. On 13 July 2023, the resident sent a claim under the ‘Pre-Action Protocol for Housing Conditions Claims’ to the landlord. This set out that disrepair had been caused to the bathroom due to equipment disrepair. She outlined areas of mould in the bathroom and that her sister’s medical conditions had been worsened. She also stated that the mould had delayed bathroom adaptations from taking place. She requested damages in respect of the bathroom and the worsening of health conditions.
  6. On 6 September 2023, the landlord responded to complaint A at stage 2 (although not stated, this also incorporated complaint B). The landlord stated:
    1. The resident had made a number of reports between 2021 and 2023 in respect of the communal ventilation not working correctly. Contractors had attended on “many occasions” but had not fully identified or resolved the issue. It apologised for the delay in the issue being resolved, along with the inconvenience and distress experienced.
    2. The cause of the issue had been identified in 2023. The subsequent quote and approval had been delayed, however it was unable to find out why. It was waiting for parts to be delivered for the communal fans, which were expected within the next 14 days.
    3. It had requested that the contractor replace the face plate of the resident’s bathroom fan.
    4. Its disrepair team had received the resident’s case and would contact her about the reported bathroom disrepair. This was not part of the stage 2 complaint. Any damaged items or injury should be reported and claimed via the resident’s or the landlord’s insurance.
    5. It acknowledged that the resident had escalated the complaint (complaint A) on 10 May 2022.
    6. It offered £970 total compensation, made up of:
      1. £150 in recognition of the inconvenience and distress.
      2. £250 in recognition of repair delays, including the resident’s time and effort bringing the matter to its attention.
      3. £250 for the failure at stage 1 to investigate reported bathroom disrepair. (This mater being managed by its disrepair team).
      4. £320 in recognition of the delay in responding at stage 2.
  7. Work to the communal fans was completed on 4 October 2023. The resident queried when the face plate of the bathroom fan would be replaced and explained that there was no ventilation from the fan in the bathroom. The landlord advised on 15 November 2023 that the bathroom repairs were being progressed under the disrepair/insurance case.
  8. On 11 February 2024, the resident referred her complaint about the lack of ventilation in the bathroom (complaints A and B) to the Ombudsman. She stated that her sister’s breathing has been affected, bathroom adaptions had been delayed, and the lack of ventilation had affected the condition of the bathroom. Following the involvement of the Ombudsman, the landlord raised a new complaint in respect of the ventilation affecting the bathroom adaptations (complaint C) on 20 March 2024. It advised the resident that, as she was a leaseholder, it would be unable to carry out adaptations. The resident advised the landlord on 21 March 2024 that the outstanding matters were the mould treatment and decoration works. The landlord confirmed to the resident on 25 March 2024 that the concerns raised (within complaint C) were being dealt with under the insurance case. The resident requested (28 March 2024) a final response to be able to refer the matter to the Ombudsman. Subsequently, the resident requested that complaint C be escalated to stage 2 on 14 May 2024.
  9. A contractor attended on 21 June 2024 to carry out mould treatment but noted that access could not be gained. The resident advised the landlord (12 July 2024) that it had not confirmed that chemicals the mould treatment contained, which she said was needed given the household vulnerabilities. The landlord raised a job to replace the fan face cover as part of the insurance case and this was fitted on 6 August 2024. The contractor noted that the airflow did not seem sufficient and advised the landlord that the communal fans should be inspected. On 6 September 2024, the landlord responded to complaint C at stage 2 and stated:
    1. It apologised for the lack of adequate communication and action. It acknowledged that this would have had an effect on the household.
    2. The disrepair case was ongoing and this would review and assess damages and inconvenience caused.
    3. It apologised for the complaint response having been delayed by 2 months. It offered £40 compensation (£20 per month) to acknowledge this.
  10. On 13 September 2024, the resident referred complaint C to the Ombudsman. She stated that she had escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 28 March 2024 and, as such, the landlord had incorrectly calculated the compensation.

Correspondence following the referral to the Ombudsman

  1. On 18 October 2024, a contractor attended to carry out a service of the communal ventilation. It noted that the communal ventilation was working. However, 2 of the fans were at a high level and, as such, it had been unable to access them without a second contractor being present. The resident advised the Ombudsman on 10 January 2025 that the landlord had not provided the ingredients contained within the mould wash and, as such, this had not taken place.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Throughout the complaint and in communication with the Ombudsman, the resident has raised the effect of the ventilation issue on the physical health of her mother and sister. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral evidence can be examined in court. This is in line with paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme, which says we may not consider complaints where it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts or other tribunal or procedure. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.
  2. The Ombudsman has not seen the insurance claim in respect of the bathroom repairs or awards for damages/injury and this did not form part of the complaint referred to us. Should the resident be dissatisfied with the handling of the insurance claim, this would also need to be referred to the courts or other appropriate tribunal or procedure under paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme above.
  3. Following the completion of the landlord’s complaints procedure, the resident raised her concern that the landlord had not provided the ingredients contained in the mould wash. As the concern about ingredients not having been provided has not been considered by the landlord as part of its complaints procedure, this does not form part of this investigation. This is in line with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme, which says we may not consider complaints made before these have exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. The landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to respond to this. The resident has the option to raise this as a formal complaint and subsequently approach the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied following the completion of the complaints procedure.

Ventilation in the bathroom

  1. The resident’s lease states that the landlord is responsible for keeping in good repair the ventilation equipment, except where it serves one property in the building exclusively (this then being a leaseholder’s responsibility). As such, the landlord would be responsible for maintaining the communal fans in the loft of the building.

Complaint A

  1. The resident reported to the landlord that the communal ventilation was not working as it should, on 31 December 2021. The landlord responded to this appropriately and arranged a repair within one working day on 4 January 2022. Around a month later (10 February 2022) the resident reported again that the communal ventilation was not working and she submitted a complaint (complaint A) in respect of this.
  2. The landlord responded to complaint A at stage 1 of the complaints procedure on 11 February 2022. It acknowledged that the repair to the building ventilation system had taken longer than it should have due to its failure to send the correct contractor (a ventilation specialist). It apologised that it had not resolved the issue and advised that it had asked for a specialist contractor to attend as soon as possible. It stated that it would keep the resident updated. The resident escalated complaint A on 15 February 2022. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord had arranged the repair or that it had kept the resident informed as it had committed to.

Complaint B

  1. There was a gap in the correspondence seen by the Ombudsman until the following year. On 10 and 26 January 2023, the resident advised the landlord that the communal ventilation was not working. Following these reports, the landlord arranged a repair for 17 February 2023, which was around 5 and a half weeks after the resident’s first report. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it aims to complete routine repairs within an average of 25 calendar days (around 3 and a half weeks). As such, the landlord delayed carrying out this repair by around 2 weeks.
  2. Following another report from the resident on 13 March 2023 that the issue had not been resolved, the landlord carried out a further repair on 20 March 2023. Following this, it installed 3 new ventilation units in the loft on 28 April 2023. The Ombudsman has not seem the survey of the communal fans which led to this installation, however it was appropriate for the landlord to fit new fans in light of the repeated issues with the ventilation raised by the resident.
  3. Following these works to install new communal fans, the contractor did not reattach the face plate of the resident’s bathroom extractor fan. As such, the bathroom did not have a working extractor fan from 28 April 2023. The resident’s lease sets out that the resident is responsible for keeping in good repair electrical equipment which serves the property. It states that the landlord will not be liable for any damage experienced by a leaseholder by a defect in such equipment except where such liability may be covered by insurance. Therefore, in accordance with the lease, the resident is responsible for the bathroom extractor fan, as it benefits her property exclusively. However, as the landlord had removed this during works to the communal fans, it should have left her property in the same condition it found it and should have reinstated the face plate.
  4. The resident raised a complaint (complaint B) about this on 15 June 2023 and advised that the lack of a working extractor fan had caused mould in the bathroom. The landlord was responsive to this and responded to complaint B at stage 1 on 19 June 2023. It apologised that the face plate had not been replaced and advised that it had raised a repair for this. The landlord signposted the resident to her contents insurance or the landlord’s insurers, in respect of any damage caused. It provided details of how to submit a claim via its insurers. This was in line with the terms of the resident’s lease, which states that the landlord will not be liable for any damage experienced by the leaseholder by a defect in equipment, except where such liability may be covered by insurance. However, it failed to address the resident’s request for a mould wash. This was not appropriate and, as such, it missed an opportunity to reduce the effect of the mould.
  5. Despite the assurance in the complaint response landlord subsequently cancelled the job to replace the face plate as it stated it was going to fit a new communal ventilation system. Despite the resident making it clear that she wanted the fan to be repaired due to the effect of the lack of ventilation, the landlord showed disregard for her concerns and did not restore the job after having cancelled it. This demonstrated a lack of appreciation of the effect on health, as raised by the resident.
  6. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) provides recommendations for landlords, including that they should “adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions.” The landlord’s damp and mould policy sets out that it will take reports of damp and mould seriously and it will support residents to reduce and eliminate damp and mould. In this case, the landlord was aware of the lack of a working extractor fan in the bathroom, however, despite being aware of what should have been a fairly easy issue to resolve, it failed to treat this with any urgency. This was contrary to the landlord’s damp and mould policy and showed a disregard for the resident’s concerns and the possibility of the condition of the property worsening.
  7. The resident raised her concerns a via a Pre-Action Protocol for Housing Conditions claim, and the following day (14 July 2023) the landlord asked a contractor to attend to fit a new face plate. This, however, could not be carried out due to a different type being required. By the time the landlord responded to the resident’s complaints (A and B) at stage 2 (6 September 2023), this face plate had not been replaced. Although the landlord had made one attempt to replace it, it failed to demonstrate a sufficient understanding of the hazard potentially being caused by lack of ventilation in the bathroom.
  8. Landlords are required to look at the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding or minimising potential hazards. A lack of bathroom ventilation and damp and mould are potential hazards that can fall within the scope of the HHSRS. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it had considered whether its actions, or inactions, had affected the hazards present in the property.
  9. Within its stage 2 response on 6 September 2023, in respect of the ventilation and face plate issues (complaints A and B) the landlord acknowledged that its contractors had attended on many occasions without fully identifying or resolving the issue. It also acknowledged that there had been a delay in the quote and approval for the communal fan works being given. It advised that it had raised a job to replace the extractor fan face plate, however it failed to address why this had not been actioned sooner. It repeated its advice to the resident in respect of any damage caused to items or health due to the lack of ventilation. The landlord offered £650 compensation (excluding the amount offered for complaint handling, which will be considered separately below). This was made up of:
    1. £150 in recognition of inconvenience and distress.
    2. £250 in recognition of repair delays including the resident’s time and effort bringing the matter to its attention.
    3. £250 failure at stage 1 to investigate reported bathroom disrepair. (This matter being managed by its disrepair team.)

Complaint C

  1. Following the involvement of the Ombudsman in respect of complaints A and B, on 20 March 2024, the landlord raised a new complaint in respect of the lack of ventilation affecting bathroom adaptations (complaint C). The landlord appropriately advised the resident that, as a leaseholder, she would be responsible for carrying out any adaptations. However, the landlord failed to address the resident’s concern that she had been unable to do such works in light of the unresolved bathroom issues (being handled as part of the insurance claim). The landlord stated that it had already considered the issue of the ventilation and that no further repairs had been raised. In doing so, however, it failed to acknowledge that the face plate of the resident’s fan had not been replaced by this point. This is something it should have been aware of, particularly in light of how long this had been outstanding, the resident’s repeated communication, and its commitment undertake this as per its prior stage 2 response.
  2. Due to the lack of action from the landlord in resolving the issue with the extractor fan, the resident purchased a dehumidifier for £159.99 on 2 February 2024 and provided the order confirmation to the landlord. She subsequently requested, on 28 March 2024, that a mould wash be carried out in the bathroom. The landlord advised that such remedial works were being handled via the insurance claim.
  3. It took the landlord until 6 August 2024 for the new bathroom extractor face plate to be fitted and for the extractor fan to be working. It is therefore clear that the landlord’s previous commitment to replace this, given in its stage 2 response for complaints A and B, had not been actioned in a timely manner. This resulted in the resident not having a working bathroom extractor fan from around April 2023 to August 2024, around 16 months. During the works to fit the face plate, the contractor advised the landlord that the airflow did not seem sufficient and the communal fans should be inspected.
  4. Within the landlord’s stage 2 response to complaint C (6 September 2024) it apologised for the lack of adequate communication and action. This apology was vague and it was not clear what particular failures the landlord had identified and whether these related to the fan face plate, the delay in the adaptations being able to commence, or the outcome of the insurance case. It acknowledged that the delays would have had an effect on the household, however it failed to address this in light of the particular household vulnerabilities, or its responsibility to reduce hazards such as damp and mould. Despite having been advised by a contractor that the airflow was not sufficient, the landlord failed to address this within its stage 2 response. As such, the response lacked openness in its identification of the issues and the action it would take.
  5. The Ombudsman understands that the landlord had limited control over the progress and consideration of the insurance claim, however the evidence suggests that there was ineffective oversight, management, and coordination of the works to ensure the resident’s bathroom was sufficiently ventilated following the blocking of the extractor fan. The landlord lacked sufficient record keeping to allow it to explain why there had been a significant delay in restoring the extractor fan face plate. The lack of effective communication between different departments also affected the landlord’s ability to carry out the works in a timely manner.
  6. When failures are identified, as in this case, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in all the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right, and Learn from Outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies. In this case, the landlord acknowledged some of its failures, however it failed to demonstrate sufficient consideration of the potential hazards on the vulnerable residents. Although it committed to carry out works within its complaint responses, it failed to follow through on these, which affected the resident’s confidence in it being able to resolve matters. This led to the resident feeling as if the complaints procedure was an administrative process rather than an effective way for issues to be resolved.
  7. The £650 compensation offered was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for what we would expect to be offered where there were failures which had a significant effect on a resident. However, the landlord did not consider the full extent of its failures’ effect on the resident for a long period. As such, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about ventilation in the bathroom.
  8. The Ombudsman has therefore ordered the landlord to apologise to and pay the resident additional compensation of £250. This is in line with our remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation for failures by the landlord that adversely affected the resident when its offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. We have also ordered the landlord to refund the resident for the dehumidifier she purchased after being without ventilation in the bathroom for a significant period. We have further ordered the landlord to survey the communal loft fans to assess whether they are working correctly, and to carry out a senior management review of the issues highlighted in this report, as well as recommending it give the resident details of its mould wash’s ingredients.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that at stage 1 it will respond within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days. If additional time is required it will keep the resident informed.
  2. The resident submitted complaint A about the communal ventilation fans on 10 February 2022. The landlord provided the stage 1 response the following day (11 February 2022) and acknowledged that the incorrect contractor had been sent which had led to delays. The resident escalated the complaint on 15 February 2022.
  3. The resident submitted complaint B on 15 June 2023, in respect of the extractor fan face plate not having been replaced. The landlord acknowledged complaint B that same day and provided the stage 1 response on 19 June 2023, within its published stage 1 timeframe.
  4. On 23 June 2023, the resident advised that the landlord had not responded to her escalation request from 2022 for complaint A. In addition, she escalated complaint B to stage 2 of the complaints procedure. The landlord subsequently responded to both complaints at stage 2 on 6 September 2023. This was around 19 months after the resident had requested to escalate complaint A and 53 working days after she had escalated complaint B. Both timeframes were significantly outside of the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord acknowledged this within the stage 2 response, however it did not apologise or explain the reasons for this. It also failed to advise how it would prevent such a delay in its responses going forward. As such, it failed to demonstrate that it had taken learning from the identified failure.
  5. The landlord acknowledged that it had delayed in responding at stage 2, although it did not make it clear this was in respect of both complaints. It offered £320 in recognition of this delay. The landlord’s offer of £320 compensation to acknowledge the effect on the resident of the delay in responding to complaint A and B was appropriate and was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where failures have adversely affected a resident.
  6. In respect of complaint C, the resident submitted this around 20 March 2024. Although the landlord responded to the concerns raised by the resident between 20 March and 25 March 2024, the landlord failed to provide a stage 1 response. Following the landlord’s correspondence with the resident in respect of her concerns, she requested (28 March 2024) a final response to be able to refer the matter to the Ombudsman. This was not provided and, as such, the resident specifically requested that complaint C be escalated to stage 2 on 14 May 2024.
  7. The landlord responded to complaint C at stage 2 on 6 September 2024, despite not having responded at stage 1. It offered £40 compensation for the delay in responding at stage 2, which it calculated as 2 months (£20 per month). The landlord’s failure to provide a stage 1 response led to confusion as to the stage of the complaints process this complaint was at. However, the resident’s request in March 2024 for a final response should have been treated as an escalation request.
  8. The landlord’s lack of response to this led to frustration for the resident and her requesting an escalation again in May 2024. The landlord’s failure to escalate the complaint, or to clarify the stage the complaint was at in March 2024, resulted in it incorrectly calculating that the stage 2 response had only been delayed by 2 months. It had in fact taken from March to September 2024 to respond at stage 2. As the landlord’s policy sets out that it has around a calendar month to respond at stage 2 (20 working days) the response as therefore delayed by around 5 months.
  9. Given the failures in the landlord’s identification of the escalation request, the effect of this on the resident and the landlord’s lack of an appropriate offer of compensation for complaint C, a finding of maladministration has been made.
  10. To acknowledge the effect of the additional delay on the resident, which had not been identified by the landlord, additional compensation of £60 had been ordered. This brings the total compensation for complaint C to £100. This is £20 for each of the 5 months after the landlord failed to respond to complaint C at stage 2 on time.
  11. It is noted that the issues which have been identified by the Ombudsman in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling, have also been identified in other recent cases. We have issued orders to the landlord in accordance with paragraph 54.f. of the Scheme to undertake management reviews of identified complaint handling failures. Such reviews were ordered in case reference 202202309 (30 January 2024) and 202221775 (21 June 2024). As the landlord has taken recent action in respect of reviewing its complaint handling, no further order will be made in respect of this in this report.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about ventilation in the bathroom.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendation

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of this report and provide evidence of compliance to the Ombudsman:
    1. Apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this case.
    2. Pay a total of £1,479.99 compensation to the resident. This figure includes the landlord’s earlier offer of £1,010, which does not need to be paid again if this has already been paid. The compensation is made up of:
      1. £900 compensation to acknowledge the effect on the resident of the landlord’s failures in its response to the resident’s concerns about ventilation in the bathroom.
      2. £159.99 to reimburse the resident for her purchase of a dehumidifier.
      3. £420 compensation to acknowledge the effect on the resident of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
  2. The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 8 weeks of this report and provide evidence of compliance to this Ombudsman:
    1. Carry out a survey of the communal fans in the loft to assess whether they are working correctly. Provide a written outcome of this to the resident and the Ombudsman. If a fault is found, provide a plan and schedule of works to resolve this to the resident and the Ombudsman.
    2. Conduct a senior management review of the issues highlighted in this report. This should be presented to its senior leadership team and shared with the Ombudsman. Within 8 weeks the landlord should provide the Ombudsman a report summarising identified improvements, which should also be shared with its relevant staff. Topics for inclusion include:
      1. Why there was a significant delay by the landlord in replacing the resident’s bathroom extractor fan face plate and why the landlord did not act in accordance with its damp and mould policy. The landlord should identify any changes it should make to its processes and staff guidance as to how it responds when a potential cause of damp and mould is identified.
      2. How the landlord will improve its communications between departments as to works required and the associated priority of completing such works.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that the landlord give the resident details of the ingredients in its mould wash.