London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202345699)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202345699

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

29 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident told us she is an assured tenant. She moved to the property in 2018 through a mutual exchange process. The landlord did not provide her full tenancy agreement. The property is a 4-bedroom house. The resident occupies the property with her children. She has mobility issues and arthritis. Some of her children have breathing conditions and one has a disability.
4. The resident’s complaint largely relates to the property’s flooring. In her later complaint to the landlord, the resident said the landlord had known the flooring was damp since January 2023. Records show the landlord’s contractor investigated the property’s basement and ground floor areas for penetrating and rising damp at this point. In June 2023 a damp specialist deemed the basement to be uninhabitable due to damp and mould. They also said damaged and uneven flooring on the ground floor presented a risk to the family.
5. The resident complained to the landlord on 12 December 2023. She said the floorboards had been damaged by damp and mould in the basement. She also said the landlord had cancelled a related repair appointment. Her complaint confirmed the flooring issues were ongoing at this point. The landlord upheld her complaint the following day. Subsequently, it issued a full stage 1 response on 14 January 2024. The landlord said it needed to visit the property to plan the flooring repairs. It awarded the resident a total of £160 in compensation.
6. The resident accepted the landlord’s compensation several days later. However, she said the flooring repairs would damage some existing laminate floor coverings. In response, the landlord said the floor coverings were the resident’s responsibility. From this point onwards, there was a dispute about who should replace them. This dispute prompted the resident to escalate her complaint. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 6 February 2024. It identified some additional failures and increased its compensation award by £80. The response reiterated the landlord’s position on the floor coverings.
7. The resident remained unhappy following the landlord’s stage 2 response. The evidence shows the dispute about the floor coverings hindered the landlord’s progress with the repairs and they remain outstanding to date. In September 2024 the resident told us the landlord had given her conflicting information about the floor coverings. This was on the basis one of its operatives had previously agreed to replace them.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

8. It is recognised the situation is distressing for the resident. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. This means we cannot determine whether the landlord was responsible for any injuries or damage to the resident’s personal belongings.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould

9. On 6 January 2023 the landlord raised a repair order to investigate damp in the property’s basement and ground floor areas. The landlord’s repair history shows an external contractor inspected the property around 8 working days later. The landlord did not provide a copy of the resident’s corresponding report or the contractor’s inspection findings. The landlord’s website shows it aims to complete routine repairs within 20 working days. Inspections should also be completed within this timescale. Based on the available evidence, the landlord’s actions were appropriate at this point. However, the landlord’s record keeping will be considered further during the complaint handling section of this report.
10. The parties provided limited information about events over the next few months. The landlord’s appointment records suggest the resident cancelled a repair visit on 1 February 2023. They also indicate the landlord was unable to access the property on 3 March 2023. Repair records suggest the landlord completed some asbestos surveys around May 2023. The evidence indicates the surveys were required before the landlord could progress other repairs. Given the limited evidence, it was difficult to assess the landlord’s actions during this period. Ultimately, we were unable to evidence any failures by the landlord at this time.
11. On 7 June 2023 the landlord raised a repair order to address damp and mould. The repair notes said “damp/mould identified in property please produce report [and treat it]”. The landlord did not provide a copy of the corresponding report. A specialist damp survey was completed on 27 June 2023. This was around 14 working days after the landlord raised the repair order. Based on these dates, the evidence shows the landlord responded within an appropriate timescale. Some key findings from the damp survey were:
    1. The were signs of excessive moisture in the basement and its walls were “mouldy and crumbling”. The surveyor was unable to establish the root cause. They deemed the basement to be uninhabitable and advised further investigation was needed.
    2. Flooring in the hallway and downstairs toilet was “damaged and uneven”. Its condition presented a health and safety risk to the resident’s family. Further investigation was needed to establish the cause of the damage.
    3. Mould was found in an airing cupboard. The mould was treated during the inspection.
12. In July 2023 the landlord received a quote from its external contractor. It said the contractor had noted “visible damp staining” on walls in the hallway. It also said the contractor had done some testing and “high damp readings” were recorded in a number of areas. The quote shows the landlord was in the process of addressing other damp related issues at this point. The quote included a specification that showed various repairs would be completed to the hallway. The specification did not include any repairs to address the “damaged and uneven flooring” that the damp specialist had previously identified. This was concerning and it points to a coordination issue on the landlord’s part.
13. On 29 November 2023 the landlord raised a repair order to inspect flooring in the property’s hallway, living room, and dining room. The repair notes said the flooring was “broken/damaged and [it had] holes in [it]”. They also said “feet get stuck in holes”. It is assumed the notes reflected information the resident had told the landlord. These notes show the hallway flooring was still a problem around 5 months after the damp specialist had reported it was potentially hazardous to the family. From the landlord’s repair records, there was no indication the landlord had previously attempted to repair the defective flooring.
14. Damp, mould and falling on level surfaces are potential hazards to be avoided or minimised under the government’s Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS confirms homes should not contain deficiencies that may give rise to hazards. In line with the risk-based approach that is required by HHSRS, the landlord should have promptly completed a repair (to at least make the flooring safe) following the damp specialist’s report. The above identified delay of around 5 months was both inappropriate and unfair given the family’s vulnerabilities. Their vulnerabilities likely exacerbated the risk that the defective flooring presented.
15. The resident complained to the landlord on 12 December 2023. She said “severe damp” and mould in the basement had damaged the floorboards above. She also said the hallway, living room and dining room smelled of damp. Her comments suggested air from the basement (previously deemed uninhabitable) was entering these rooms through the damaged flooring. The resident also said the damaged flooring was a trip hazard since she had mobility issues and young children. Other key points from her email were:
    1. The property had an “extensive list” of disrepair issues. The landlord had known the floor was damp since January 2023. It previously said the family should be decanted to facilitate repairs.
    2. The property was “freezing cold” due to a vent in the basement. Its condition was making the family ill. The resident had “no choice but to temporarily cover the floor until [the] matter was resolved”.
    3. The resident had recently requested an urgent repair to the flooring. An appointment was raised but the landlord subsequently cancelled it. This was on the basis that a supervisor needed to inspect the damage.
    4. The resident was unhappy with the supervisor’s schedule. She tried to expedite their visit as she felt the situation was urgent. She was still waiting for an update from the landlord about whether the visit could be prioritised.
16. On the following day, the landlord issued a formal response at stage 1. In its response, the landlord apologised for any inconvenience and said it was working to resolve the situation. It also said it had requested a supervisor’s inspection on 23 November 2023 and the visit was scheduled for 18 December 2023. This was the earliest appointment that was available. From the evidence both parties provided, it was unclear if the landlord had attempted to expedite the appointment. The landlord upheld the complaint. It said it would monitor the resident’s case and issue a further response in due course. This was a reasonable approach in the circumstances.
17. The supervisor’s inspection took place on 18 December 2023. Inspection notes said the landlord should lay plywood over the floorboards in the lounge, hallway and dining room. The notes show laminate flooring needed to be removed from the lounge and dining room beforehand. They also show the resident was asked to sign a disclaimer (presumably because the landlord felt the laminate flooring was likely to be damaged during the repairs).
18. On 14 January 2024 the landlord issued a further response at stage 1. It said another visit was needed to plan the works that it had identified during the supervisor’s inspection. It also said the planning visit would take place on 20 February 2024. In its response, the landlord awarded the resident a total of £160 in compensation. Its calculation was based on £80 for delays and £80 for distress and inconvenience. The landlord did not include a rationale for its calculation. The wording of its previous response shows it had only considered events from around 23 November 2023 onwards. This was unreasonable given the flooring was deemed to be a risk in June 2023.
19. The parties exchanged emails on 16 January 2024. The resident accepted the landlord’s compensation award. However, she said the repair works it was planning would damage the property’s existing floor coverings (the laminate). She felt the landlord’s compensation policy confirmed the landlord should replace them. She asked the landlord to address the matter. The landlord replied that the resident was responsible for decorations. It also said she could raise a claim through her contents insurance or with the landlord’s own insurer.
20. The landlord’s repair obligations are set out in its tenant handbook. The handbook shows the landlord will only provide floor coverings for its kitchens and bathrooms. All other floor coverings are a resident’s responsibility (along with decorations). The landlord was entitled to refer the resident to its repair obligations. It also said the resident could speak to its insurance team if she felt the landlord was responsible for any damage to her belongings. The advice the landlord provided around insurance was consistent with the Ombudsman’s expectations. Overall, the landlord’s approach was reasonable at this point.
21. Soon afterwards, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She said it was not her fault that the property’s floorboards were in “disrepair” (so it would be unfair if she had to pay for any replacement floor coverings). Her email confirmed the laminate flooring had been installed before she moved to the property. It included a screen shot of the landlord’s compensation policy. The Ombudsman has considered the policy terms that were shown in the screen shot. Based on these terms, there was no evidence the landlord was obliged to replace the laminate flooring or cover the costs of replacing it. We are therefore unable to point to any related failures on the landlord’s part.
22. However, the landlord’s full repairs policy shows the landlord can redecorate following a repair in “exceptional circumstances”. The policy confirms any decision will be “entirely at the landlord’s discretion”. This policy term is relevant to the resident’s complaint.
23. On 6 February 2024 the landlord issued a stage 2 response. It acknowledged there had been several problems since the resident reported the flooring repair in November 2021. It confirmed these issues included delays, missed appointments, a lack of communication, and a lack of empathy. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint based on complaint handling issues, the resident’s time and effort, the distress caused by the defective floorboards, and the smell of damp from the basement. It said it would monitor the complaint until the repairs were complete.
24. The response reiterated the landlord’s previous information around its repair obligations and insurance. This shows the landlord did not agree with the rationale from the resident’s escalation request. In its response, the landlord explained its insurance team could also consider personal injury claims (the landlord had not supplied this information previously). It awarded the resident an additional £80 in compensation for distress and inconvenience. Following this award, the landlord’s offer of compensation was £240 in total.
25. The landlord identified some key failures in its stage 2 response. It attempted to put things right for the resident and it was reasonable to award compensation in the circumstances. However, the landlord awarded a disproportionately low amount of compensation because it unfairly overlooked the above identified delay of around 5 months (following the damp inspection in June 2023). Its stage 2 offer of redress was therefore unreasonable. It is also noted it took the landlord around 2 months to signpost the resident to its personal injury claims process. Given the content of the resident’s initial complaint, it would have been better if the landlord had provided this information in its stage 1 response.
26. The resident called the landlord on 19 February 2024. She said it had rescheduled the planning visit without consulting her. She also said she was unable to facilitate a visit on 20 February 2024. Records show she felt the visit had been due to take place on 22 February 2024 (the landlord’s further response at stage 1 did say the appointment was scheduled for 20 February 2024). Subsequently, the landlord attended the property on 20 February 2024 anyway. Records show it was unable to gain access. Several days later, the landlord arranged new appointments for 14 and 15 March 2024. It was unclear why the landlord felt it would take 2 days to plan the repair works at this point. Ultimately, it was reasonable for the landlord to reschedule the planning visit.
27. On 28 February 2024 the resident told the landlord it should expedite the new appointments. She reiterated that the floorboards were in poor condition and the situation was a health and safety risk. She also said her daughter’s foot had fallen through defective flooring in the hallway. The Ombudsman has seen several images of the property. They include a picture which appears to show a corresponding hole in the floorboards. Overall, the pictures suggest some of the defective floorboards are in a concerning condition.
28. Repair records show the landlord attended the property on 1 March 2023 to make the flooring safe. This was around 2 working days after the resident’s email. Rotten timber flooring is a defect that is covered by the government’s Right to Repair Scheme. The scheme says rotten wooden flooring should be repaired within 3 working days. Overall, the evidence shows the landlord’s response to the resident’s report was appropriate.
29. In an email on 7 March 2024, the resident told the landlord she was still waiting for a resolution to her complaint. She also said her daughter had hurt her foot when she fell through the floor. There was no evidence to show the resident had reported this injury to the landlord previously. It was noted the landlord had already told the resident about its process for personal injury claims (in its stage 2 response on 6 February 2024). The resident said the visits that were scheduled for 14 and 15 March 2024 could not go ahead “until a resolution had been reached”. She felt the landlord should either replace the laminate flooring or provide decoration vouchers to cover the costs of replacing it.
30. The landlord replied the following day. It said the resident had exhausted its internal complaints process. It also said she could speak to the Ombudsman about her complaint. Since the landlord had already issued its stage 2 response, this was a reasonable approach in the circumstances. Since it provided a means through which to pursue her complaint, it was fair for the landlord to signpost the resident to the Ombudsman. In response, the resident said the landlord should put the upcoming appointments on hold. In a follow-up email, she said the landlord should give her time to pursue her complaint through the Ombudsman.
31. Internal correspondence shows the landlord’s planner attended the property on 19 April 2024. The correspondence said the planner was unable to access the lounge and dining room during the visit. It shows the landlord tried to arrange an alternative appointment quickly but it was unable to provide sufficient notice to the resident. The landlord updated the resident by email on 23 April 2024. It said it had scheduled a new appointment for 3 May 2024. It also said the resident was obliged to provide access to the property in line with her tenancy agreement. This was a reasonable and proactive approach by the landlord. Other internal correspondence shows the landlord considered taking legal action to gain access to the property.
32. A separate record from 23 April 2024 said the resident had alleged the landlord was harassing her. It also said she had advised the landlord to cancel the inspection it had recently rescheduled. In addition, the resident did not want the landlord to arrange any further inspections or repairs. Several days later, the landlord apologised to the resident by email. It said it would comply with her preference and suspend any further visits. It also said the resident could get in touch when she was ready to arrange the repair. This was a reasonable approach by the landlord in the circumstances.
33. In July 2024 there was renewed contact between the parties. The landlord’s internal correspondence on 16 July 2024 said the resident was ready to progress the repairs as soon as possible. The correspondence also said the landlord should arrange the works and update the resident. Repair records show a works order was raised to treat mould in the bathroom around the same time. The landlord did not provide a copy of the resident’s corresponding report. The records also show treatment works were completed around 5 working days after the repair order was raised. Based on the records, the evidence shows the landlord responded to the resident’s report within an appropriate timescale.
34. The parties exchanged emails in late July 2024. The exchange shows the landlord had cancelled a prearranged repair visit at short notice. This was on the basis it felt a surveyor’s inspection was needed before any repairs could take place (presumably to establish the scope of the repairs and the required materials). It is reasonable to conclude that the cancelled appointment resulted in a further delay to the flooring repairs. It is likely the situation was also frustrating and inconvenient for the resident. The evidence points to a related planning and/or coordination failure on the landlord’s part. From the evidence both parties provided, it was unclear what happened subsequently.
35. The resident updated the Ombudsman in late September 2024. She confirmed the flooring repair was still outstanding. She said the landlord had given her conflicting information about the laminate flooring. This was on the basis she had previously been told the landlord would replace it for her. She also mentioned a lack of updates from the landlord. She reiterated her health and safety based concerns about the condition of the flooring. From the evidence both parties provided, there was no indication the landlord had previously agreed to replace the laminate floor coverings. The evidence shows the property’s flooring had been defective for around 15 months at this point.
36. In summary, there were 2 phases to the resident’s complaint. The initial phase ran from January 2023 until mid-February 2024. The evidence shows the landlord was responsible for several failures during this phase. Significantly, it failed to progress a crucial flooring repair for around 5 months. The repair was important because a relevant specialist had confirmed that damaged flooring presented a risk to the family. The delay was unfair and inappropriate. It is likely the resident’s vulnerabilities and the presence of young children in the property exacerbated the risk. It is reasonable to conclude the situation was a source of considerable anxiety for her. Ultimately, the landlord did not do enough to put things right for the resident because it failed to recognise the full extent of its delays and failures, along with the associated impact to the resident.
37. The second phase relates to the dispute over the laminate flooring. It began around January 2024. During this phase, the evidence shows the landlord made several attempts to progress the crucial flooring repairs. The resident was reluctant to facilitate these repairs because she felt it was unfair that she should bear the costs of replacing the floor coverings. Although her concerns were understandable, there was no evidence the landlord was obliged to cover the resident’s costs. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman has made a recommendation with a view to resolving matters for both parties. It is based on the “exceptional circumstances” term in the landlord’s repairs policy. Ultimately, there was no evidence the landlord was responsible for any serious failures during the second phase. However, it did cancel an appointment at short notice. The evidence points to a related planning and/or coordination failure. The cancellation likely resulted in a further delay to the flooring repairs.
38. Overall, the evidence shows there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of this complaint point, particularly during the first phase of the complaint. Given the circumstances, the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay the resident a proportionate amount of compensation to put things right. Our award reflects the evidence we have seen and is consistent with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.

The landlord’s complaint handling

39. The resident complained to the landlord on 12 December 2023. The landlord issued a formal response the following day. This response confirmed the landlord had upheld the resident’s complaint and it would issue a further response in due course. Subsequently, it took the landlord 21 working days to issue a full response at stage 1. This was based on the period between 12 December 2023 and 14 January 2024. The landlord’s complaints procedure shows it should respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1. Based on this timeframe, the landlord’s further response on 14 January 2024 could have reasonably apologised to the resident for the delay.
40. More significantly, the evidence shows the landlord did not engage with a number of the resident’s key complaint points at stage 1. In her complaint, the resident said the landlord had known the flooring was damp since January 2023. This implied it was responsible for delays and failures from January 2023 onwards. Based on this information, the landlord should have started its investigation at this point. This would have allowed it to identify any issues and address them accordingly. Had it done so, it is likely the landlord would have recognised the key delay that occurred after the damp inspection in June 2023.
41. The applicable version of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) was published in March 2022. Section 5.6 said “Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint”.  The evidence shows the landlord’s stage 1 response was contrary to the Code. It also points to a lack of engagement and/or thoroughness on the landlord’s part. The resident was impacted because the landlord did not consider the relevant timeline and it did not do enough to put things right for her. The evidence points to a similar situation in relation to the family’s vulnerabilities.
42. The resident referenced her mobility issues in her complaint. In its case evidence to the Ombudsman (from September 2024), the landlord told us it had no record of her vulnerabilities. This shows the landlord did not update its records in response to the information in the resident’s complaint. If it was unsure, the landlord should have asked the resident to confirm the specific details of her medical condition. Ultimately, the evidence shows the landlord lacks important information that could help to guide its interactions with the resident. The situation is unfair and it amounts to a record keeping failure on the landlord’s part. Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling was unfair and inappropriate at stage 1.
43. The resident escalated her complaint around 16 January 2023. Her escalation request was based on the landlord’s approach to the laminate flooring. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 8 February 2024. This was 15 working days later. The landlord’s complaints procedure shows it should respond to complaints within 20 working days at stage 2. While the landlord responded within its applicable timescale, the evidence points to other issues with the landlord’s stage 2 response. Ideally, the landlord would have recognised the flaws in its stage 1 complaint handling and attempted to put things right at this point.
44. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it was “upholding” the resident’s complaint. The same response also said the landlord would not cover the cost of replacing the laminate flooring. This shows the landlord did not agree with every aspect of the resident’s complaint. As a result, the landlord could have made its decision clearer by partially upholding the resident’s complaint. There was no indication the situation caused any confusion for the resident.
45. In late September and early October 2024, we asked the landlord for a copy of its external contractor’s inspection findings from January 2023. We made 2 separate requests for the inspection report. We also clarified what information we needed and why we needed it. Despite our requests, the landlord was unable to provide the missing report. As a result, we were unable to confirm whether it had any safety concerns about the flooring in January 2023. We were also unable to check if a decant was recommended at this point. Ultimately, the evidence shows the landlord’s poor record keeping hampered the Ombudsman’s investigation. The situation is unfair for the resident and inappropriate. It amounts to a significant failure on the landlord’s part.
46. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repairs, reports, responses, inspections and investigations. The Ombudsman’s May 2023 Spotlight On: Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report confirms good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken. Failure to keep adequate records indicates a landlord’s complaints processes are not operating effectively. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policies and procedures and adhere to them, as should contractors or managing agents.
47. In summary, the landlord showed a lack of engagement and/or thoroughness in respect of its complaint handling. It overlooked a key delay because it did not consider the correct complaint timeline. It also failed to update its records in response to the vulnerability information in the resident’s complaint. As a result, it lacks important information that could help to guide its interactions with the resident. The landlord failed to rectify these issues at stage 2. The evidence shows its complaint handling was unfair, inappropriate and contrary to the Code. There was also a significant record keeping failure that hampered the Ombudsman’s investigation. Overall, there was maladministration in respect of this aspect.

Determination

48. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s:
    1. Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
    2. Complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

49. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to apologise to the resident. The apology should recognise the key failures identified in this report. The landlord should share a copy of its relevant correspondence/call summary with the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
50. The landlord to pay the resident a total of £1,350 in compensation within 4 weeks. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
    1. £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience the resident was likely caused by the above identified issues with the landlord’s response to her reports of damp and mould. If it has already paid the resident, the landlord is free to deduct the £240 which it previously awarded across stages 1 and 2.
    2. £350 for the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified issues with the landlord’s complaint handling.
51. The landlord must ensure its key systems accurately reflect the resident’s vulnerabilities. The landlord should contact the resident and confirm the correct details before updating its records. It should evidence its actions to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
52. The landlord must share this report’s key findings with its relevant staff for learning and improvement purposes. The landlord should share a copy of its relevant internal communication with the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.

Recommendations

53. The landlord is recommended to revisit its decision about the floor coverings. The landlord is not obliged to replace them but its policy shows it can exercise discretion. The landlord should weigh the costs of replacing the flooring against the wider costs of pursuing legal action over access. The wider costs include the likely damage to the landlord and tenant relationship.