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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202308916)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308916

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

11 July 2024


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint refers to the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of leaks, damp and mould, and bathroom repairs.
    2. Management of the resident’s complaint and request for compensation.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord, which began on 26 December 2005. The resident lives in a third floor one-bed flat. The landlord’s records show the resident’s vulnerabilities are mobility issues and depression. The evidence shows she also informed it of a skin condition in June 2022.
  2. The resident states that she has reported issues with bathroom disrepair and leaks since the start of 2022.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 13 April 2022 about its contractor’s work (eg not sealing affected bathroom areas) and defective tiles in her shower. She asked that her bathroom be repaired to prevent leaks and damage to the flat below hers. Following initial telephone contact, the landlord dealt with the complaint informally. It called her on 13 April 2022 and agreed to contact its surveyor to discuss a ‘like for like’ tile replacement. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on the same day upholding her complaint, setting out agreed actions and that an update would be given in due course. On 6 May 2022, the resident was informed the landlord agreed to a ‘like for like’ tile replacement.
  4. On 7 May 2022, the resident complained to the landlord stating:
    1. She did not want her tiles to be replaced with panelling.
    2. Its contractors failed to resolve the leak into the flat below.
    3. Her bathroom was in disrepair (eg walls missing tiles, floor lifting away, damaged basin and mixer taps).
    4. There was mould in her bathroom as well as mould smells.
  5. The landlord issued a formal stage 1 response on 3 August 2022 as follows:
    1. Following a property inspection it would:
      1. Supply and fit a new bath, wash hand basin with a lever tap, and polysafe flooring, wall tiles and enclosed light fitting.
      2. Check if the fan worked.
      3. Apply mould wash and decorate with anti mould paint.
    2. The existing toilet pan, and cistern would be removed and refitted after carrying out flooring works with boxing fitted behind the pan.
    3. Its contractors would contact the resident to make an appointment.
    4. It offered compensation of £150 for distress and inconvenience, repair delays, time, and effort.
  6. After further communication with the resident from 11 August to 18 October 2022, the landlord’s compensation offer was increased to £240 on 19 October 2022.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint on 19 October 2022. Her escalation request was formally acknowledged on 27 July 2023. While awaiting the landlord’s stage 2 response, she added information to her complaint on 27 February (eg leaks and, damp and mould in bedroom), 16 March (eg impact of leaks on property) and 16 June 2023 (eg smells from soil box and ‘rotting’ skirting board). Following the intervention of this Service on 2 August 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 18 August 2023 as follows:
    1. It set out a history of communication between it and the resident about the leak and bathroom renovation.
    2. After an inspection on 8 June 2022, it agreed to the following:
      1. Re-tiling of the bathroom.
      2. Bathroom renovation (including new bath, mixer tap and flooring).
      3. Hotel stays during the renovation.
    3. The bathroom works took place from 24 October 2022 and acknowledged issues with the works (eg chip in new bath and sink installed at a tilt).
    4. After a leak on 12 December 2022 from the resident’s bathroom to the flat below, with further leaks causing her skirting board to become wet and damaging personal belongings, she was referred to its insurance team and told a plumber would visit on 8 February 2023. It acknowledged she continued to complaint about the leak involving further plumber’s visits.
    5. Due to a stage 2 complaints backlog, her escalation request was assigned to a caseworker on 26 July 2023. Upon its stage 2 review, it found:
      1. It replaced the tiles ‘like for like’, as requested.
      2. Its contractors had identified the source of the leak and would visit on 4 September 2023 to resolve the issues and other works (eg renew boxing and skirting; refit toilet and washbasin; repair bathroom door and chipped bath; and fit vinyl flooring).
      3. A works order for a damp and mould specialist to investigate and consider a mould wash would be arranged.
    6. It apologised and offered £1,515 compensation for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble, stage 2 delays and right to repair.
  8. The resident emailed further information to the landlord from 27 August to 26 November 2023 concerning issues including the bathroom renovation, the impact on her health, its complaint handling and its repair of the leak. The landlord issued a second stage 2 response on 20 December 2023 as follows:
    1. It summarised communication around the leak and bathroom renovation from April 2022.
    2. Following a decision being sent, it said compensation offered was credited to the resident’s rent account, to offset any rent arrears, and did not require acceptance by her of the offer.
    3. As the resident said the compensation offers did not reflect the continuing disrepair, it offered a further £500.00 for distress and inconvenience.
    4. It acknowledged its ineffective communication stating it had briefed senior managers about her case and, the staff involved were interviewed and had relevant training.
  9. The resident escalated her complaint to this Service on 27 August 2023. She has said she feels worn down by the issues, her mental health has been impacted along with her physical health (eg skin inflammation), and her personal belonging have been damaged. She is seeking additional compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident stated in her complaint the issues which are the subject of her complaint go back a number of years. While this Service does not dispute that this may be the case, the scope of this investigation has been limited to considering matters raised in the 6 months before the resident made a formal complaint. This is in line with paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme. This investigation will therefore only consider matters since 12 October 2021 until 20 December 2023, which is when the landlord issued its final stage 2 response. Relevant factors outside this period may be referenced for context purposes.
  2. Paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme states the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which are better suited to consideration by “the courts, other tribunal or procedure.” It is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to establish cause, liability, or negligence, and award damages in the way an insurance procedure or court might. Therefore, for claims of damage to the resident’s personal possessions she may wish to seek legal advice.

Handling of leaks, damp and mould and bathroom repairs

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement states the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair the property structure (eg internal walls, floors, ceilings, skirting boards), and water and sanitation installations (eg basins, sinks, waste pipes) in proper working order. Its “Your home and your maintenance responsibilities as a tenant” policy clarifies it is responsible for water leaks and leaking pipework, basin and bath taps, splash back tiles and seals in the bathroom. Its responsibilities reflect its statutory duty under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, which states repairs must be completed within a reasonable time.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out priorities for repairs with emergency repairs to be carried out within 24 hours and routine repairs within 25 days.
  3. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states it will resolve damp and mould “as quickly and effectively as we can” while taking into account a resident’s vulnerability and needs. After a report of damp and mould, it aims to arrange an assessment within 20 working days with any identified remedial works recorded and raised within 10 working days of the assessment.
  4. The landlord’s vulnerable resident’s policy states it will “tailor” its services if a resident is vulnerable. Examples of vulnerability categories are set out including physical and mental wellbeing.
  5. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is concerned with avoiding or minimising potential hazards, which are a health and safety risk to residents. The landlord must keep a property free from category 1 hazards, which includes damp and mould. The possible health effects are identified as including depression, and anxiety.

Leak

  1. The wider evidence shows that following a reported leak in early 2022, in line with its routine repairs timeframe, the landlord arranged plumber’s visits on 3 March and 12 April 2022. While the resident continued to raise concerns at least 4 more times from April to June 2022, there is no evidence of any remedial repair work in respect of the leak from April to October 2022. It does however show the leak repair was incorporated into a wider bathroom renovation plan, which began on 24 October 2022. Despite internal emails on 13 July 2022 noting leaks into the flat below when the resident bathed or showered, it did not consider proactively expediting the leak repair. The ceiling of the flat below collapsed on 14 October 2022 due to the ongoing leak. The renovation plans should not have prevented it from investigating and resolving the leak.
  2. A further leak into the flat below the resident’s was reported on 12 December 2022, and she reported a leak on 25 January 2023 from her bathroom into the adjoining bedroom. Wider evidence shows that while a plumber visited on 8 February 2023, the issue was unresolved resulting in at least 6 more contacts by the resident from February to May 2023. She informed the landlord, that its plumber on 8 February 2023 had said the wash basin had not been sealed or secured properly causing a leak, including from the boiler pipe, dating back to November 2022. After the ceiling of the flat below again collapsed, the evidence shows a plumber attended on 24 and 25 May 2023 after which the leaks were finally resolved. In total, the landlord took approximately 5 months from the leak being reported to it being resolved in May 2023. This significantly exceeded its routine repairs timeframe and was unacceptable.
  3. The evidence suggests inadequate oversight by the landlord of its contractors as we have not been provided with a post-inspection survey when the works finished in November 2022. This was despite the resident reporting issues in emails about the renovation works on 7 November 2022 (flooring around the toilet not being sealed causing a leak) and 1 December 2022 (the sink being installed at a tilt causing a leak). Regular post-inspections after the works, may have prevented or at least mitigated the further and “uncontrollable” leak on 12 December 2022 into the flat below and into the resident’s adjoining bedroom reported in January 2023. It shows a reactive approach and a reliance on residents making reports, which is unsatisfactory.

Damp and mould

  1. In the resident’s complaint of 7 May 2022 she reported there was mould and mould smells in her bathroom. While the evidence fails to detail the landlord’s damp assessment at the property inspection undertaken on 8 June 2022, remedial works were subsequently raised (eg a mould wash and decoration with anti mould paint) approximately 40 working days after the assessment and 55 days after her report. This was outside its policy timeframe of 10 working days after the assessment, which therefore meant the follow on works were also not compliant with its timeframe. For example, the mould wash and anti mould paint was eventually applied on 3 early November 2022, which was 6 months after the damp and mould was initially reported.
  2. After reports of a leak into the adjoining bedroom, from 25 January 2023 the resident reported a damp wall and, on 27 February 2023 she said the leak was causing damp and mould and the skirting board to rot. Almost 6 months later the landlord’s stage 2 response of 18 August 2023 stated it would raise a works order for a damp and mould specialist to investigate and consider a mould wash. While the evidence does not set out when the works order was raised or the investigation took place, the landlord has told this Service a mould wash was carried out in early September 2023. This was outside its policy timeframe for assessments and raising remedial works, which was unsatisfactory.

Bathroom repairs

  1. The resident’s reported disrepair included tiles falling from the shower wall and defective mixer taps in early 2022. Following a property inspection on 8 June 2022, a full bathroom renovation was proposed by the landlord, and this began in October 2022. The renovation work was intended to deal with all repair issues in one go. While there was merit in consolidating some of the repairs with the overall renovation, a more considered approach should have led to some of the repairs being appropriately expedited. For example, while the resident said in April 2022 that tiles were falling when she was showering, indicating a safety risk, the retiling was not done until 6 months later on 3 November 2022.
  2. Significant delays occurred after the 8 June 2022 property inspection with the renovation works being raised almost 2 months later on 2 August 2022. This showed the lack of a proactive approach with the works eventually being completed approximately 3 months later in November 2022.
  3. The resident reported issues repeatedly before matters were addressed. For example, from 25 January to June 2023, on 6 separate occasions, she reported the new skirting board was damp, wet, and rotting. The landlord contacted her 35 days later on 17 March 2023 to inform her of a carpenter’s visit, and the wider evidence indicates the damaged skirting was resolved on 30 June 2023, which was 5 months after her initial report. While it is noted the leak was a factor in the delays, the landlord’s overall repairs handling was poor and not compliant with its policy timeframes, or the “reasonable time” set out in s11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

Final assessment

  1. The evidence does not indicate the resident’s vulnerabilities were considered when responding to her reports or organising repairs. It is noted the landlord says in evidence, in response to this Service’s request for information, that it was aware of her physical and mental health needs, which were considered “when doing SLA’s” and assessment of her needs were taken into account by way of “referral to tenancy support and other helplines”. The evidence provided does not show these assessments or referrals, or how it otherwise considered her vulnerabilities. The resident in April 2022 raised the mental health impact on her and thereafter she regularly raised concerns for her physical and mental health. The landlord did not apply its policy commitments by considering vulnerability, which should have then prompted it to proactively deal with repairs.
  2. The resident reported the impact of the disrepair on her health, possessions, and her everyday life (eg using newspapers to soak up water on the floor, keeping windows open due to mould smells, and regularly cleaning the mould from walls). It is clear from the evidence and the impact described to this Service that the resident has found the experience extremely distressing. While the landlord has apologised for its failings and offered some compensation, the offer has not been proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and its failure to proactively put her in the position she would have been in had the service failure not occurred. By not taking more proportionate and timely action the landlord exposed the resident to an avoidably extended period of detriment and caused further spread of mould growth, and damage within the resident’s and her neighbour’s homes. Taking all factors into account, the Ombudsman finds severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling and management of the leaks, damp and mould, and bathroom repairs.

Management of the resident’s complaint and request for compensation

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates an informal complaints process as well as a formal 2 stage complaints process. It aims to resolve issues “there and then” and when it cannot, it will issue responses within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. Its complaints procedure clarifies an extension to the response times will be no more than a further 10 working days with the resident’s agreement. It also states new matters raised after issuing the stage 1 decision will be dealt with as separate complaints.
  2. With the complaint, dealt with informally and responded to on the same day on 13 April 2022, the landlord only addressed the tiles issue and not the leak. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) at the time stated a landlord must address all points raised in a complaint. By only addressing the tiles, the landlord breached the Code and failed to address or resolve all the issues of complaint.
  3. The landlord’s formal complaint responses were issued after 60 working days after the complaint and 200 working days of the escalation at stage 1 and 2, respectively. While the policy did not set out the provision of a second stage 2 response, it was issued 80 working days after the resident’s providing further information about the first stage 1 response. Therefore, it took 19 months for the internal process to conclude which was significantly in excess of the landlord’s policy timescales and unacceptable.
  4. The landlord failed to provide timely acknowledgements of the resident’s complaints. For example, the evidence does not show it acknowledged her complaint of 7 May 2022. The Code at the time stated complaints must be acknowledged and logged within 5 days of receipt. In addition, her escalation request was only acknowledged on 27 July 2023, which was 187 working days later.
  5. The resident was repeatedly put to the inconvenience of chasing a stage 2 response from the landlord. It assigned the case for a stage 2 response on 26 July 2023, which was 199 working days after her escalation request. The responses to the resident’s requests for updates on the complaints process were unacceptable. For example, in emails on 8 November 2022, 17 March 2023 and, 5 and 10 May 2023 she was informed of a backlog of stage 2 complaints but not given a timeframe for a response. These responses were inadequate and were missed opportunities to build trust by dealing with her complaint in a timely manner.

Compensation

  1. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out when compensation might be paid to a resident. Payments can be made for “avoidable” inconvenience, distress, “unfair impact” and communication issues. The policy does not set out payment values for discretionary payments but does for fixed awards (eg missed appointments).
  2. The landlord appropriately reviewed and increased its compensation offer at various stages (eg after its stage 1 outcome, compensation was increased by another £90 on 19 October 2022 and its second stage 2 response increased compensation by a further £500) for distress, inconvenience, stage 2 delays, and continuing disrepair.
  3. While the evidence shows the resident was given a £20 voucher for a missed appointment on 31 August 2022, it did not apply its policy of compensating for missed appointments consistently. It did not compensate the resident for appointments missed on 16 and 25 November 2020.
  4. It is accepted the landlord revised its compensation offer at various stages appropriately but the financial impact on the resident’s was not fully reflected in the offer (for example, purchase of absorption bags and dehumidifier equipment). Further, the delays at stage 1 and 2 prevented her being able to exhaust its complaints process. This Service has not been provided with evidence of the resident being provided with timely updates, which was unfair to her, as she was left in a position where the onus of chasing the landlord for updates fell on her. While it apologised at stage 2 for the delays, this has not been reflective of the distress caused to the resident and its failure to proactively put her in the position she would have been in had the service failure not occurred. The resident cannot but have felt frustrated and ignored and she repeatedly informed the landlord that her mental health was being adversely impacted. Complaint management offers a safeguard to ensure that landlord failings and associated impacts are effectively resolved.  Despite the extended time period that the landlord internal complaint process took in this case it is clear that its management of the resident’s complaint failed to bring about a fair remedy and timely resolution. When considered cumulatively, the Ombudsman finds severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaints management in this case.

Record keeping

  1. While the landlord has provided extensive information, gaps in the evidence provided indicates poor record keeping by it as it was not able to provide key information when asked. For example, full correspondence and contact notes, repair logs, completion notes, visit records and inspection reports. The evidence provided contains omissions including but not limited to:
    1. Initial report, in early 2022, by the resident (or her neighbour) about a leak into the flat below.
    2. Visit records, survey or inspection reports for it and its contractors (for example, 8 June 2022 and 1 September 2022).
    3. Completions notes or post-inspection reports (for bathroom renovation works from 24 October to 28 November 2022 and, 22 August 2023; plumbing works on 8 February 2023, 24 to 25 May 2023 and, 5 September 2023; flooring works on 9 June 2023; carpenter works on 30 June 2023).
  2. This Service’s spotlight report on knowledge and information finds poor record keeping is a “key contributing factor” for failures with landlord “repairs service and in complaints”. It states “records should tell the full story of what happened, when, and why” with records being clear and timely, accurately recording decisions and the reasons for them. Due to considerable gaps in its supplied repair records, this investigation has been forced to identify references to events within the landlord’s wider correspondence as well as using information provided by the resident.
  3. A landlord is expected to keep a clear and accurate record of contacts and repairs to provide an audit trail. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. Based on the record provided to this Service the standards of record keeping in this case was undoubtedly poor and cannot but have been a contributory factor in the poor management of the substantive repairs and is complaint management. Therefore, the Ombudsman finds maladministration by the landlord for poor record keeping.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there has been:
    1. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of leaks, damp and mould and bathroom repairs.
    2. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s management of the resident’s complaint and request for compensation.
    3. Maladministration in the landlord’s poor record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman investigated the landlord under paragraph 49 of the Scheme. The report was published on 27 July 2023. The paragraph 49 investigation identified failings in the landlord’s practices similar to those that have featured in this investigation. Given the orders issued within the paragraph 49 report, we have not made further duplicate orders. However, the landlord must ensure that any of the particular failings in this report have been adequately covered in line with its responses to the paragraph 49 report.

 

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
  1. Pay directly to the resident a total of £4,700. This figure includes the landlord’s redress offer of £2,255, which is understood to have been credited to the resident’s rent account already. The compensation comprises:
    1. £3,000 for its handling of leaks, damp and mould and bathroom repairs. This reflects the detriment to the resident in the form of distress, time and trouble, and inconvenience.
    2. £1,500 for its management of the resident’s complaint and request for compensation. This reflects the detriment to the resident in the form of distress, time and trouble and, inconvenience.
    3. £200 for its poor record keeping handling failures.

 

b. A senior management officer, at Director level or above, must meet with the resident and apologise in person for the failures identified in this report and the consequent impacts on the resident.