London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202231684)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202231684

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

24 May 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 reports regarding:
1. Flooding in the property and the subsequent damage.
2. The suitability of the temporary accommodation provided.
3. The neighbour breaking into the property and theft of mail.
4. Damage caused to possessions while transported by the landlord’s removals contractor.
5. A mice infestation.
6. Dusty radiators.
7. Concerns about the family’s health and wellbeing.
8. The complaint, and compensation offered.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the property, which is a 2 bedroom flat. The resident lives in the property with her husband and 3 children. The resident’s son has asthma, which the landlord was aware of.
The landlord is a leaseholder of the property and the freehold to the building is owned by a third-party company. A managing agent manages the development and provides services on behalf of the freeholder.
On 11 January 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that her toilet was overflowing, and that the household could not use the bathroom or toilet facilities. The landlord attended the following day; however, the contractor did not have the necessary equipment to resolve the issue and said they would return the same day. The contractor did not return and the resident reported that she moved to a nearby hotel due to the extent of the sewage water throughout the property and inability to use the bathroom. The resident said that her son who was asthmatic had also started to have breathing problems.
On 13 January 2022 the landlord arranged a decant due to the condition of the property. On 19 January 2022 the managing agent confirmed that they had resolved the sewer pipe issue. They advised that they could not undertake repairs in a demised property and if the landlord was not undertaking decorations, then to claim through its insurance. The landlord’s surveyor inspected the property on the same day, they confirmed that the smell in the property was bad and the property was not habitable. The surveyor stated that an environmental clean would need to be arranged, unaffected items to be placed in storage and affected items, including the flooring and carpet should be disposed of. The surveyor said a key safe box should be installed for convenient access.
The resident informed the landlord on 27 January 2022 that she had returned to the property and that the previous mice infestation at the property had become worse. She asked if the landlord could find a place for them to move the family’s belongings to so they would not become damaged by the mice. The resident was moved to a serviced apartment on 28 February 2022 and arrangements were made for temporary storage of the family’s belongings.
On 21 July 2022 the resident reported that the property had been broken into. She said her husband had visited the property to collect mail and noticed a broken window. On entering the property, he found his neighbour’s daughter and a boy asleep on the floor of his children’s bedroom, he asked them to leave and reported it to the police. The landlord boarded the window, however, the following day the resident’s husband attended again to find the same boy and girl in the property having sex. He reported that they got dressed and the boy became confrontational.
The resident submitted a formal complaint on 30 August 2022. She said it had been 8 months since the flooding and she did not know why repair works were yet to take place. The resident said the landlord had not updated her or responded to her requests for an update. She said she was shocked by the lack of response from the landlord regarding the break–ins and that it had not contacted the police to follow the development of the situation. She said she felt violated by the break–ins and did not want to live next door to someone who had broken into her property twice. She said she heard the boy who was in the property carried a knife and on 28 August 2022 her property had been tagged with graffiti. She said she feared for her family’s safety. The resident asked the landlord to consider moving them to other suitable accommodation.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 11 November 2022. It apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint. It said the completion date for the works in the property was 28 November 2022 and it would keep in touch with the resident until that time. It said the metal door and covering on the property would need to be removed and the broken glass renewed prior to the resident moving back home. It said its antisocial behaviour (ASB) officer would discuss all the options available to the resident regarding moving and would discuss the risk to her family with the police. It apologised for the length of time taken to complete the works and offered £50 in compensation.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 13 March 2023. She said:
1. She was not happy with the decision made by the landlord for her to return to the property as her concerns of safety, security, and wellbeing had not been addressed. She would like the landlord to tell her what was being done in relation to her concerns raised.
2. She could not return to the property as there was no flooring. The resident said the landlord was responsible for the damage to the flooring as it was caused by the 3 days of flooding.
3. The landlord delayed the repairs for over 6 months while the flat was left uninhabitable.
4. Her concerns regarding the ASB had not been addressed. She was told the ASB officer would be in touch but she had not heard from them since November 2022, despite emailing them more than once.
5. She had complained about the mice infestation and dusty radiators for years, which have contributed to her son’s asthma symptoms and they had not been addressed. She would like pest control to visit the flat while it was empty to check behind the kitchen cupboards and for signs of mice being present.
6. She would like the flat to be in a condition which guarantees safety, security and wellbeing for her and her family before moving back in.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 22 May 2023. It apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint and stated the following:
1. It accepted the delays at stage 1 and 2. It said it had raised a training need to avoid it happening again and compensation would be provided. It noted the resident had chased the repairs on several occasions and that it must have been an incredibly stressful time for the resident. It acknowledged that she was out of the home for far too long and it should have considered the vulnerabilities of the household. It said it had added notes to the resident’s repairs account to indicate the resident should have priority repairs in the future.
2. The resident had raised a job for some of the radiators not working and that they needed to be cleaned. It said a contractor had attended and it was awaiting the report. It said usually residents were responsible for cleaning, but it realised that building works could have caused a build up of dust. It provided a link to a cleaning tool to buy.
3. It said it was let down by the managing agent and various contractors and acknowledged it took too long to complete the works. It said the blockage and sanitary clean took place early on in the complaint but there were lots of follow on works and there was a delay while insurance claims were discussed. It upheld that it was not the resident’s fault, and one person should have taken a more initiative-taking role in pushing the jobs along.
4. It apologised for not arranging emergency accommodation sooner and said it would compensate the resident for the hotel she paid for because the house was not fully habitable at the time. It acknowledged the distress caused by not having use of bathroom facilities for 3 nights and the lengths the resident and her family went through to stem the flow of sewage. It said it would account for that in its compensation offer.
5. It said it had been investigating the mice infestation as far back as April 2021 and was working with the managing agent to ensure they do their upmost to find where the mice were accessing the property. It said the managing agent would instruct its own pest control company and had been asked to alert residents to be more mindful about cleanliness.
6. The resident reported some of her personal items delivered through the removal company were damaged. The claim would need to be made directly with the company, but it had contacted its own insurance team to see if it could assist.
7. Residents were responsible for redirecting post if they need to take temporary housing, but it cannot find proof the resident was informed of that. The resident still had keys to access the home which was not permissible, and she should have been prevented from accessing the property due to health and safety issues. It said it intended to provide a document of what it accepted from tenants on rehousing and what to expect from the landlord and tenants would be asked to sign the document. It could see that a key safe was installed but the resident was also provided the code to that. It apologised for not being clear at the time, it said it identified a training need and would look to make the changes in future.
8. The ASB officer had approached the police for disclosure, but they were not forthcoming. It said the ASB officer was happy to help in any way and would be getting in touch to do a risk assessment now the resident had returned home. It said that it would determine if the resident could be put forward to the rehousing panel. It said the managing agent had initiated more security through CCTV cameras and lighting, and there was 24 hour security.
9. It offered £3,171.16 in compensation, which was broken down as follows:
  1. £2,240 for distress, time, effort, and inconvenience caused.
  2. £250 for the right to repair.
  3. £379 for the 1 night the resident paid to be in a hotel and the delay to repairs.
  4. £62.16 for the non-use of the bathroom and other rooms for 3 days.
  5. £40 for missed appointments.
  6. £200 for the late complaint responses and complaint handling.
The resident remained dissatisfied and has confirmed to the Ombudsman that the outstanding issues are the mice infestation, and she would like her radiators to be replaced.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

Neither the freeholder nor its management company are members of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and as such have not been contacted by the Ombudsman during this investigation. If the resident has logged a complaint against either organisation and remains unhappy with their response, she may wish to refer a complaint to the Property Ombudsman who have jurisdiction over property management companies.

The landlord’s policies

The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for repairs in the structure and exterior of the home. It also included fixtures and fittings for water, gas, electricity, heating, and sanitation. It states that it is responsible for repairs and maintenance in communal areas unless they are covered by a separate managing agent.
The landlord’s rehousing policy defines an emergency move as when an unplanned or unexpected event takes place which makes the resident’s home uninhabitable or unsafe. It states that resident’s required to temporarily decant will have a legal right and obligation to return to their permanent tenancy. The policy also states that the landlord is responsible for reimbursing laundry where hotel and serviced apartments have been used for temporary rehousing.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will send a written decision within 10 working days of logging a complaint. It states that it will provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days of the request to escalate. It outlines that if it needs longer, it will explain why and write again within a further 10 working days. It says that in exceptional circumstances it may need even longer.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will apply an empathetic, fair, and consistent approach when offering compensation. It outlines the types of compensation it can award such as the right to repair and fixed awards. It states that it will award discretionary compensation when its mistake or failure causes a customer distress and inconvenience and/or the need to spend unnecessary time and effort in getting it to put things right.
The landlord’s ASB policy categorises vandalism, property damage and neglect, or graffiti as ASB. It states high priority cases will be logged and assessed in 1 working day and standard priority cases will be logged and assessed within 3 working days. It states that it will identify if there are any vulnerabilities, support needs or circumstances relating to the reporting parties, as well as the household of the other party who is accused of committing the ASB. The policy states that it will use whatever powers and remedies are available and work with partners, to take preventative and enforcement action.
The landlord’s pests policy asserts that it is responsible for the infestation of mice where the problem is affecting multiple flats and/or communal areas, or where it affects a home because of disrepair.

Flooding in the property and the subsequent damage

The resident first reported her toilet overflowing on 11 January 2022 and that she could not use her bathroom or toilet facilities. While the landlord initially attended within 24 hours it was unable to resolve the issue or make it safe. This resulted in the resident having to move her family out of the property. At the point of not resolving the issue, the landlord should have assessed whether the property was habitable given the ongoing flooding of sewage water, the lack of bathroom facility, and the vulnerabilities in the household. It is a failing that it did not do so.
The resident was provided temporary accommodation from the landlord on 13 January 2022 and remained in the accommodation for the duration of the repairs. Overall, the resident and her family were decanted for 15 months which was not acceptable. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that it took far too long to complete the works to move the resident back home. It attributed the delays to issues with the managing agent and various contractors. The Ombudsman also recognises that the additional repairs related to the break–ins delayed the works further, which was out of the landlord’s control. Further delays took place due to confusion regarding who was responsible for the new flooring in the property. It was unclear where the responsibility for the flooring lay, however, the resident was initially informed by the surveyor that the landlord would replace the flooring, and the landlord eventually agreed to do so.
While there were issues with establishing responsibility for the repairs, it appears that the landlord recognised the impact on the resident and took responsibility for some repairs which should have been dealt with by the managing agent. It is unclear from the landlord’s repairs policy which repairs it would have been responsible for if it was not the freeholder of the building and it is recommended that the landlord clarify this to avoid similar issues in the future.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised, recognised areas for improvement in its service, and acknowledged that one person should have taken a more initiative–taking role in progressing the repairs. It also apologised for not considering the vulnerabilities in the household and ensured that the resident would get priority repairs in future. The landlord’s compensation offer reflected the delays, distress and inconvenience caused, the expense of the first night in a hotel, the loss of use of the bathroom, and missed appointments.
The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where a landlord has offered suitable redress to resolve a complaint. This assessment considers whether the landlord offered reasonable redress for its acknowledged failings in accordance with our Dispute Resolution Principles, to be fair; put things right; and learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman recognises that it would have been very distressing for the resident and her family to be affected by the issues related to the flooding and subsequent damage. However, the remedy offered by the landlord was reasonable for the failings identified. As such, the Ombudsman has found reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports regarding flooding in the property and the subsequent damage.

The suitability of the temporary accommodation provided

On 13 January 2022 the resident and her family were decanted to a hotel where they resided for 7 weeks before being moved to a 2 bedroom serviced apartment for the remainder of the decant. The landlord’s rehousing policy states that the emergency or short-term accommodation should be for a maximum of 4 weeks. It does not include hotels as an option for longer term temporary accommodation. The landlord inspected the property on 19 January 2022 and outlined the extensive repairs required. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered longer term accommodation for the resident at that point.
On 14 January 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to raise that she did not have access to laundry services or wifi and her children needed to do their homework. The landlord’s records show that the landlord contacted the resident the same day and discussed the process for temporary rehousing and accommodation. It is unclear from the notes what was agreed in relation to the laundry and wifi at the time, however, the landlord’s policy states that the tenant was responsible for hotel services which included internet. When the resident was moved to the serviced apartment, the landlord requested wifi to be included.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 4 April 2022 and said she had not received any payments for laundry. The payment was then requested the same day. This suggests that there was a delay in the landlord taking action in reimbursing the resident for her laundry.
On 27 January 2022, the resident asked the landlord to help with storage for the family’s belongings due to the risk posed from the damage in the property and the reported mice infestation. The resident was moved into the serviced apartment on 28 February 2022 and the family’s belongings were placed into storage. While the accommodation and storage could have been arranged sooner, the landlord’s actions were appropriate.
From the information provided, the suitability of the temporary accommodation provided both initially and long term was appropriate and suited to the resident’s needs. The landlord promptly responded to the resident’s concerns and while it could have paid the laundry payments sooner, it has evidenced that it acted in line with its policy. The Ombudsman has therefore found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports regarding the suitability of the temporary accommodation provided.

The neighbour breaking into the property and theft of mail

The resident informed the landlord on 21 July 2022 that her property had been broken into by the neighbour and that she had reported it to the police. The landlord confirmed that it was already aware and it boarded the windows. The resident reported on the 22 July 2022 that the neighbour had broken in again. The landlord raised jobs to sitex all the windows and doors the same day. The landlord’s initial response to the break in and securing the property was reasonable.
In the following week the resident contacted the landlord on a number of occasions to provide the crime reference numbers and to report concerns for her family’s safety if she was to return to the property. It does not appear that the resident’s concerns were responded to. An internal email from the landlord dated 27 July 2022 acknowledged that the resident’s request for a direct let on medical grounds had been refused. It stated that the resident had raised alarming safety concerns about the property and as such, the family did not want to return to the address. It asked what investigations had taken place regarding the break–ins and what was being done to manage the ASB. In her formal complaint the resident said she was shocked by the landlord’s lack of response regarding the break–ins and that it had not contacted the police. The Ombudsman has found that the landlord’s lack of response at the time was not acceptable.
The landlord met with the managing agent at the resident’s building block on 30 September 2022 to discuss the ASB issues. They discussed the need for additional CCTV around the block and changing the locks on doors. They acknowledged that there was concierge staff and night security officers, and that additional security was hired over the summer. It was positive that the landlord took steps to address the ASB with the managing agent. It would have been reasonable for it to have updated the resident regarding any action taken, however, it does not appear to do so until the stage 2 response.
Despite the reports and concerns from the resident since 21 July 2022, an ASB case was not opened until 19 October 2022, 3 months later, which was not appropriate. Following the case being opened, the ASB officer completed an assessment, and outlined actions to contact the police to obtain disclosure and contact the neighbour regarding their daughter. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of the outcome of the actions or if they were completed. In her stage 2 escalation the resident said the ASB had not been addressed and despite contacting the ASB officer; she had not heard from them since November 2022. On 15 May 2023 the landlord stated that the ASB officer would be in touch to undertake a risk assessment on the ASB case. It is concerning that by the stage 2 response, there was still no evidence of the ASB officer contacting the resident or providing an update.
In line with the landlord’s ASB policy, the resident should have been contacted within 3 working days of the reported incidents. The ASB officer should have completed a risk assessment and an action plan to show decisive actions, any support required, and to identify security measures which would ensure the resident felt safe returning to her home. It is a failing that this was not done and the resident returned to the property not knowing what action had been taken.
On 27 April 2023 the resident informed the landlord that she was a victim of identity theft. In a following email on 28 April 2023, she explained that she was told the metallic doors placed on the property would have a letterbox and she would need to collect the key from the concierge to access the flat to collect the letters. She said when she attended the property 2 weeks later there was no letterbox on the door and she believed letters were lost in the interim. She said she was not advised to redirect her post at the time of moving into temporary accommodation and both herself and her husband had been frequently visiting the flat to retrieve their post. She said she reported the identity fraud to the police who signposted her to the national reporting centre for fraud and cyber-crime.
In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged that the resident should not have been able to access the property during the decant. It is a failing that the landlord did not clarify this with the resident sooner. The landlord had multiple opportunities to do so, as the resident regularly informed the landlord that she had been returning to the home since she was decanted. It also confirmed that there was no evidence the resident was told to redirect her post at the time of temporary rehousing. This was a further failing, however the landlord acknowledged this and outlined what steps it would take to ensure it would not happen again.
It is positive to see that steps were taken to secure the property, however, the lack of communication to the resident following this was not appropriate. The resident was clearly distressed at the thought of returning to the property and the landlord did not explain why there were such delays in responding to her and opening an ASB case. While it is not known what caused the identity fraud, the landlord should have informed the resident that she needed to redirect her mail and would not have access to the property during the decant. The landlord acknowledged some of its failings and what it had done to put them right, however, it did not acknowledge all its failings regarding the ASB. The Ombudsman has therefore found service failure for the poor communication and handling of the resident’s reports of break–ins by the neighbour.

Damage caused to possessions while transported by the landlord’s removals contractor

On 8 May 2023, the resident informed the landlord that upon unpacking her belongings received from storage, her TV and other items were damaged. She asked how she should claim for the items. The landlord responded on 9 May 2023, it said that the resident should contact its insurance team or if the items were stored at her own expense, then the resident would need to contact the removal’s company involved to claim from their insurance. It also stated that she could claim from her own contents insurance. The resident contacted the landlord again on 19 May 2023 and said that its insurance advised her to contact the removal company instead. She said she contacted the removals company who stated that she should have contacted them within 7 days of receiving her belongings.
In its stage 2 response the landlord stated that a claim would need to be made directly with the removal company and it would approach the removal company to request it be more lenient with the timeframe for the resident to make a claim. It said it had notified its insurance team in case there was anything else which could be done to assist.
While the initial advice provided to the resident was confusing and caused a delay in the resident approaching the removal company. The advice in the stage 2 response was appropriate. The Ombudsman has found no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the damage caused to the resident’s possessions while transported by the landlord’s removals contractor.

Mice infestation

As confirmed by the landlord, the resident had been reporting mice infestations since April 2021. While the issue remains ongoing for the resident, the landlord has evidenced that it responded to the resident’s concerns on most occasions and arranged for pest control to assess the situation. The resident has not disputed the efforts made to address the issue; however, it is unfortunate that the issue remains.
In her stage 2 escalation on 13 March 2023 the resident asked if pest control could attend the property while it was vacant to check behind the kitchen cupboards and anywhere else. While the landlord responded to the resident in its stage 2 response, it would have been reasonable for it to have provided a response to her request sooner and prior to the resident moving back in.
On 15 May 2023 the resident stated that she could still see mice droppings. A job was then raised on 16 May 2023 for the landlord’s pest control contractor to attend the property and check all access points for mice. It said, “particularly in the kitchen cupboards, base units, kick boards and where the central heating pipes are located”. It confirmed that the managing agent would book a job for the communal area. The Ombudsman finds that the landlord’s actions in response to the resident’s concerns were appropriate.
The landlord confirmed in its stage 2 response that pest control was the responsibility of the managing agent. It stated that the managing agent had not been forthcoming in providing a resolution to the infestation and it had been working with them to ensure they do their utmost to find where mice were accessing the property. It confirmed the managing agent would be instructing their own pest control company to find the entrance holes and prevent any further issues. It also provided communication which it suggested should be sent to all residents.
While it was unclear at times where the responsibility lay for dealing with the mouse infestation, overall, the landlord has evidenced that it had been proactive in its attempts to address the issue. The Ombudsman has found no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a mice infestation. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord continue to work with the managing agent to reach a permanent resolution to the issue. If the landlord does not feel that the managing agent is being proactive enough, it should consider what enforcement action it can take to assist.

Dusty radiators

From the evidence provided, the resident had been raising the issue with the radiators and storage heaters for a number of years, while highlighting the impact it was having on her son’s health. The resident and landlord refer to both radiators and storage heaters in the property, it is the Ombudsman’s understanding that the resident had raised an issue with both.
In an internal email dated 4 March 2023, the landlord stated that all the storage heaters in the property would “be serviced and cleaned off of dust.” The landlord’s records show that a job was raised for the storage heaters on 28 April 2023 regarding the dust and the resident being unable to clean inside them. The records stated that it was completed on 19 May 2023. However, on 22 May 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to say someone attended on 19 May 2023 for the heaters, but nothing was done. The landlord responded and said that it was waiting for a report back on the heaters and any follow on work would be booked in. This was reiterated in the landlord’s stage 2 response. The resident has reported to the Ombudsman that the issue is outstanding, and the storage heaters had never been serviced. It is disappointing that the landlord did not evidence what action was taken on 19 May 2023 and whether any follow-on work was required.
In its stage 2 response the landlord referred to the dusty radiators. It said that usually the tenant was responsible for cleaning their homes, but it realised that the building works could have caused a build up of dust. It provided a link to a cleaning tool which the resident could purchase. It provided the number for its repair line for the resident to chase regarding her reports that the radiators were not working, but it is unclear whether the landlord would take any further action in relation to the dust. The landlord’s response may have been appropriate for the radiators; however, it was not an appropriate solution for the storage heaters. The resident has stated to the Ombudsman that she did not feel comfortable using a cleaning brush in an electrical appliance, which the Ombudsman can empathise with.
It is positive that the landlord acknowledged that it should have considered the vulnerabilities in the household and took steps to ensure it would do so in the future. However, the issue remains ongoing, and the landlord has not evidenced that it has done enough to proactively address the issue. The Ombudsman has therefore found service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports regarding dusty radiators. An order has been made for the landlord to service and clean all storage heaters in the property if it has not already done so.

Concerns about the family’s health and wellbeing.

The Ombudsman cannot assess the extent to which a landlord’s failings may have contributed to, or exacerbated, the household’s physical and/or mental health. We can consider the landlord’s handling of the concerns raised, and the resident’s circumstances.
This report has considered the resident’s circumstances while addressing each complaint raised and the impact that the landlord’s failings had on the household. In this case, it is evident that complaints raised caused significant distress and inconvenience on the resident and her family. However, in its stage 2 response the landlord apologised for its failings and outlined the lessons learnt to ensure they would not happen again. It acknowledged that it should have done more in considering the vulnerabilities in the household.
The Ombudsman finds that the stage 2 response, in conjunction with the £2,240 offered for the resident’s distress, time, effort and inconvenience, amounts to reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports regarding concerns about their health and wellbeing.

The complaint and compensation offered

The landlord took 52 working days to respond to the resident at stage 1 and 47 working days to respond at stage 2. The delays were not acceptable, nor were they in line with the landlord’s complaint policy. The landlord addressed this in its stage 2 response, it explained the reasons for the delays, and that it would raise a training need with the appropriate teams to avoid it happening again. The landlord also offered £200 in compensation which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
The stage 2 response provided was clear, detailed, and the complaints had been thoroughly investigated. It defined the complaint well and applied appropriate remedies where it acknowledged it had gotten things wrong. The landlord’s actions were in line with its complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
The Ombudsman finds that the overall offer of compensation amounting to £3,171.16 in total, was proportionate to the failings identified in this case. As such, an order for further compensation will not be made. The adverse findings and orders made in this case should encourage further learning and action from the landlord.
The landlord’s stage 2 response had taken steps to put things right by acknowledging its failures, apologising, and offering an appropriate amount of compensation to the resident. There were some additional failings which the Ombudsman has identified in investigating the case and these will be addressed in the orders made. Overall, the Ombudsman has found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports regarding the complaint and the compensation offered.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the suitability of the temporary accommodation provided.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the neighbour breaking into the property and theft of mail.
3. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damage caused to possessions while transported by the landlord’s removals contractor.
4. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the mice infestation.
5. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of dusty radiators.
In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to the investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the following complaints satisfactorily:
1. Flooding in the property and the subsequent damage.
2. Concerns about the family’s health and wellbeing.
3. The complaint, and compensation offered.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord should apologise to the resident for the additional failings identified in this case which led to service failure.
If it has not done so already, the landlord should service and clean the storage heaters in the property as it said it would.
The landlord is to provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks from the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord should continue working with the managing agent to reach a permanent resolution to the mice infestation. If the landlord does not feel that the managing agent is being proactive enough, it should consider what enforcement action it can take to assist.
The landlord should consider updating its repairs policy to provide further clarification regarding repairs when it is not the freeholder of the building.
If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the £3,171.16 in compensation offered in its stage 2 response.