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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202320637)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320637

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

25 April 2024


Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Reports of leaks, and damp and mould in the property.
    2. The complaint, including the level of compensation offered.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the property which is a 5-bedroom house. The landlord’s records state that the resident requires physical support.
  2. On 27 October 2022 a damp and mould inspection was completed in the property following the resident’s reports of the issue. At the time a “clean and shield” was completed. The report identified damp in the downstairs bathroom, storeroom, and kitchen. It suggested that there was a possible leak from the heating system or the adjacent property which would need further investigation and urgent repair.
  3. The resident submitted a formal complaint on 1 November 2022. She said there had been faults since she moved into the property and many of them were outstanding. She said in the past few weeks there was damp and severe mould spread throughout the house, and the floorboards and walls were wet. She said there was a leak in the downstairs toilet. The resident said she had 7 children, 3 of which had disabilities, and some had skin and respiratory conditions. The resident said it was affecting their health and living conditions. She said her 1-year-old was crawling and could reach the damp and mould. She said the landlord attended the previous week and just cleaned the damp and mould, but it had already returned. She said she wanted it to be dealt with urgently and to be placed in temporary accommodation, as they could not stay in the property.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 4 November 2022. It upheld the complaint, it said that it was waiting for the damp and mould report and would raise the repairs following that. It said it had chased the report and apologised for any trouble caused. In following correspondence to the landlord, the resident said the situation had deteriorated and the children were unwell. She referred to news reports of a young boy dying because of exposure to damp and mould, and that she was living in fear and distress. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 25 November 2022, she said she had contacted the landlord twice since the stage 1 response and received no reply. She said there was a problem with the wiring and light bulbs were blowing out within weeks of changing them. She said she could no longer live in the house due to the safety of the children and their health. She said she would like compensation for all the damages to their belongings and health.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord again on 5 December 2022 to state that someone attended the property the previous week. She said they were only there on an emergency call out and that they could not do anything in relation to her situation other than report it back to the landlord. The resident said the mould was severely spreading around the house and the smell was causing the children to continuously become unwell. The landlord responded on 18 December 2022 to state that the contractor who attended was there in relation to a separate leak which was affecting the whole building. It said it was still awaiting the report from the damp and mould inspection and would raise any necessary repairs following that. It said the resident’s complaint would be closed as it was being handled.
  6. The damp and mould contractor revisited the property on 25 January 2023. The report stated that a clean and shield was completed and noted “extremely smelly and hairy thick, black, brown and white mould’s present.” It outlined that 7 children were living in the property, including 3 with disabilities. It referred to chest problems and having to be absent from school.
  7. The resident contacted the landlord on 4 April 2024 and stated that she wished to raise a second complaint as the previous one was closed without the issue being sorted. She said 1 leak was fixed after 4 months of reporting but there were still damp and mould issues. She said she was asked 4 months ago if she wished to move to temporary accommodation and she was still waiting. The landlord responded the next day to say the area surveyor took over the job and attended 4 months ago. It apologised for the resident not having heard back from him and said it would email him for an update.
  8. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 7 August 2023. It said the resident first complained in November 2022 and escalated her complaint on 3 May 2023. It stated the following:
    1. An external contractor attended on 22 October 2022 and reported suspected leaks within the property which would have contributed to the damp and mould. A clean and shield was completed at the time. The same contractor attended again on 23 January 2023 and a clean and shield was completed again where damp and mould was identified. It said that the contractor was due to attend again but the resident requested the appointment to be placed on hold as she had a plumbing appointment booked. It advised the resident to rebook the appointment.
    2. A joint inspection with a surveyor and internal contractor took place on 17 January 2023. It said the surveyor raised a job to repair the identified leak which was completed on 1 February 2023. It said the surveyor returned on 22 February 2023 and damp readings were higher than expected under the stairway. It was agreed that a dehumidifier would be installed and the mouldy plasterboard section should be removed and replaced. It said ducting/boxing should be removed under the stairs to ensure there was no further leak on the stack pipe. It outlined other repairs unrelated to the damp and mould which were raised and since completed.
    3. The outstanding works were the plasterboard replacements. It referred to cancelled appointments and the resident’s availability. It said its records do not note reasons for appointments being cancelled and a new appointment was raised for 25 September 2023. It said it had not received confirmation if the electrical follow-on works were completed and provided contact details should the resident need to rebook them.
    4. It apologised for the delay in making good areas in the home following the leak. It offered £345 in compensation which was broken down as follows:
      1. £30 for the delay in escalation to stage 2.
      2. £40 in recognition of 2 cancelled appointments.
      3. £75 in recognition of the inconvenience and distress experienced including the resident’s time and effort for bringing the matter to its attention.
      4. £200 for the delay to repair.
  9. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and referred her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said it had been over a year of suffering with the leak, damp, and mould. The resident said she was promised temporary accommodation and the surveyor had not been in touch since. She said she would like a clear scope of works, for the issue to be resolved, and to be compensated.

Post internal complaints procedure

  1. On 29 January 2024 a legal disrepair case was submitted to the landlord for the issues raised by the resident. An expert witness report dated 19 February 2024 stated that the property was suffering from serious water ingress throughout. It said there were elements of disrepair centred on the water leak penetration from the 2nd floor bathroom which was understood to have been fixed. It said prolonged unchecked water ingress had seriously damaged the property causing damp and mould growth in various places. It stated that an active leak in the utility cupboard required urgent attention as water ingress was gradually damaging the property and the extent of the damage below the floor level was unknown. It outlined the remedial works required and stated that the landlord had breached its duties under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and Defective Premises Act 1972. It said the total value of works was £6,088 and it would take 2 weeks to complete, with a decant required.
  2. On 10 April 2024 the landlord confirmed that the repairs to the plasterboard and to investigate for a leak was still outstanding. On 18 April 2024, the resident informed the Ombudsman of a recent leak and ceiling collapse in her storeroom. She said the landlord told her it attempted to access the property following her reports but she was unavailable, she said the next appointment provided by the landlord was in May 2024. The landlord has since confirmed to the Ombudsman that it did attempt to access the property on 8 April 2024 but it could not get access. It said it had asked its contractors to contact the resident and arrange an appointment for as soon as possible.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced. We have also considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that the condition of the property was affecting their health and whether this response was reasonable in view of all the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of reports of leaks, and damp and mould in the property

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by the Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will aim to complete a repair in an average of 25 calendar days and emergency works will be attended within 24 hours.
  3. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that any remedial works identified following an assessment will be recorded and raised within 10 working days. It states that it will consider the needs, vulnerabilities, and circumstances of residents when offering advice ensuring its appropriate, clear, practical, and sensitive alongside any action taken. It states that it will take responsibility for identifying, investigating, and resolving damp and mould as quickly and effectively as it can. It outlines that if a tenant needs to be rehoused to allow work to be carried out, it will follow its allocations and lettings policy.

Leaks

  1. The landlord’s records show that the resident first reported the damp and mould in her kitchen, bathroom, and hallway on 13 October 2022. The landlord’s damp and mould contractor attended on 27 October 2022 to investigate and treat it. The landlord’s actions in response to the first report were reasonable. The report provided from the contractor confirmed that it carried out a “clean and shield” and that there was an unidentified leak which required further investigation and urgent repair.
  2. It was not appropriate that following the report, the surveyor and contractor did not attend to investigate the leak until 25 January 2023, 3 months later. The delay was unreasonable and outside of the timescale that could be expected in accordance with the landlord’s repair policy. During that time and throughout the winter months, the resident repeatedly raised concerns about the damp and mould returning, the ongoing leak, and that she felt the property was not habitable. She made the landlord aware of her distress and the impact on her own and her children’s health. There is no evidence that upon receipt of this information, the landlord considered the vulnerability of the household, completed a risk assessment, or offered any interim support early on.
  3. Following the visit from the landlord and contractor in January 2023, a repair was raised for the leak found on the mains pipe which was completed on 1 February 2023. On 22 February 2022 a further repair was identified for the “mouldy plasterboard” and to investigate a further leak under the stairs, however, this was not raised until 3 March 2024. It is not acceptable that this repair and further investigation was not completed prior to the stage 2 response and that it remains outstanding. The Ombudsman appreciates that it can be difficult to identify the source of a leak/water ingress, however, the Ombudsman has not seen a sense of urgency or attempt at a repair regarding the second leak, which is not appropriate.
  4. As part of this investigation, the landlord was asked for its records relating to the damp and mould in the resident’s property. Some of this information has been provided but it does not evidence the landlord’s decision making at the time. For example, the repair log provided shows jobs to investigate reported leaks were raised multiple times. It is not clear what actions were taken following each appointment or why some of the jobs were cancelled, with unreasonable delays in-between recorded actions. It is of concern that the landlord does not hold more detailed records and cannot evidence active management of the repairs.

Damp and mould

  1. Between the first damp and mould report dated 27 October 2022 and the second one dated 25 January 2023, no works were completed in the property despite the resident’s reports that it had returned and was becoming worse. In the report dated 25 January 2023 it stated that there was “extremely smelly and hairy thick black, brown and white moulds present”. It also referred to the children in the property, their disabilities, chest problems, and absence from school. While it is positive that a “clean and shield” was undertaken at both visits, the resident had already raised that the issue was reoccurring which would be in line with the unresolved leaks. It is of particular concern following this visit, that the landlord still neglected to consider whether the property was habitable.
  2. There is some confusion regarding the reasons for cancelled and re-booked appointments throughout June – August 2023. The landlord has suggested there have been difficulties in securing access to the property. The Ombudsman would expect to see a record of all activities in relation to the property and associated repairs. However, the Ombudsman has not been provided with any evidence that supports this position. While the landlord has stated that some of the appointments were re-scheduled by the resident, one of the reasons provided was that it was the school holidays, and the resident did not want the children around the treatment spray which would be applied. The landlord should have continued to prioritise the repairs and considered whether a decant would have been appropriate given the circumstances.
  3. While the resident stated many times that she was asked if she would like to go into temporary accommodation, the landlord’s records do not refer to this. The landlord’s internal correspondence shows that it contacted the surveyor who attended at the time to ask for an update regarding the visit in January 2023 and what repairs were required. It also asked for clarification regarding the temporary accommodation. It is not appropriate that the landlord did not satisfy itself that the property was fit for habitation. It is evident that the lack of response from the surveyor and the delay in the contractor providing reports was an issue. However, it is for the landlord to manage its relationships with different contractors and to ensure that repairs are still progressed within timescales. Upon reviewing the internal emails, it is clear there was a lack of effective collaboration and information sharing, which adversely affected the resident.
  4. The Ombudsman also identifies that the landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident throughout the case. The landlord did not evidence to the resident that it had followed up on actions and the resident was not provided with a schedule of works or an action plan with defined timescales. The resident was left unsupported even when she made it clear her living conditions were impacting her household’s physical and mental health. The Ombudsman determines that the communication failings throughout exacerbated the situation, delayed the resolution of the substantive issue, and worsened the impact on a vulnerable household.
  5. While the landlord did take some action to address the damp and mould in the property, such as inspections, “clean and shields,” and fixing 1 of the leaks, it has not done enough to suggest it has taken a zero-tolerance approach to proactively address the issue. The issue was raised in October 2022 and as of 18 April 2024, the resident said the matter was unresolved. This demonstrates that the actions promised in its stage 2 response have not taken place and there is no scheduled date for the remedial works. This is inappropriate and indicates a lack of oversight and ownership by the landlord. The Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to carry out a survey of the property to establish what works are currently required in the property and to produce an action plan to ensure that they are completed in a timely manner.
  6. Overall, the landlord did not treat the resident fairly in the way it handled reports of leaks, damp, and mould within the property. It acted with a lack of urgency and failed to keep the resident updated throughout. There were delays investigating the root cause of the leaks and in progressing repairs. It provided no evidence to demonstrate it considered the household vulnerabilities or whether the property was habitable. It did not follow up with the resident to check if any interim support could be provided and it failed to complete internal repairs in line with its policy. Although it apologised and awarded compensation, this was insufficient given the circumstances of the case. In conclusion, the Ombudsman finds there was severe maladministration by the landlord.
  7. The level of rent is used as a starting position by the Ombudsman in relation to the award of financial redress for loss of use and enjoyment of a property. The Ombudsman has made an order of compensation, set out below, considering the specific circumstances of this complaint, the resident’s rent payments, and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The resident’s rent for 2022 – 2023 was £235.62 per week and £252.11 per week for 2023-2024.
  8. The order considers the weekly rent specified above from the date of the first inspection up to the date of the week of this determination, as the issue remains unresolved. As such, the resident and her children have been living in poor conditions for 77 weeks. The Ombudsman concludes that compensation based on 20% of the weekly rent paid from the date of the first damp and mould inspection up to the week of this determination, should be paid to the resident. This amounts to approximately £3,810 to recognise the loss of use and enjoyment of the property.

The complaint, including the level of compensation offered

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time provided for a 2 stage complaints procedure in which it responds to a complaint at stage 1 within 10 working days, and stage 2 within 20 working days. It states that it will write to the complainant if more time is required and write again within a further 10 working days.
  2. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will award discretionary compensation when its mistake or failure caused a customer distress and inconvenience and/or the need to spend unnecessary time and effort in getting the landlord to put it right. It states that it will also consider the impact of any failures in its complaint handling and where it has not complied with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. It refers to discretionary payments and that it will consider the individual household circumstances, such as, larger sized households and/or specific vulnerabilities and where this has caused greater impact.
  3. The resident made her formal complaint on 1 November 2022. While the landlord responded in a timely manner, its response did not provide a timeframe for when the repairs would be completed. It also did not address the concerns from the resident about it becoming worse and the impact on herself and her children. Therefore, its response was not appropriate.
  4. The resident made it clear on 25 November 2022 that she wished to escalate her complaint to stage 2 and provided the reasons why. It is not appropriate that the landlord did not provide a stage 2 response and closed the complaint on 19 December 2022, without the issue being resolved. This led to the resident making a further formal complaint on 4 April 2023, 5 months later. The landlord responded to the resident on 3 May 2023 to say the complaint had been escalated to stage 2 but said it was unable to provide a timeframe for a response due to a backlog of complaints. Its response was not appropriate nor was it in line with its policy which stated that the resident should receive a response within 20 working days.
  5. Following further chasing from the resident and the mayor, the landlord provided its stage 2 response on 7 August 2023, 4 months after the second formal complaint made by the resident and 8 months after the resident’s original stage 2 escalation. The delays in responding to the resident were not acceptable. The landlord awarded £30 of the compensation for the delay in escalation to stage 2, however, it did not provide the reasons for the delays or what it would do to ensure it did not happen again in future. The complaint handling delays blocked access to the complaints process. It also prevented the resident from accessing the Ombudsman service sooner and contributed to further delays in resolving the substantive issue.
  6. The landlord’s stage 2 response did not demonstrate that the landlord had taken full ownership of the problems experienced by the resident. It could not confirm why appointments were cancelled and it was unsure whether the electrical follow-on works were completed. It also did not confirm whether a job had been raised for the ducting/boxing to be removed under the stairs to check for a further leak on the stack pipe. This was a job which was identified on 22 February 2023. There was also no reference to the household vulnerabilities and temporary decant which had been repeatedly raised by the resident. As such, the landlord missed opportunities to remedy the issue, address and resolve the wider aspects of the complaint, show empathy, and improve the landlord tenant relationship.
  7. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code at the time stated that when responding to a complaint “the remedy offer must clearly set out what will happen and by when, in agreement with the resident where appropriate. Any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion.” In this case, the substantive issue is still not resolved 8 months after the landlord’s final response. This again demonstrates a lack of ownership, active management, and complaint oversight.
  8. Considering the length of time that the resident and her family lived with leaks, and damp and mould in the property, the compensation of £345 offered was not proportionate to address the impact caused. Compensation has been calculated for the loss of use and enjoyment of the property.
  9. The Ombudsman also considered the significant distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident because of the landlord’s failure to remedy the leaks and treat the damp and mould with appropriate urgency. This also includes its failure to address the household vulnerabilities, the cancelled appointments, and its poor communication throughout, both internally and with the resident. In recognition of the detriment caused to the resident, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to compensate her £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused. This amount is in line with the suggested compensation figure in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases where there have been serious failings by the landlord and the landlord’s response to the failures exacerbated the situation and further undermined the landlord/resident relationship.
  10. Overall, the Ombudsman concludes that there were significant failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and the level of compensation offered. The complaints procedure was not used as an effective tool in resolving the substantive issue for the resident but instead added to the detriment caused. Due to the accumulative failings in the landlord’s complaint handling and the level of detriment experienced by the resident as a result, this constitutes maladministration. Further compensation will be awarded for the landlord’s failures in handling the complaint.

Special report on London and Quadrant

  1. In July 2023, the Ombudsman issued a special report about the landlord following an investigation carried out under paragraph 49 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which allows the Ombudsman to conduct further investigations to establish whether any presenting evidence is indicative of a systemic failing.
  2. Some of the concerns relevant to this report centred around its handling of repairs (particularly damp and mould), vulnerabilities, complaint handling, compensation, and staff learning and development. The report recommended the landlord independently review those areas and develop an action plan based on the findings.
  3. While the landlord has engaged with the Ombudsman and progress has been made, we have continued to identify problems with the landlord’s performance. This is evidenced in the similar and more recent failings which have been identified in this report. We therefore order the landlord to consider the findings highlighted in this investigation against the recommendations in our special report of July 2023.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports of leaks, and damp and mould in the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the complaint, including the level of compensation offered.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide an apology to the resident for the failings identified. The apology is to come from the Chief Executive and they should endeavour to deliver it in person.
    2. Contact the resident to discuss any vulnerabilities within her household and ensure its internal records reflect those vulnerabilities.
    3. Arrange for a surveyor to inspect the resident’s property. The surveyor must produce a report identifying the cause of the leak(s), and damp and mould, recommendations to remedy this, and a schedule of works with defined timescales for the work to be completed. It should include a risk assessment which confirms whether a decant is required for the resident and her children. A copy of this report must be shared with the Ombudsman and the resident.
    4. Pay the resident compensation of £5,060. This is inclusive of the landlord’s previous offer of £345. The compensation is comprised of:
      1. £3,810 to reflect the impact on the home and the resident’s use and enjoyment of it while the leaks and damp and mould remain unresolved.
      2. £1,000 for the overall distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and her children.
      3. £250 for the failures in handling the complaint.
    5. Provide the resident within its insurance details to enable her to make a claim for damages to belongings, should she wish to do so.
  2. The landlord is to provide compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

  1. As part of its consideration against the recommendations made in the special report, the landlord should also consider its procedures when undertaking property inspections and surveys. This is to ensure that appropriate records of methods, findings, and recommendations are created, stored centrally, and made available in a timely manner.