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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202321288)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202321288

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

20 December 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:
    1. Response to the resident’s reports of an insect infestation.
    2. Complaint handling.
  2. The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2 bedroom flat. There is a managing agent who is responsible for external repairs to the structure of the building. The landlord has recorded vulnerabilities for the resident with regards to her having an illness and requiring physical support. No further information, or specific detail, about the resident’s vulnerabilities has been shared with this Service.
  2. On 23 June 2023, the landlord asked its pest contractors to inspect the resident’s property after she reported an insect infestation. The pest contractor attended on 27 June 2023. It found no evidence of an infestation.
  3. The resident maintained that small flies were biting her. Following a further report of an infestation, the landlord asked the pest contractor to conduct a further investigation. On 21 August 2023, the pest contractor identified that a potential leak on the resident’s balcony could be causing the insect issues she had reported. The contractor also identified a blocked air vent. The landlord replaced the vent on 23 October 2023.
  4. On 18 January 2024, the resident raised a complaint. She said that the insect infestation was getting worse, and insect bites were causing her significant distress. She said that her doctor had expressed concerns for health, as she was prone to infection. The resident said that the landlord needed to resolve the leak before pest contractors could effectively address the infestation.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 7 February 2024. It explained that any external repairs were the responsibility of the managing agent. It said that the managing agent had conducted an inspection and it was waiting to hear back from it. In response to the resident’s concerns about the impact on her health, the landlord provided its insurance details so she could make a claim as necessary. It apologised and committed to resolving the issues as soon as possible.
  6. The landlord’s neighbourhood housing lead confirmed that when he attended the resident’s property with the managing agent, there was no evidence of an active leak that could have been the source of the reported infestation. However, on 12 February 2024, the landlord raised an urgent request for pest contractors to attend the property.
  7. The landlord offered to conduct a home visit with the resident to discuss any support it could offer. It also confirmed through internal communications that it had checked repairs logs and there had been no reports of any pest issues in neighbouring properties. Pest contractors conducted 3 visits in March 2024. They confirmed to the landlord on each occasion that there was no evidence of an infestation in the resident’s property.
  8. It is unclear when the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. However, the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 23 April 2024. It confirmed that while there was no evidence of an insect infestation in the property, it would investigate other potential sources of the reported infestation. This would include checking communal trees during estate inspections and continuing to engage with the managing agent about the potential of a leak. It offered the resident £200 compensation, comprised of £50 for its delayed stage 2 response and £150 for the inconvenience caused.
  9. The resident remains dissatisfied because the landlord has not resolved the reported infestation in her property. The resident told this Service upon referring her complaint that she and her son have physically suffered due to insect bites, which has caused significant health issues including infections.

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. The resident referenced in her communication with the landlord and this Service that the delays in resolving the infestation had affected her physical health and her son’s. While the Ombudsman is sorry to hear of these concerns, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to determine a causal link between the landlord’s action (or lack thereof) and the impact on the resident’s health and wellbeing.
  2. Such decisions are best made by either an insurer – by way of a personal injury claim, or by a court of law. It is acknowledged that the landlord had already signposted the resident to its insurer. This was appropriate. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if she does not wish to pursue the matter via the landlord’s insurer. While we cannot consider impact on health, we have considered whether there were any failings by the landlord and whether these were the cause of avoidable distress and inconvenience.

Response to the resident’s reports of an insect infestation.

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy acknowledges that pest infestations can arise from a variety of factors and can impact on a resident’s quality of life and become a health and safety hazard. The policy says that it will deal with infestations of specific pests including fleas and bedbugs, where the resident had been unsuccessful in dealing with the issue themselves. It would also deal with infestations where there is evidence of a wider issue within a block.
  2. The policy outlines that it aims to complete routine day to day repairs within 25 calendar days. However, the policy also outlines that the landlord would adjust its service standards where a delay would put a vulnerable resident at risk because of their condition.
  3. In this case, the nature and source of the reported infestation was unknown. Nevertheless, the landlord took appropriate steps to investigate the matter and locate the source of the infestation. 
  4. Following the resident’s initial report, the evidence shows that the landlord was customer focused in responding promptly. It instructed pest contractors to inspect and treat the infestation as soon as the resident reported the problem, and pest contractors attended within 4 days. This was appropriate.
  5. The pest contractor found no evidence of an infestation. However, it outlined two potential repairs issues which could have been causing or contributing to an infestation. This was a blocked vent and a possible leak on the resident’s balcony.
  6. The landlord replaced the vent on 23 October 2023; 46 working days after the pest contractors advised the landlord of the potential issue. This is significantly outside the timescales outlined within the landlord’s repairs policy for routine repairs. Given the knowledge that the vent could have been the cause of an infestation, and the resident’s reports that she was suffering from significant insect bites, this delay was unreasonable. The landlord has not provided an explanation as to why the delay occurred, and it is therefore unclear whether the delay was unavoidable or not. Nevertheless, this inevitably caused the resident further distress and inconvenience.
  7. External repairs are the responsibility of the managing agent. Therefore, in relation to any balcony repairs, the landlord’s responsibility in this case was to proactively engage with the managing agent and ensure any repairs were carried out. It was also responsible for ensuring that it took reasonable steps to follow up on any delays.
  8. While internal landlord emails suggest that there was no leak, there is no contemporaneous evidence relating to its joint visit with the managing agent to support this statement. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to ensure that it created a clear and detailed record of what had been observed during the inspection. That it did not was a record keeping failing.
  9. The landlord’s stage 2 response referred to it continuing to engage with the managing agent regarding the potential of a leak causing an infestation. Given that the landlord’s internal communication sets out that it did not believe this to be the cause, the basis for its comments in the stage 2 response are unclear. As a result, the resident would understandably have continued to believe that there was a potential leak, and the landlord would proactively try to resolve it. This was inappropriate and failed to manage the resident’s expectations. It also suggests a lack of thoroughness and accuracy in the complaints process.
  10. Overall, the landlord acted promptly to provide the resident with a pest control service and was consistent with its delivery. Pest contractors advised the landlord on several occasions that there was no evidence of an infestation in the property. The landlord was entitled to rely on the findings of a qualified agency. However, there were unreasonable delays in carrying out the recommended repairs.
  11. Furthermore, the landlord’s records regarding its communication with the managing agent are vague. As a result, there is insufficient evidence to show that it thoroughly investigated the potential of a leak.
  12. Likewise, the landlord’s records regarding the resident’s vulnerabilities are lacking in detail. It should ensure that its records are updated. This will enable it on future occasions to fully consider the adjustments it may need to make when delivering services such as repairs.
  13. The landlord offered £150 compensation for ‘inconvenience’. Considering the above mentioned failings, this was proportionate compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the delayed vent repair.
  14. However, as the landlord has failed to demonstrate that it has thoroughly investigated a potential leak with the managing agent, we have made a finding of service failure. To put things right, we have ordered the landlord to conduct a joint inspection and communicate the outcome of this with the resident and this Service.

Complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) is a guidance document that sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. The code encourages landlords to adopt a positive complaint handling culture that enables them to resolve disputes, improve the quality of the service it provides to residents, and ensure that complaints provide an opportunity for learning and positive improvement.
  2. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. The landlord ought to provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the complaint being raised, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. These timescales are in accordance with the landlord’s policy and the Code.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 7 February 2024; 15 working days after the resident raised her complaint. While this is marginally outside the timescales outlined within the Code and the landlord’s complaint policy, there is no evidence that this delay had a negative impact on the resident. However, the landlord may wish to reflect on this and ensure that it communicates any delays, regardless of how minor, to the resident to manage expectations and prevent any frustration.
  4. It is unclear when the resident escalated her complaint. We asked the landlord for evidence of this, but it has not been able to provide us with anything further. This is a record keeping failure. As we have not had sight of the escalation request, we have not been able to determine whether the overall response issued by the landlord was fair and whether it addressed all of the concerns that had been raised. We therefore cannot conclude that the landlord responded to the complaint appropriately and in accordance with the Code. The landlord should ensure that it has systems in place to maintain accurate records of the issues that are brought to it as a complaint. Its failure to do so is inappropriate and has prevented this Service from accurately assessing the appropriateness of its complaint handling.
  5. When the landlord issued its stage 2 response, it offered £50 compensation for the inconvenience caused by its delay. Given that the date of the escalation request is unknown, we cannot determine what the delay was in this case, and therefore whether the compensation offered was proportionate. However, it was overall reasonable for the landlord to offer compensation aimed at putting things right.
  6. Given the failings we have identified, we have found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s;
    1. Response to the resident’s reports of an insect infestation.
    2. Complaint handling.
    3. Record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within the next 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £200 compensation that it has already offered, if it has not already done so.
    2. Pay an additional £50 compensation for the identified complaint handling failures.
    3. Arrange a joint inspection of the resident’s property with the managing agent. The inspection should determine if there is an external leak that requires repair. The outcome of this inspection must be shared, in writing, with this Service.
  2. Remind its repairs and complaint handling of the importance of maintaining accurate records. Emphasis should be placed on ensuring it keeps an accurate audit trail of communications with any managing agents, to prevent any future failings identified by this investigation.
  3. Evidence of compliance with the above orders must be provided to this Service.

Recommendation

The landlord should contact the resident to ensure that its records correctly reflect her vulnerabilities.