London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202226260)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226260

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

21 December 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. Anti-social behaviour (ASB) by his upstairs neighbour.
2. Flooding caused by the upstairs neighbour.
3. Repairs caused by the flood and related damp and mould.
The landlord’s complaints handling has also been investigated.

Background and summary of events

Scope of investigation

In November 2023 the resident’s mother reported to the Ombudsman that the landlord had not responded promptly to a report about a faulty boiler, which has since been replaced, in her son’s property. She explained her concerns about her son escalating repairs based on her experience, as her son is vulnerable. As this matter did not form part of the complaint raised with the landlord and under investigation here, this matter is not considered as part of this investigation. This position is reflected in paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure. The landlord is encouraged to engage with the resident and/or his mother in relation to this issue and if the resident remains dissatisfied, he may wish to raise a new complaint in that regard.

Background

The resident has a general needs assured tenancy which commenced in 2018. He lives in a flat beneath the upstairs neighbour within a house and there are other flats in the building. Both the resident and the neighbour have vulnerabilities, which are known to the landlord. The resident is supported by a representative in relation to this complaint and, for the sake of clarity, communications from both the resident and the representative are referred to in this report as being from the resident.

Policies

The landlord’s Repairs Policy states that the landlord is responsible for the structure and exterior of the home including the walls, roof, windows, external pipes, fixtures and fittings for water, electricity, and sanitation. It should respond to repairs within an average 25 calendar days for routine repairs and 24 hours for emergency works. It may adjust service standards for vulnerable residents and if it is denied access for remedial works it may take action which is proportionate to the reason for entry.
The landlord’s Vulnerable Resident Policy states that the landlord will consider how a condition affects a resident, what support needs they have, record their needs, offer in house support or make referrals, and offer a temporary home or hotel accommodation if there is an unplanned event in the property.
The landlord’s Damp and Mould Policy states that, following a report of damp and mould, the landlord will carry out an assessment within 20 working days to understand the scale and cause of the problem. Any remedial work will be raised within 10 working days of the assessment, and addressed in line with the repairs policy.
The Ombudsman’s report Spotlight on Damp and Mould: It’s Not Lifestyle made a number of recommendations to landlords, including that residents should be kept informed on actions taken and timescales by regular communication. The landlord should also act on recommendations from surveys within a timely manner. Specific recommendations which the landlord has adopted include providing a ‘Healthy Homes’ assessment to identify repairs, providing ‘clean and shield’ treatment to remove damp and mould, and offering 12 month monitoring.
The landlord’s ASB Policy states that:
1. It will review all reports of ASB and assign a priority (high priority requires one working day response, or standard priority which requires three working day response).
2. A vulnerability risk assessment matrix will be completed on high priority or relevant standard priority cases to measure harm to victim and guide actions to protect them from further harm.
3. When considering if conduct is ASB the landlord will take account of vulnerabilities facing the resident and the impact on their ability to resolve the issue without support.
4. ASB includes deliberate noise including night visitors or domestic disputes, harassment, intimidation or verbal abuse, property damage or neglect.
5. It will keep in regular contact with the resident, follow relevant safeguarding procedure, agree an action plan (such as interviewing the perpetrator), and take prompt action to prevent the ASB escalating (such as sending warning letters, offering mediation, or an acceptable behaviour contract). Intervention should be proportionate and achieve a legitimate aim. It will also tell the perpetrator of the consequences of ASB (such as eviction).
6. If the landlord does not consider the reported conduct to be ASB it will record it and then tell the resident that no further action will be taken.
The landlord’s Complaint Handling Procedure states the timescale for complaints (10 working days for stage 1 and 20 working days for stage 2). Stage 2 responses should include an apology, details of the outstanding complaint, outcome of investigations, next steps including communication plan, confirmation of who will be managing any ongoing works, timescales, compensation calculation, what it learned from the complaint and any changes it implemented, and escalation details.

Summary of events

The landlord’s repair records demonstrate that the resident reported issues with leaks and water ingress from the upstairs neighbour’s property on at least 6 occasions between December 2018 and March 2021. These events (together with repairs issues addressed within this report) resulted in mould growth within the resident’s property and electrical issues throughout the building, which the landlord was made aware of at the time and took some steps to address.
On 24 March 2021 a damp and mould inspection was undertaken of the resident’s property, under the Healthy Homes Initiative, and the report identified mould growth. It recommended several repairs and identified potential causes of the mould which should be rectified. It highlighted that the resident had physical and mental vulnerabilities and that the conditions within the property posed a serious health risk to him. There is no evidence of the landlord taking any action to progress the report’s recommendations at that time.
On 28 April 2022 the resident told the landlord that there was damp and mould in the property affecting his bedroom, repairs to windows (they had been painted and closed shut), and issues with heating the property due to the high ceilings. He asked for the property to be treated for damp and mould, the windows to be repaired or replaced, and a voucher towards heating costs.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response the following day, when it upheld the complaint and apologised for the trouble caused to the resident. It provided details of how to raise a repair going forward and said it would book the outstanding window repairs immediately. It said it did not deal with mould, but then acknowledged an outstanding task for a mould report to be uploaded from March 2021 and said it would chase the relevant teams and apologised for the disruption. Finally, it offered fuel vouchers to address the heating element of the complaint.
The repair records show that works were raised in April 2022 to fix overflow pipes which were dripping on the wall outside and affecting the internal walls of the building. It is not clear if the works were completed.
The resident exchanged correspondence with the landlord in late 2022. He advised that the flooding caused by the neighbour was having a profound negative impact on his mental health so he asked the landlord to secure his belongings and move him to a hotel until the repairs were resolved. In response, the landlord advised that it would inspect the property to assess works and then decide on decanting the resident. However, it did not decant him, despite his repeat requests (September and October 2022).
The resident reiterated to the landlord the impact of the outstanding repairs on his mental wellbeing, explaining that he was anxious and felt that nothing had been done. There were also comments made to the landlord by other residents in the building about the repairs and the resident’s wellbeing. For example, in November 2022 another resident told the landlord that there had been 3 floods in the resident’s property and that repairs were needed to the upstairs neighbour’s flooring.
On 18 November 2022 works were raised for the upstairs neighbour’s property and scheduled for 8 December 2022. The landlord apologised to the resident for delays in its communication and confirmed that, whilst it had been difficult to gain access to the upstairs property, an appointment had now been booked to complete the repairs which should resolve the leaks. It would then address the resident’s repairs once the source of the leak had been resolved. However, the work was not completed on 8 December 2022.
The resident reported a further leak on 9 December 2022, which he felt was a deliberate part of the neighbour’s ongoing campaign of harassment against him. A ‘make safe’ job was completed by the landlord and it noted that: the resident was highly vulnerable, a case manager should be assigned to the case, there were unresolved historic jobs for mould due to disrepair and there was an outstanding roof repair.
Other residents made reports to the landlord on 19 December 2022 and 7 January 2023 regarding the neighbour’s conduct (including towards a landlord operative) and concerns about the resident being worried and upset.
During the resident’s telephone call to the landlord on 10 January 2023, he said the neighbour was making loud noises and screaming. He also reiterated that he had repeatedly been flooded and that the situation was making him feel suicidal, so he needed to see some improvement. The landlord noted that there was cause for concern and opened an ASB case, categorising it as vandalism and damage to property. It also advised the resident to download its noise app to record the neighbour’s noise if it happened again.
Works were noted for repairs to the neighbour’s property on 18 January 2023. However, the contractors who attended reported back to the landlord that they did not do the work. The landlord was concerned about this and said that the work had been outstanding for a year.
In February 2023 the resident made multiple reports about the ongoing noise and flooding. On 10 February 2023 the landlord noted that the resident had returned from hospital and reported that the neighbour was ringing his door, screaming and causing noise, and he was unable to rest. He also reported that the neighbour was smashing things and he repeated concerns about flood damage to his belongings. The landlord internally discussed how to gain access to the neighbour’s property with the help of a support worker, and noted the repairs needed.
On 23 February 2023 the Ombudsman highlighted the resident’s complaint to the landlord about reports of outstanding repairs following leaks from upstairs, harassment and vandalism and ASB involving noise. This Service confirmed that the resident wanted to be moved and to know if the neighbour had been sent a warning letter. The landlord called the resident to acknowledge his complaint the same day and said a response would be issued within 10 working days.
The resident reported another leak on 7 March 2023 coming through his electrics from upstairs. That week he chased the landlord’s response to his ongoing complaint concerns, and the landlord internally recorded comments about the neighbour’s repairs and access.
In May 2023 the resident made further reports to the landlord about the ongoing flooding, he reiterated that this was causing him mental health issues and his heating had also stopped working. He reported mould everywhere due to the flooding and told the landlord he wanted to commit suicide. The landlord raised an ASB case which it closed shortly afterwards, on 2 May 2023.
There is a file note titled stage 1 decision on 8 March 2023, and reference to a stage 1 response dated 14 April 2023, but the stage 1 response on file is dated 7 May 2023. The response stated that the landlord had raised ‘all issues with all relevant departments’. The works had started to the neighbour’s property, which was now water tight, and these would be completed shortly. The remedial works to the resident’s property would be carried out in due course. A warning letter had been sent to the neighbour and it would monitor the situation to stop it from deteriorating while it worked on a permanent solution.
On 2 June 2023 the Ombudsman told the landlord about the resident’s ongoing concerns about the leak repairs and ASB by the neighbour. We explained that the resident sought a managed transfer move, for the outstanding repairs to be completed, and for the landlord to investigate the ASB.
Structural cracks were reported to the landlord by a contractor on 21 June 2023 and works were arranged for July 2023.
The landlord logged the complaint escalation on 30 June 2023 and issued its stage 2 response on 5 July 2023, as follows:
1. Works were complete to the neighbour’s property and a surveyor would inspect if further works were needed on 10 July 2023.
2. Noise reports should be made to the local authority, which could get an abatement notice, and the resident should complete diary sheets.
3. Harassment and victimisation could be reported to the police so that the landlord could get a police disclosure and use this to inform its ASB investigation.
4. It was working with external agents to address the neighbour’s conduct and had issued a warning letter. If the nuisance continued it would ask its legal team what to do to prevent the ASB and noise.
5. It apologised for the inconvenience and offered £250 as a gesture of goodwill.

Assessment and findings

ASB reports

The landlord did not respond to the resident’s reports of ASB in accordance with its ASB policy (as detailed above). It failed to assign a priority to the reports or carry out a vulnerability risk assessment matrix to measure the harm of the ASB on the resident and guide its actions to protect him from further harm. The resident explained that he was suicidal and had been in hospital at one point, before returning to the noise and ASB. The landlord failed to provide a reasonable standard of care with reference to the tools available to it under its ASB policy.
The landlord failed to provide the resident with an action plan, communicate to the neighbour the consequences of their actions or take steps such as offer mediation, an acceptable behaviour contract, or send the neighbour a warning letter. The landlord said that it had not handled this as a ‘typical ASB’ case because the leaks were not intentional and steps such as interviewing the perpetrator were not considered appropriate.
The landlord did not dispute the neighbour’s conduct and the evidence demonstrates that it had received multiple and repeat reports describing the neighbour’s behaviour and the impact of this on the resident. However, it failed to evidence that it took any reasonable steps to address the resident’s reports of noise or harassment. Though the difficulties of the situation are acknowledged, the landlord has nonetheless failed to evidence reasonable steps to protect and address the resident’s needs. This is particularly pertinent as the landlord knew he was also vulnerable and exposed to the conduct without any recourse or protection. The landlord did not implement the options available to it under its Vulnerable Residents Policy (as detailed above), such as offering temporary accommodation to the resident despite this being requested multiple times between September and November 2022.
The landlord did not evidence meaningful intervention or support for the resident. On one occasion it told him to record the noise on a noise app and referred to diary sheets despite being aware of his limitations in escalating things to it, due to his vulnerability. This was unreasonable.
The landlord’s complaint response gave the resident general information, such as explaining legislation or what the local authority, court, or police do, which was not particularly clear or helpful. The landlord also did not evidence that it had sent the neighbour a warning letter, despite telling the resident it had. Overall there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s repeated reports of ASB from the neighbour.

Flooding caused by the upstairs neighbour

In respect of the water ingress, also referred to as uncontainable leaks or flooding as per the record, the landlord’s responses between 2018 and 2021 were reactive. They comprised of make safe works or repairs to remedy the damage caused by the water, including repairs to the thermostat and lounge lights, repairs to the ceiling, and a mould kit delivered. The landlord did not carry out investigative work to understand the source of the leaks within a reasonable timeframe, despite the repeated nature, or reports it had received from the resident and other residents about these leaks being linked to the neighbour’s behaviour.
It was not until November 2022 that the landlord investigated the neighbour’s property and identified repairs needed to ‘seal’ the property and make it watertight. It would have been reasonable for it to take this step much sooner in light of the information available to it. The landlord’s repair obligations, as detailed above, were not met within a reasonable timescale.
The resident asked the landlord in September 2022 to secure his belongings and temporarily place him in a hotel, which the landlord did not do. In addition to the delays in investigating the leaks, it did not take reasonable steps to mitigate the impact of them on the resident.
The records alluded to difficulties managing the neighbour, but it would have been reasonable for the landlord to implement its repair policy to gain access to carry out an inspection sooner than it did. It waited at least 3 years from the first reports of leaks through the ceiling before it inspected the neighbour’s property and established the repairs needed to prevent water ingress into the resident’s property.
Once it established the works needed in November 2022 it carried out repairs in July 2023 (with a further inspection for additional works to follow). The 8 month period for the permanent repairs to be completed was not in line with the policy standard for repairs which is 25 calendar days, as detailed above.
Overall there were unreasonable delays between when the landlord became aware of the leaks and when it took action to assess the works necessary to resolve these permanently. There were also unreasonable delays by the landlord in managing the neighbour’s circumstances so that it could gain access to carry the out the works. The landlord did not take reasonable steps to manage the resident’s needs during these delays. There was maladministration.

Repairs, damp and mould

The landlord has not disputed its repair responsibilities.
The records pertaining to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of mould in 2019 and 2020 are not clear. Beyond ordering a mould wash, there is limited evidence that the landlord responded to the reports within the timescales set out in its Repairs Policy, as detailed above, or with the degree of urgency recommended in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report, also detailed above.
The landlord took reasonable steps in response to the resident’s next report of mould in February 2021 by arranging a Healthy Homes assessment in March 2021, which surveyed the property and identified the possible cause of mould. However, it then failed to execute the repairs identified in its assessment within a reasonable timeframe and it also failed to keep the resident updated on its action plans and timescales.
Repairs were delayed between March 2021, when they were identified, and October 2022 when some of them were carried out. It was then not until the landlord’s complaint response of July 2023 that it indicated they were complete. This period of delay in the landlord’s repair service was unreasonable, and beyond the timescale prescribed by the landlord’s repair policy which states that damp and mould remedial works should be completed within 10 working days or 25 calendar days.
The landlord did not communicate its action plan to the resident following the assessment of March 2021, which would have been reasonable to manage his understanding of the mould repairs and when these would be addressed. It did not communicate with the resident about the actions and timescales for these, in respect of the mould related repairs, which would have been reasonable.
The landlord did not reflect in its investigation or its complaint response an assessment of when the repairs were raised and when they were completed. It failed to identify the delays which the resident experienced, and it has not sufficiently evidenced to the Ombudsman or the resident that the mould related works have all been completed. The records of August 2023 state that there are still signs of damage to the lounge ceiling in the resident’s property, so it is unclear if the landlord followed through with its complaint resolution to further inspect the property and arrange remedial works. There was maladministration by the landlord and orders are made in that regard.

Complaint handling

In respect of the complaint handling, the landlord did not engage in the complaint process as soon as it could have once it became aware of the resident’s repeated reports of concerns, between September and December 2022. The resident communicated to the landlord several times the significant detrimental impact the situation was having on him. With that in mind, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to log a complaint at the earliest opportunity and provide timely and clear responses to proactively track the reports and its actions in response.
The landlord ultimately logged a complaint following the Ombudsman’s intervention in February 2023 but did not issue its response until 7 May 2023, significantly outside its 10 working day target timeframe. This represents an unacceptable delay which would have exacerbated an already difficult situation for the resident.
The resident escalated the complaint on 2 June 2023 but the landlord did not register this until 30 June 2023. Again, this was a further period of unexplained delay, in contravention of the landlord’s complaints procedure, which would have been understandably frustrating for the resident. The landlord ultimately issued its stage 2 response on 5 July 2023, outside of its target timescales (as detailed above).
The Ombudsman has considered the repair records itself to understand the gaps and delays in the landlord’s responsive repair service, which the landlord failed to do in its complaint response. Instead, the responses were generic and failed to identify specific failures or areas for improvement. The landlord cannot offer proportionate remedy if it has not taken into account the entirety of the service failure. Though it offered the resident £250 compensation this was insufficient to recognise and redress the failures the Ombudsman has identified.
The resident asked the landlord in September 2022 if it could move him and secure his belongings. The landlord missed the opportunity in its complaint investigation to identify the failure to respond, or identify the opportunity to put things right by exploring the possibility of arranging for the resident to claim from its insurance for any items he lost to leaks or mould, which would have been more resolution focused.
The landlord’s complaints procedure sets out useful points for the investigator to include, such as a communication plan for the next steps, who will be managing the ongoing complaint works (repairs), timescales, and what it learned from the complaint and what changes it implemented. The landlord did not provide a response that aligned with this.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of ASB by his upstairs neighbour.
2. Reports of flooding caused by the upstairs neighbour.
3. Reports of repairs caused by the flood and related damp and mould.
4. Formal complaint.

Reasons

The landlord failed to address the resident’s reports of ASB by the neighbour. It offered steps which were not appropriate for the resident, due to his personal limitations, which it was aware of. It did not proactively engage with the reports and it failed to apply the options under its ASB or Vulnerable Resident Policy.
The landlord failed to investigate the source of the flooding in the resident’s property within a reasonable timescale. It did not intervene using the options available to it under its policies (such as the vulnerability policy). It did not respond to requests for the resident to be decanted while the works were carried out. The resident was exposed to the risk of flooding (and materialised flooding) for an unreasonable period.
The landlord did not respond within a reasonable timeframe to the known repairs for damp and mould.
The resident experienced delays and incomplete complaint responses.

Orders and recommendations

Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to carry out the following actions:
1. An inspection of the resident’s property to establish the status of repairs for damp and mould.
2. Provide the resident with an action plan for completion of repairs which it identifies as outstanding.
3. Confirm to the resident that the repairs to the neighbour’s property have been completed. If they have not, provide an action plan to the resident on this.
4. Apologise to the resident for the delays in the repair service and for failures in its response to the ASB.
5. Discuss the costs which the resident experienced from the flooding and the process of referring this to the landlord’s insurer. (It should be noted that the Housing Ombudsman cannot comment on the process or outcome of an insurance assessment).
6. Create an action plan for how the resident can report ASB if it happens again.
7. Pay the resident £2,150 compensation for the failures which the Ombudsman has identified. This is in addition to any amount previously offered or paid by the landlord:
  1. £800 for distress and inconvenience due to delays in carrying out repairs to the neighbour’s property
  2. £600 for distress and inconvenience for not responding reasonably to the reports of ASB
  3. £500 for the distress and inconvenience for the delays in completing the repairs related to mould
  4. £250 for the time and trouble for the complaint handling and unclear communication.