London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202321212)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202321212

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

19 February 2025

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about how the landlord handled the resident’s:
1. Mutual exchange.
2. Reports of disrepair and associated damp and mould.

Background

On 10 August 2022 the resident agreed to assume a tenancy of the property via a mutual exchange with the outgoing tenant. The resident was then an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association, from December 2022 until April 2024 when she moved to a new property. On 9 December 2022 the resident reported disrepair at the property including damp and mould and suspected subsidence.
The landlord attended and completed an inspection on 24 January 2023. On 4 April 2023 the resident reported the same issues. In June 2023 the landlord attended and completed some works in the garden. On 10 August 2023 the resident complained about ongoing moisture ingress, damp and mould, and delays in completing outstanding works. The landlord then advised her it would organise a damp and mould survey.
On 25 August 2023 the landlord issued a stage 1 response. It advised it had raised an inspection for 12 September 2023. It committed to raising any required repairs following this, and advised it would keep the resident informed. The landlord inspected the property on 7 September 2023 and identified several issues which it considered was causing the moisture ingress and associated damp and mould. Over the next 2 weeks the resident repeatedly contacted the landlord to chase related works. On 9 September 2023 the resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman.
On 25 September 2023 the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. She complained that the landlord should never have allowed her to move into the property, and that it had failed to adequately inspect it before she agreed to the mutual exchange. She also complained the landlord had failed to complete any works to address the issues she identified once she moved in. She asked the landlord to facilitate a permanent move for her from the property, as she did not consider it was fair that she was made to live in a property in such severe disrepair. She also claimed that damp and mould within the property was harming her health.
On 26 September 2023 the landlord attended and replaced some missing slates from the front bay area. On 29 September 2023 it then facilitated an inspection and report by its insurer which confirmed suspected subsidence, and diagnosed this was due to leaking drains. On the same day it also removed the decking from the garden.
Over the next 2 months the resident regularly chased the landlord to complete outstanding works and repeated her request for a permanent move. On 17 November 2023 the Ombudsman contacted the landlord and instructed it to address the resident’s stage 2 escalation.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 24 November 2023. It advised that, at the time she accepted the mutual exchange it was not completing in person checks of properties as part of this process. It explained that she had accepted the property in its present state in July 2022. It advised that the only issue identified at this stage was faulty brickwork, and that it had repaired this prior to her moving in. It explained that it had raised a series of works to address the outstanding disrepair following its 7 September 2023 inspection, but that the exterior works were “at a standstill”. It explained that it needed to complete these before it could complete the interior works, and that it had submitted an “urgent escalation” for these.
However, the landlord acknowledged that it had failed to communicate with the resident following inspections in January 2023 and April 2023. It also acknowledged delays in completing the works and in addressing her stage 2 complaint. It apologised for this and paid her £3350 compensation, inclusive of: £1600 for distress and inconvenience, £1000 for service failure, £150 for poor complaint handling, and £600 for the time and effort she had incurred trying to progress things. It encouraged her to submit medical evidence to advance her position that she required a permanent move on health grounds.
The resident was not satisfied with this response, and on 24 November 2023 she complained that the landlord had again failed to provide any timescales for the completion of the outstanding works. She also complained that the compensation offered did not go far enough to address the delays. The landlord replied on 28 November 2023 and advised that the exterior works were “within an internal approval process” and that it would update her when this was approved. It also repeated its position that the interior works were not viable until these were completed.
On 7 December 2023 the landlord approved the exterior works. The resident continued to chase the works over the following month. On 10 January 2024 the landlord attended and installed drains at the front of the property. Over the next 3 months the resident continued to chase the outstanding works. She complained again to the landlord on 2 April 2024 and asked it to consider further compensation for the continued delays following its stage 2 decision. The landlord considered this and offered the resident another £150 in compensation. The resident was not satisfied with this. At some point in early April 2024 the resident then moved into a new property via mutual exchange.
To resolve her complaint, the resident would like the landlord to pay her at least £15000 to reflect the psychological, social, and financial impacts she says the landlord’s omissions caused her from December 2022 to April 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has raised issues about the impact of the property and the repairs on hers and her family’s health. The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, any impact on health. Personal injury claims, must, be decided by the court as they can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. However, the Ombudsman will consider the general distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused the resident as well as the landlord’s response to any reported impact on hers and her family’s health.

How the landlord handled the resident’s mutual exchange

The landlord’s policy on mutual exchange states it will ensure the property is well maintained and safe for the incoming tenant by: agreeing any repairs that need completing prior to the exchange, rectifying any damage or unapproved alterations, and undertaking appropriate health and safety checks.
Advice on mutual exchange on its website also advises that residents make sure they look carefully at the property’s condition before agreeing to the new tenancy because properties are “taken as seen.”
The only issue identified by the outgoing tenant on the mutual exchange documents, which the resident signed, was faulty brickwork and pointing at the front of the property. Repair logs indicate the landlord completed these works on 13 July 2022. This was in line with the obligations set out in its policy.
The resident complains that the landlord should have completed a full survey of the property before she agreed to the tenancy. She considers that, had it done so, it would have identified the disrepair it subsequently found after she moved in, and that she then would have refused the tenancy on this basis. She explained that, when she visited the property to inspect it as part of the process, the outgoing tenant had cynically placed furniture to obscure the issues she went onto identify.
While we recognise how distressing this must have been for the resident, the landlord’s policy does not oblige it to complete any physical checks as part of its mutual exchange process. The landlord also explained that it was not doing in person inspections at the time of the mutual exchange, as this was during the Covid-19 pandemic it was understandable that is did not carry out such an inspection. Therefore, we do not consider it acted inappropriately here by not doing so.

How the landlord handled the resident’s reports of disrepair and associated damp and mould

The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that it is responsible for maintaining:
1. The structure and exterior of the home, including walls, roofs, windows, external doors, drains, gutters, external pipes and boundary fences and gates.  
2. Condensation and mould.
3. Trip hazards in paths, paving and driveways that provide access to the home.
4. Kitchen unit doors and frames.
5. Penetrative and rising damp.
It also obliges it to complete emergency repairs within 24 hours and non-emergency repairs within 20 working days.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it will attempt to diagnose the issue and raise a repair immediately. If a clear diagnosis cannot be given, it will escalate the case and send a surveyor or contractor to investigate further. When a surveyor or contractor attends an inspection, they will provide the landlord with a report advising on the issue’s severity. The outcome of the report will determine what treatment or repair is required. Should a repair be advised, the timeframe and duration of the repair will depend on the severity of the issue, and this will be discussed with the resident. Where appropriate, experts will clean any affected surfaces, before shielding them with an anti-mould agent to help prevent them from returning.
Our Spotlight Report on damp and mould recommended that landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. We also recommended that landlords should take a “zero tolerance” approach to reports of damp and mould. This means we expect them to take a proactive approach to resolving damp and mould by making efforts to address any issues as early as possible.
On 9 December 2022 the resident reported several repairs issues which she identified soon after moving in. Amongst these issues, and the subject of this complaint, were:
1. Structural issues which she suspected were causing water ingress.
2. A cracked window pane in the kitchen.
3. Rising damp.
On 24 January 2023 a surveyor attended the property and completed an inspection. However, there is no audit trail of this or evidence of a report. The landlord was responsible for the maintenance of the issues reported, and its damp and mould policy obligated it to complete a survey report and determine a course of action. It failed to do so here, which is unreasonable given the resident had waited for around 6 weeks for the inspection. The resident was also unhappy with the outcome of this survey and asked the landlord for a 2nd opinion on the same day. The landlord then failed to acknowledge or address this request.
We can see the resident continued to chase another survey over the following 3 months. Internal emails indicate that, on 10 February 2023, the landlord removed the decking from the rear garden. However, since there are no direct repairs records related to these works, and no report from the 24 January 2023 survey, it is not possible for us to determine whether these works were related to the issues the resident reported, or what impact they had.
On 4 April 2023 the resident reported damp and mould in the kitchen and advised this was being caused by moisture ingress from the rear roof parapet wall, and blocked rear gutters. She also reported damp and mould in 2 other rooms. She reported this again on 25 April 2023. The landlord acknowledged her reports on each occasion. We can see the landlord then attempted to visit the property on 26 May 2023 but was not provided access. The resident reported the damp and mould 35 working days before this attempted visit. In the absence of any evidence to explain the delay, we consider the landlord could have attempted to complete these works sooner. Its repairs policy sets out that it will complete non-emergency repairs within 20 working days, and so it exceeded these timescales. This delay was also not in keeping with the “zero-tolerance” approach recommended in our Spotlight report.
The landlord unsuccessfully attempted access again on 16 June 2023. The resident then gave access on 19 June 2023, and the landlord successfully cleared the rear gutters. While this was a positive step towards addressing one of the issues the resident reported, there is no evidence the landlord inspected the property for damp and mould at this visit despite her making it aware of this throughout April 2023. This was not in keeping with its damp and mould policy or the recommendations of our Spotlight report.
Over the next 2 months there is no evidence of contact between either party. On 10 August 2023 the resident complained that the landlord had failed to address her concerns about moisture ingress coming from external and internal walls in the kitchen. She explained that this was leading to growing damp and mould throughout the kitchen, and that this had caused it to smell “like death”. She complained that, despite raising concerns about structural disrepair and damp and mould in December 2022, there had been no progress in resolving either issue. The landlord replied on the same day and agreed to book a damp and mould survey. While this was a positive step, it should have done so back in April 2023. We consider this delay likely caused the resident distress and further delayed any resolution.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 25 August 2023 and assured the resident it would fully inspect the property to determine a course of action. It inspected the property on 7 September 2023 and identified the following issues:
1. Damp areas behind the kitchen units.
2. The rear decking is too high and has breached the DPC.
3. Timber contraption in the rear garden allowing water to penetrate the rear brickwork.
4. Various leaks from the SVP and basin wastes.
5. Soakaway created at the front of the property (stones are in the middle of the vent which will allow water to enter the property.)
6. Missing roof slates to the front bay.
7. Cracks to the rear brickwork.
8. The fence may be sitting on the decking.
The landlord took no action over the following 2 weeks and so the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. She complained about the ongoing delays and requested a permanent move. We can see the landlord then attended the property on 26 September 2023 and replaced the missing roof slates. The landlord also attended on 29 September 2023 and removed the decking in the garden to expose the vents. Therefore, these works were completed within the 20 working day timescale outlined in its repairs policy.
On 29 September 2023 the landlord then sent engineers to the property who identified suspected subsidence due to leaking drains and recommended “superstructure repairs”, and a CCTV inspection of the drains. The landlord took no further action over the next 2 months, and the resident continued to contact it regularly throughout this period to complain about delays and ask it to provide likely timescales for the outstanding works. It is unclear why the landlord had been unable to complete any of the remaining works over this 2 month period. In the absence of any evidence to explain this, we do not consider this delay was reasonable.
We can see the landlord advised the resident throughout this period on multiple occasions that it would keep her updated, but we can see no indication it provided any timescales for the remaining works. We recognise that it is not always possible to provide precise timescales for major works. However, we consider the landlord should have been able to give at least an approximate idea as to when she could expect it to at least attempt the remaining works. Considering the delays up until this point, it is likely that this ambiguity caused the resident further distress.
On 22 November 2023 internal emails note that the “outside work is at a standstill as it has been declined by a panel”. There are no records which offer any insight into this or outline the reasons that the works were declined. In any case, the landlord was responsible for these repairs as per its policy and the resident’s occupancy agreement, and it therefore should have acted to progress them.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 24 November 2023. In this response it acknowledged delays in progressing repairs and poor communication from January 2023 onwards. It apologised for this and offered the resident £3350 in compensation, which she accepted. This was a positive step towards addressing its failures up to this point. It also asked the resident to supply medical evidence to support her view that she required a permanent move due to the impact of damp and mould on her health. It explained that its allocations policy required resident’s to do so to qualify for a such a move. Having seen its allocations policy, we consider this advice was appropriate.
However, it still failed to provide the resident with any likely timescales for the completion of remaining works. It explained that it needed to complete the exterior works before the interior works, but that the former were at a “standstill”. It offered no explanation as to why this was. Ultimately, we have been unable to derive any reasonable explanation from the records as to why these works were indefinitely delayed. Its continued failure at this stage to progress these works, for which it was responsible, likely caused the resident significant distress.
Following this response the resident continued to unsuccessfully chase the landlord for timescales. Internal emails then note that the landlord decided to approve the exterior works on 7 December 2023. There is no audit trail of this decision or any information to suggest why it had delayed in doing so within the records. With this and the landlord’s repairs obligations in mind, we consider it delayed unreasonably in approving these works. We also note that the resident had been unsuccessfully chasing resolution of the structural issues and damp and mould for around a year by this point.
On 29 December 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and acknowledged that it had contacted her at some stage after it approved the works to advise her of this. However, she complained that it had not given her any indication as to when the interior works would be completed. We have seen no indication that it had provided timescales for any of the interior works by this point. The landlord then attended on 10 January 2024 and installed drains around the front of the property. It contacted the resident following this and advised that it would provide an action plan for the interior works once the remaining exterior works were completed. While this order of works seems reasonable, we consider the landlord still should have been able to at least provide approximate timescales for the remaining works.
The resident has advised that the fitting of the drains marginally improved the ingress into the property. However, following this, there is no evidence of any further repairs until the resident left the property in April 2024. While it is positive that the landlord fit the drains, it is unclear from the records why it was unable to complete any of the remaining exterior works and then move onto the interior works. Ultimately, it completed only 3 of the 8 works it raised following the survey on 7 September 2023, and it was responsible for completing these within a reasonable timeframe. In the absence of any evidence to justify the delay, we consider its failure to do so was unreasonable and likely caused the resident significant distress. For this reason, we will order the landlord pays the resident compensation to address this.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that, when assessing the level of discretionary compensation it will pay as redress for its omissions or failures, it will take the following considerations into account:
1. the duration of any avoidable distress or inconvenience.
2. the seriousness of any other unfair impact.
3. how it has communicated with the resident.
We consider the landlord delayed unreasonably in suitably inspecting the property until 7 September 2023, and then in progressing the works identified in this inspection from this point until April 2024. We consider this likely caused the resident significant distress, and that this was compounded by the landlord’s repeated failure to provide her with likely timescales for when she could expect the work to be completed.
We can see the landlord paid the resident £3350 compensation in late November 2023 to put right its failures up until this point. This payment was inclusive of:
1. £800 for distress caused by failure to recognize impact of vulnerabilities
2. £800 for inconvenience caused by this.
3. £600 for time and effort taken to progress things.
4. £150 for poor complaint handling.
5. £1000 for service failure.
We can see the landlord has considered each of the extenuating factors outlined in its discretionary compensation policy in calculating this payment. We also consider that this sum sits at the high end of the level of compensation we would typically order for the types of failings and associated impacts we have identified. Therefore, we consider this payment is sufficient to put right the landlord’s failings up until its stage 2 response on 24 November 2023.
However, this payment does not put right the failures which followed this until April 2024. During this period the landlord repeated its previous failures by delaying in progressing the remaining works, and failing to provide the resident with any related timescales for these. We consider this likely caused the resident significant distress. We also note that the resident continued to incur time and trouble in chasing the completion of these works throughout this period. The landlord’s policy does not set out specifically how to calculate these payments, and so we have relied on our compensation guidance to determine the sum required to put this right.
Our guidance sets out that payments of between £600 and £1000 are typically sufficient to put right failures which have had an adverse impact on the resident. With this in mind, we will order the landlord pays the resident £800 to put this right. We consider a figure at the higher end of this scale is appropriate given that the landlord did not complete the repairs it had identified and repeated similar failures addressed in its stage 2 response.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s mutual exchange.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of disrepair and associated damp and mould.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
The landlord is to pay the resident £800 for its failure to progress the works and provide relevant timescales from November 2023 to April 2024.
The landlord is to evidence compliance with these orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.