London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202319847)

A blue and grey text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319847

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

13 June 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of damp and mould.
2. Request for windows to be replaced.
3. Concerns about racism and discrimination.
4. Concerns about being decanted.
5. Formal complaint.

Background

The resident occupied the property, a 4-bedroom lower ground floor maisonette, with her 3 children on an assured tenancy in March 2022. The resident and her children (all over 18 years old) have health issues.
The resident has said the property had been empty for 2 years prior to her moving in. She has provided a statement from her next door neighbour which says when the property was void there was a significant leak which caused extensive damage. When the resident did a walk through prior to moving in she says she smelt damp but was told this would be addressed before she moved in.
Once she moved in, the resident says her son who was visiting from university became ill while staying with her and his health has progressively got worse, and he has not returned to university.
In October 2022 the family was decanted to another property (the current property) which is a serviced apartment that is not owned by the landlord. The resident reported a ceiling flood while living in the current property and the landlord said she should report any issues with the current property to the concierge, and she could leave the current property and move back to the property or into a hotel. The resident has not moved back to the property as she says it is not ready to move back in to due to damp.
The resident has said she has had private surveys done of both the property and the current property, and both show there is damp. She explained one of her sons has been seen by 5 consultants and needs an operation, but this cannot be carried out as he cannot return home to a damp property.
The landlord says it has received a letter of claim in relation to disrepair from the resident about the property, but no legal proceedings have been issued. However, it has recently arranged for an independent survey to take place.

Summary of events

Having not longed moved in to the property, on 20 April 2022 the resident reported issues with heating, hot water and windows and asked for a complete inspection of the property on 20 May 2022.
The landlord recorded the resident as vulnerable under its Vulnerable Residents’ Security Scheme on 28 April 2022. It completed a form setting out works that needed to be carried out, including issues with doors, but there was no mention of damp.
The resident reported concerns about damp and mould on 9 May 2022 and the effect it was having on her and her children’s health; in particular that one son had Sickle Cell disease and the living conditions made it worse.
A Healthy Homes report done on 19 May 2022 noted pointing to the front of the property was allowing water ingress which had caused damp to some of the walls and cracks on the front outside wall by the main bedroom window were allowing cold air in. It also said the rear garden was slightly higher than the lower ground floor as it was a basement flat. It said no repair was needed for the damp but went on to say:
1. All the exterior walls on the lower basement had an average moisture reading of 23% due to cold walls and being a lower basement flat. A moisture reading of the basement underneath the entrance hallway could not be obtained due to height restrictions and no light in it.
2. A bedroom window would not shut properly.
3. The air-vent on the basement door had been painted over.
4. Each fire door in the flat had a gap of up to 2 inches off the ground making it difficult for the resident to heat each room adequately.
5. The boiler which had been serviced on 31 January 2022 lost pressure intermittently.
6. The main bedroom radiator leaked which contributed to a drop in pressure.
7. The bathroom and kitchen had no extractor fans. Installing one in the bathroom may be beneficial to get rid of visible mould/mildew.
8. The resident had medical issues, one of her children had Sickle Cell disease and she believed the conditions were contributing to it.
The resident told the landlord on 20 May 2022 that she felt her family’s medical issues were being ignored, and she believed this to be “wilful abandonment, harassment, discrimination based on disability”.
In June 2022 after the landlord noted the windows were faulty, a quote was obtained for their renewal. Emails exchanged between the landlord and the resident from 8 to 16 June 2022 show it updated her on the steps it was taking to investigate the reported issues. She also sent an email on 9 June 2022 to a third party as well as the landlord and commented “as time after time Caucasian people indirectly discriminate us blacks to keep costs low and hope cutting corners will provide better service”. Work was then carried out on 16 June 2022 to remove wallpaper and clean walls due to mould, and a dehumidifier was also supplied.
The landlord was sent a surveyor’s report on 21 June 2022 which said:
1. There were defects in the outside of the building allowing moisture ingress into the fabric of the building.
2. There was window joinery decay, joinery maintenance and decoration were required and there was cracked/missing brick work pointing.
3. There was evidence internally of damp surface wall plaster and decoration failure at mid to high level on the rear return dividing wall between the entrance hall and W.C. Potentially as a result of leaks from the upper accommodation.
4. Wiring needed to be surface mounted and connected to the ceiling rose.
5. High moisture content readings were obtained from the solid floor through vinyl coverings within the bathroom. There was no means of mechanical ventilation within the bathroom.
6. The bed was pulled out during the visit to the lower ground floor main bedroom and the carpeted floor was found to be wet on the bedroom/bathroom dividing wall.
7. There was a leaking radiator and a possible leak under the bath. There were high moisture content readings obtained from low level solid walls and skirting boards within the hallway, under entrance steps, adjoining storeroom/study, all in close proximity to the identified radiator leak.
8. There were drill holes to the under steps location at base level indicating a subsequently installed chemical damp proof course.
9. There was surface condensation mould growth and damp staining observed to walls to the understairs cupboard used as an additional storage area.
10. The ventilators set in the access door were partially blocked with paint decoration.
11. A humidifier unit located in the upper ground floor entrance hall had just been delivered and it had been informed mould washes were proposed and scheduled to commence.
The report recommended external defects and internal plumbing services leaks should be looked at and there should be an improvement to the ventilation to the lower ground floor level bathroom.
The possible leak from the bathroom was also explored on 12 July 2022; the outcome of which is not known.
The resident’s MP contacted the landlord on 18 August 2022 and asked it to look in to the damp and mould.
The landlord apologised to the resident on 1 September 2022 for not addressing a request she had made for a copy of a meeting it had had with her on 17 June 2022. It said it would look in to whether that could be obtained; but explained it would need to decant her for up to 24 weeks, in order to carry out the repairs. It understood her family’s health issues as they were flagged on its system and said its surveyor had attempted to liaise with her in order to arrange an inspection, and it was waiting to hear from her in relation to availability.
The resident responded the same day and explained she was unhappy with the way the landlord had dealt with matters and she wanted a meeting to discuss her family’s health needs. She also commented on the landlord not sharing information requested, continuing to charge her rent despite the disrepair and failing to provide information about the decant.
On 6 September 2022 the resident chased the landlord for the meeting and said she had involved her MP as a result of having difficulties with the landlord. On 7 September 2022, the landlord accepted an invite from the resident to attend a Teams meeting with her and a third party she was receiving support from on 9 September 2022, to discuss her concerns. The landlord said it was sorry if a previous member of staff had failed to respond to a letter sent by a third party helping the resident, before they left their job. It repeated that it had already noted the resident and her family’s health needs and was trying to find a suitable location to decant her to.
The landlord said it would send the resident a copy of the meeting from June 2022 if available. It explained that when she moved in, in March 2022, there was no damp and mould present and the property was completed to its void standard. It accepted that Healthy Homes assessments since had found issues that needed addressing. It again said if the resident could arrange a time for its surveyor to attend and complete a list of works, it could then try to ensure it minimised the amount of time she was decanted.
An internal email sent the same day noted that extractor fans and renewal of doors and windows would be done once the resident and her family were decanted. The resident also responded on 7 September 2022 and said she did not want to have to move in to temporary accommodation again and objected to having been asked for a medical review. She said leaks were historic and the property had not been inspected for damp. However, since moving in, contractors had attended and measured high readings for damp, but a welfare check had not been arranged promptly.
The landlord was advised on 8 September 2022 by its Human Resources team, that a video of the meeting that took place in June 2022 could not be sent to the resident.
Internal landlord emails from September 2022 show it was investigating how the issues identified in the Healthy Homes reports carried out once the resident moved in had not been picked up in the void inspections. It identified who would have done the checks and asked them to review the new findings. It noted there may have not been a sight or smell of damp/mould on the void pre- and post- inspection. However, it did not understand why the issues with the windows and internal doors were not picked up. It said the voids team was not made aware of who would be moving in, so would not have known of the family’s vulnerabilities. The property had been deemed ready on 17 December 2021, but was not occupied until 14 March 2022.
The landlord’s records state the resident and the third party supporting her did not attend the online meeting and it was going to contact her to discuss the next steps or offer an alternative time.
On 13 September 2022, the resident made a complaint to the landlord that:
1. She had received a letter that she felt implied she was to blame for the non-scheduling of an appointment to replace windows.
2. After 3 months of waiting she had to get her MP involved to find out what was happening; in the meantime, she was taking care of her son.
3. Damp and mould had not been addressed – the landlord had failed to act on reports except for supplying a humidifier (which was not set up). Therefore, it had not adequately considered the family’s health needs. The family was breathing in damp and mould and they had no heating most nights, and wet carpets, floors, leaking radiators, a tripping boiler, and windows that needed replacing.
4. She felt her complaint had not been responded to as she had previously been an employee of the landlord and this was racist. In addition, it did not have an understanding of the health and disability issues that affected the family. Its Lettings team had not responded to emails of complaint. She felt there was racial discrimination as staff were uneducated to the reality of Sickle Cell disease as proven by being asked only 2 questions when the landlord did a medical review. She said there was a “culture of seeking to blame non-English tenant (sic) and scapegoating”. She said she was branded as problematic because “Caucasian staff, or untrained staff do not understand this condition”.
5. Due to a gas leak and damp and mould in the temporary accommodation she had been moved to, she had to move again. She felt blame was being put on her rather than addressing the issues.
This Service noted the resident explained that her complaint was first raised on 17 June 2022. It is this Service’s understanding that a meeting was held between the resident and the landlord on this date. Following the meeting, the landlord could not provide the resident with meeting notes; therefore, this Service cannot be certain regarding what was discussed and raised in relation to the resident’s complaint on this date. The email sent to the landlord dated 13 September 2022 (as set out above) clearly detailed all the resident’s complaint points and outlined the ongoing issues the resident was having with the landlord. With this in mind, it is this Service’s view that 13 September 2022 served as the most reasonable date to confirm that the complaint was first raised; particularly as there was absence of evidence from the complaint raised on 17 June 2022.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 29 September 2022 it said the complaint was about:
1. Service failures/lack of communication regarding the permanent decant in March 2022, due to health concerns and that both properties were not suitable.
2. Being a victim of racial discrimination by the landlord.
3. Outstanding repairs, in relation to damp and mould and windows.
It said it was sorry for the service received. It noted that in March 2022 the resident and her family were decanted from a property affected by damp, into another property also affected with damp and this caused a great deal of inconvenience, upset and frustration. It said it had taken steps to brief managers and train staff and it would be updating its procedures in order to learn from its mistake.
It was sorry the resident felt she was a victim of racial discrimination. An email sent by the Maintenance Manager had been reviewed but was not deemed rude or discriminating. However, it invited the resident to provide any further evidence she had to support her claim and it would be investigated as it took the issue seriously.
In terms of repairs, the landlord said its damp and mould specialist had attended on 19 May 2022 to do a survey and noted repairs to: clean and shield the whole property/mould wash; install bathroom and kitchen extractor fan; replace loose and missing pointing to external wall (completed on 21 July 2022).
The landlord explained an inspection was undertaken on 23 May 2022 by a surveyor that arranged for a dehumidifier to be delivered due to a leak from the radiator. It had been looking for a suitable apartment for the resident to move to while repairs were carried out and it provided details of somewhere it had found. It would carry out:
1. Installation of Damp Proofing Course, a ventilation system and extractor fans to the bathroom, kitchen, and toilet.
2. Work to address the gaps underneath doors.
3. Any other repairs needed, with the exception of the windows because planning permission was needed as it was a conservation area. The window replacement would not be carried out whilst the resident was decanted, but it would keep her updated.

It said any claim for losses would need to be made through its insurer, but it offered £440 compensation for inconvenience and distress (£20 x 12 = £240, and £200 for time and effort).

The resident told the landlord on 29 September 2022 that the stage 1 response did not address a verbal complaint that had been made. It noted the resident wanted: a telephone call to record her complaint in full; a copy of its data and HR policies; a recording of a video call that she had with a staff member; to know why new windows had been agreed for the tenant above but not her; and a direct response from Data Protection.
After the resident was decanted, the landlord arranged for a surveyor to attend and it identified that a renewal of the front and back door, all timber windows (except a small window in the kitchen and a window in the bathroom which had already replaced with UPVC) was needed. Damp proofing was also required which involved the removal of plaster, replastering and drilling brickwork to inject a damp proof course.
On 6 October 2022, the resident chased the landlord for a response to her request for a copy of the video call from June 2022 and indicated she wanted her concerns escalated as she wanted a “review” and compensation.
The resident’s MP contacted the landlord on 10 and 18 November 2022 and asked it to liaise with the resident, who had made contact on 3 November 2022 and wanted a meeting online to discuss her complaint and the ongoing issues. The landlord apologised for the delay on 12 December 2022 and asked for dates when the resident was available. It also asked her to return the keys to the property as the locks would be changed.
The resident told the landlord on 15 December 2022 that she would go through her complaint when they met and reiterated her request for the meeting video. The landlord responded the same day and acknowledged the situation had caused her distress, frustration and inconvenience. It said it had not intentionally or knowingly rehoused her in a property experiencing dampness and had it known there were issues they would have been addressed prior to her occupancy. To learn from what had happened, it had briefed staff and interviewed staff that dealt with void repairs. It asked what outcome the resident was seeking. It explained it could not provide her with the meeting video for data protection reasons but suggested dates for another meeting.
The landlord advised the MP on 28 December 2022 that the complaint was at stage 2, the resident had been decanted, and it was arranging a time and date for a meeting to take place.
The resident advised the landlord on 13 January 2023 that the keys to the property had been left in a deposit box.
Between February and June 2023, the landlord kept checking the property to see if the walls had dried out sufficiently in order to carry out remedial works.
Meanwhile, in February 2023 the landlord arranged an online meeting for 2 March 2023 with the resident to discuss her concerns, but she had to cancel. The meeting was rescheduled to 7 March 2023 but the landlord cancelled this due to availability of staff.
On 2 March 2023 the resident was told her belongings needed to be moved from the property so works could begin and the landlord confirmed it still planned to change the windows and doors. In its email of 6 March 2023 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s claims about race and disability discrimination and said it had requested evidence to support the allegations, but none was provided. It also reminded her that it needed to move all furniture from the property to carry out works.
The resident emailed the landlord on 27 March 2023 as she was unhappy that a video call had not been arranged to discuss her situation. She explained she had a lot of health issues she was dealing with in the family and was being discriminated against as she was not being told how long they would be decanted and communicated with. The landlord responded on 30 March 2023 and said to ensure everyone who needed to attend could do so, it could arrange a meeting on 2 May 2023.
On 29 March 2023 the landlord recorded that it needed to remove the ceiling in the toilet to allow the timbers to dry out and stop anymore damage, such as dry rot developing. It also noted the carpet in the front bedroom needed to be removed as the radiator had been leaking for months, and was still leaking. All windows and the back door were replaced on 6 April 2023.
The resident asked the landlord on 18 April 2023 for a list of all planned repairs. She explained her son was awaiting surgery and she wanted to know why window works had been agreed but then cancelled before she was decanted. She said the landlord was being discriminatory as it was not being transparent. Despite contractors attending and taking photographs, the landlord had failed to include damp and mould amongst repairs that were needed. She said she knew of people who could confirm that the property had leaks, damp and mould and she felt the landlord was using a tactic to not complete the required work.
The landlord responded the same day and sent a comprehensive list of specific works to be completed throughout the property, which had been compiled by its surveyor. It explained it was not aware of window works being cancelled but it would check this, and it hoped all works would be completed by mid-June 2023.
An internal landlord email sent the following day confirmed it had considered different quotes for windows but the renewal of windows was never in doubt. The landlord also took steps to extend the resident’s temporary accommodation as it noted there were no other options available in terms of void properties.
On 10 May 2023 the landlord obtained a quote to replace the ground floor entrance door. It visited on 12 May 2023, following a leak from the flat above, in order to identify defects and the remedial work needed.
A surveyor instructed by the landlord advised the resident on 30 May 2023 that it was going to discuss her case with management and get in touch with her the following week. It is not known if this happened.
The landlord records that on 8 June 2023, a repair was carried out on a leaking soil stack which was causing defects to the wall next to the entrance door. A new light was installed in the toilet on 16 June 2023, following the leak from the property above.
On 19 June 2023 the resident’s MP asked the landlord to look in to the resident’s concerns about still being in the decanted property. A video call then took place between the resident and landlord on 26 June 2023 to discuss her complaint.
The landlord said all the works it said it would do had been completed on 27 June 2023, but a leak could not be located in the soil stack. It asked the resident to move back to the property in June 2023. Following a surveyor’s report being carried out, it did the same in July 2023, but the resident refused.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 11 July 2023, it reiterated its stage 1 response, set out a chronology of events, and noted the following:
1. There had been delays in the stage 2 process between 7 October 2022 and 11 July 2023, although the resident had expressed that she did not want to receive a response until after she had met with the landlord.
2. The resident had requested a meeting to discuss her complaint and various attempts had been made to facilitate this. Scheduled meetings had been cancelled by both the resident and the landlord. The meeting ultimately took place on 26 June 2023.
3. The resident had advised she wanted a full rent refund, a refund of expenses incurred, a letter of apology, and acknowledgement that a full safety inspection was not carried out prior to her being rehoused.
4. The resident confirmed on 13 March 2023 that her belongings could be put in to storage so the works could be carried out.
5. The resident was informed that she could move back to the property on 16 June 2023 but she had refused to do so.
6. As per the Tenancy Agreement, the resident was responsible for the rent of the property and any rent paid would not be refunded, but there would be no charges for the temporary accommodation.
7. The resident had settled a disrepair claim on a previous property for £7,693.50 but the property also had damp and mould (although this was not apparent before she moved in).
8. The repairs took longer to complete than anticipated and the resident had found the experience distressing and inconvenient. Repairs and communications should have been managed more effectively and delivered more swiftly and it was sorry for that.
9. It would review its service to implement changes and offered £1,580 compensation inclusive of the compensation offered at stage 1 (£100 for the delay issuing its stage 2 response; £640 for distress – 16 months since moving in x £40; £640.00 for inconvenience – 16 months since moving in x £40 and £200.00 for the time and effort in bringing the issues to its attention).
On 7 October 2023 the landlord recorded that “saturated” plaster on the walls in the toilet needed removing and the walls re-skimmed and dried. The same needed doing in the bathroom on the radiator wall, and a leak under the bath needed exploring. Repairs to the front bedroom walls were also needed as a result of damp.
The resident made a subject access request to the landlord on 12 October 2023 for copies of all inspections, reports and various correspondence with contractors. It is not known if this information was provided.
The resident has provided notes from a meeting that took place with the landlord on 7 December 2023, which refer to her expressing her concern at being asked to move back to the property if damp proofing and other repairs had not been carried out. A third party who attended the meeting as support for the resident, asked the landlord to install a damp proof course or carry out a survey to ensure there was no longer any damp and mould, due to the vulnerabilities of the family.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 2 January 2024 to advise that the property was ready for her to return to, so she must vacate the current property by 21 January 2024. This led to the resident obtaining a quote to install a damp proof course on 5 January 2024 in the amount of £15,765.
The resident instructed a surveyor to inspect the property. The report dated 29 February 2024 said it “found penetrating dampness is occurring to multiple areas of the property, and many areas have been covered up and further intrusive damp investigations are required”. It went on to conclude that the property was not dry or ready to move in to despite works having been undertaken.
A copy of an independent survey dated 21 March 2024 was provided, which noted a number of works were needed, including that there were high damp readings in certain areas. Additionally, the resident provided two further expert survey reports dated 12 November 2024. The reports confirmed that a temporary decant was required from the decant property, so works could also be completed to that property.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.

This Service’s Spotlight on Damp and Mould report, it’s not lifestyle (October 2021) says landlords should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions and should ensure that responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue.
The landlord has produced a report setting out changes it has put in place as a result, which includes a 7 year plan to ensure its properties are free of disrepair, damp and mould. It is rolling out proactive inspections and acting on Healthy Homes assessments. There is evidence of the landlord making these changes, which is positive.
In this case the resident has said she has been told the property had damp issues before she moved in, and she could smell damp when she did a walk through. She has provided an Energy Performance Certificate from July 2021 which says the walls and windows had a very poor rating at that time, but it does not prove there was damp and mould when she moved in.
The landlord has provided a Reactive Repairs Report showing a number of repairs were carried out to prepare the property to be re-let; there is no mention of a damp and mould treatment taking place. It has also provided a Void Handover Certificate which was completed on 17 December 2021 by the Lettings Officer which recorded no issues with the property. A number of photographs taken that day have been provided, which also show no sign of damp or mould.
With that said, other photographs provided clearly show extensive damp and mould, and this was reported about a month after the resident moved in. In June 2022 the landlord had received a surveyor’s report which clearly referred to there being damp. The internal emails exchanged by landlord staff in September 2022 also show repairs had been overlooked prior to the resident moving in. While the Ombudsman notes the voids team was apparently not made aware of the resident’s family’s vulnerabilities, it would not be acceptable for anyone to move in to a property with damp and mould, irrespective of whether they had health issues.
The June 2022 surveyor’s report mentioned water ingress and leaks/wet flooring and damp on the walls. Bearing in mind the number of repairs identified, it was appropriate for the landlord to suggest in June 2022 decanting the resident. However, it took until October 2022 to find suitable alternative accommodation. The resident wanted a meeting with the landlord and sought assistance from her MP, but made it clear on 7 September 2022 that she did not want to move again. While it is entirely understandable why the resident did not want to move, once a surveyor was able to complete a list of works, the landlord could then plan the work and try to minimise the amount of time the family would be decanted.
The Tenancy Agreement says the landlord will keep in repair the exterior and structure of the property. Its Repairs Policy says it is responsible for rising and penetrative damp and for routine day to day repairs and will aim to complete the repair in an average of 25 calendar days. In this case the landlord did not comply with its obligation and it took several months to carry out the necessary works.
It is important to say that the Ombudsman has not been provided with evidence of there being damp and mould in the current property, so cannot comment on that. In addition, whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages in the same way as a court.
In this case, the resident has stressed on a number of occasions that the condition of the properties the family has lived in, has been detrimental to their health. If this is something she wishes to pursue, she would need to seek independent legal advice. The Ombudsman notes she has instructed a solicitor to write to the landlord but has not at this time issued legal proceedings. However, if she is seeking compensation by way of a personal injury claim, then she should discuss this further with her solicitor.
The resident was originally moved to the property in March 2022 as her previous property had damp and mould. To then be moved in to somewhere else that had the same problem would have caused additional distress to the resident. It is recognised that the landlord did apologise for this when addressing the complaint. It also noted the resident and her family were vulnerable and had certain health concerns, so correctly carried out a medical review.
The evidence indicates the resident took issue with some questions she was asked and wanted to discuss her health issues at a meeting, and there were difficulties arranging a meeting. However, apart from agreeing to have a meeting, it is difficult to see whether the landlord took the family’s medical needs in to account when dealing with the issues raised. That is said because the resident had to live in the property in difficult conditions for 5 months before being decanted which may have exacerbated any health issues and she was then encouraged to move back in despite there still being damp issues.
The extent of work needed, as identified by the surveyor’s report that was shared with the resident in April 2023 and the internal emails sent between landlord staff in September 2022, show there were evidently issues at the time the resident moved in which were overlooked. Therefore, had these been properly addressed prior to March 2022, it could have avoided the issues that followed.
It is concerning to see that the landlord told the resident on several occasions from June 2023 that she and her family should move back in as the repairs had been carried out, but in October 2023 it noted there was still damp that it was treating. This is confirmed by the 2024 surveys. This supports the resident’s claim that the damp issue had not been fully addressed by the landlord, despite it first being reported about 2 years ago.
The landlord’s handling of the repair issues has clearly caused the resident a lot of frustration. The landlord has told this Service it has recently arranged for an independent survey of the property. The landlord should provide the resident with a copy of this survey and agree with her a schedule of works. The landlord has also offered £1,480 in respect of its handling of the damp and mould reports.
There has been a significant failure in service here which has had a serious impact on the resident and her family. The landlord’s actions, such as trying to persuade her to return to the property which had damp has contributed to undermining the landlord/resident relationship. This amounts to severe maladministration.
In cases like this, this Service’s remedies guidance suggests compensation of over £1,000. While the landlord’s offer of £1,480 compensation was in line with this, and could have been deemed reasonable in July 2023, nearly a year on, the resident is still decanted and there is evidently still a damp issue that needs addressing. To recognise that another year has gone by, and the added inconvenience and frustration caused to the resident, the compensation should be significantly increased. This has been taken in to account in the Order made, for the landlord to pay an additional £1,020 compensation.
Finally, a number of orders have been made below in relation to the decant issues and property repairs to support both parties in ensuring the necessary repairs can be completed to the residents property so she can return.

Request for windows to be replaced

The resident’s complaint of 13 September 2022 said correspondence sent to the window company from the landlord insinuated she was the cause of the delay. No evidence has been provided to indicate the landlord was holding the resident responsible for delay. In response to the complaint, the landlord explained that the windows, as well as the front and back doors, were going to be replaced. However, it needed her cooperation in arranging for her belongings to be moved into storage.
The Ombudsman has not reviewed the landlord’s entire handling of the window replacement, as this did not form part of the complaint, but appreciates that the resident felt she was being blamed for the delay and wondered why the windows were not replaced before she moved in. This Service is unable to conclude that the landlord was attributing blame to the resident. Instead, it explained that the property was in a conservation area so it needed to apply to the council for permission to alter the windows before arrangements could be made for them to be replaced. Therefore, the landlord did address this point and this part of the complaint is not upheld.

Resident’s concerns about racism and discrimination

The landlord has a policy entitled Human Rights, Equality and Diversity in Care and Support Setting. It says “Staff must share a commitment to promoting human rights, equality, diversity and eliminating discrimination.” It goes on to say it “operates a zero tolerance and person-centred approach, whereby no forms of discrimination are acceptable and the needs and preferences of customers must be placed at the centre of all decision making.”
Its policy says a customer that makes a complaint about discrimination, or who has a complaint made on their behalf, will be listened to and treated with fairness and respect.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident feels the landlord demonstrated discriminatory attitudes and behaviour. However, it is important to explain that this Service cannot make a legally binding finding of discrimination. This would require an application to the courts to decide. However, we can consider whether the landlord went far enough to consider the individual needs of the resident, and that is what has been assessed here.
The landlord investigated the resident’s concerns over discrimination; in particular, an email that was sent. It concluded the email was not discriminatory, but took a balanced and reasonable approach by inviting the resident to submit any evidence she had in support of her claim of discrimination, and it would be considered further.
Although the landlord took a different view to the resident on this point, it did comply with its obligations to listen and fairly consider the complaint made. As no additional evidence was provided, the landlord’s investigation was limited. It did though, note the resident and her family had health issues, including her son having Sickle Cell disease. Therefore, it complied with its Service Adjustment Need Procedure which noted those tenants with a disability or a long term health condition and it put a support flag on their record.
Its Vulnerable Residents policy also says the landlord will keep a record of relevant details on its housing management system and review it periodically. This was confirmed to the resident in September 2022 and the landlord also conducted a medical review with the resident. Therefore, overall, it ensured it acted in line with its policies.
The evidence shows the landlord took the resident’s complaint about discrimination seriously, and while it did not uphold the complaint, the Ombudsman is satisfied the steps taken to address it, were reasonable.

Resident’s concerns about being decanted

The resident complained about the length of time it was taking to decant her family from the property. The landlord referred the resident for a decant in May 2022, after the inspection of the property took place, but it took some time to find a suitable 4 bedroom apartment. One was found in September 2022, the resident was sent details, and the decant took place the following month.
Having not long moved the family, it was important for the landlord to find accommodation that met their needs. While it was not ideal that it took 4 months to find the accommodation, it would have been inappropriate for the landlord to move them to accommodation that was not right, simply because it was available sooner. This is particularly the case given that they had already been through a difficult time having moved from their previous home which could no longer be lived in. Therefore, it was important to get the right property. Taking all this in to account, the landlord acted reasonably and there was no maladministration in that regard.

Landlord’s handling of the formal complaint

The landlord’s Complaints Policy says at stage 1 it will write within 10 working days after receiving a complaint to explain the outcome of its investigation, how it will resolve the complaint and the timescales. If it cannot, it will explain why and write again within a further 10 working days. At stage 2, it says it “will make contact within two working days to give complainants the opportunity to explain their side of things. We will write with the outcome and next steps within 20 working days of the request to escalate”. If it cannot do that, it will explain why and write again within a further 10 working days.
The landlord’s stage 1 response was issued 12 working days after the complaint was made and no evidence has been provided to show it explained to the resident that it was going to be issued late. This amounts to only minor delay and the response itself was detailed and it is good to see it was apologetic for the poor service experienced.
However, it was on 6 October 2022, that the resident indicated she wanted her concerns escalated as she wanted a “review”, but it took the landlord over 9 months to issue its stage 2 response which is entirely unacceptable. Although the Ombudsman noted the landlord apologised for the delay and explained the complaint had not been allocated to someone until June 2023, the resident had been regularly requesting a meeting to discuss her concerns, and for differing reasons, this did not happen promptly.
The resident had also been asking for a copy of a recording of a meeting that took place, and despite it receiving internal advice that this could not be supplied in September 2022, this was not relayed to the resident until December 2022. Both of these points added to the resident’s frustration. The landlord had an obligation to investigate the complaint at stage 2 in accordance with its Complaint Policy. While its policy is in line with this Service’s Complaint Handling Code in terms of timescales, the landlord clearly failed to adhere to it.
The landlord’s Compensation Policy says it will make a payment of £10 to the resident if it fails to adhere to the timescales in its Complaints Policy. At stage 2, it actually offered £100 compensation for the delay in its complaint handling.
It is right that the landlord recognised the shortfall in its service by offering compensation; but the amount offered does not sufficiently recognise the impact on the resident. A minor delay at stage 1 and then a significant delay at stage 2 shows the landlord had not learned from its mistakes. At what was already a difficult time for the resident, not having her complaint dealt with as it should have been, is likely to have exacerbated how she was feeling.
The delay in issuing a complaint response did not affect the resident on a long-term or permanent basis and the compensation offered was a step in the right direction to put things right. However, due to the significant delays here, in line with this Service’s Remedies guidance, a more appropriate remedy would be £300 compensation.
Finally, this Service noted the resident outlined that some contractors are peeing in the toilet and leaving the house in a poor condition. Under the circumstances, this matter cannot be considered within this investigation. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation was limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint, which concluded on 11 July 2023. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required. If the resident has any issues with responses from the landlord following a complaint, the resident can contact this Service on info@housing-ombudsman.org.uk so this Service can contact the landlord and request a response on the residents behalf.
To assist with the resolution of this issue, a recommendation has been added requesting that the landlord investigate any complaint raised by the resident regarding the behaviour and conduct of the contractors. Should the landlord identify any issues, it should take action to resolve this in accordance with its policy within a reasonable timeframe.
Furthermore, another order has been included below requiring the landlord to open a new stage one complaint for the resident in relation to the new/ongoing issues. This is because there are a number of new issues that cannot be investigated by us under this complaint due to the scope of our investigation (even though they are related to our current investigation). Under the circumstances, the landlord must provide a stage one response to the resident in accordance with the timeframes set out in its policy.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
  1. Request for windows to be replaced.
  2. Concerns about racism and discrimination.
  3. Concerns about being decanted.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord failed to ensure the damp and mould was addressed at the property before inviting the resident to move back and has delayed ensuring the necessary work was carried out to resolve the issues.
The landlord did not mean to attribute blame to the resident for the time taken to install new windows. It explained it needed council permission due to being in a conservation area, so would take time to deal with.
It took the resident’s allegations of racial discrimination seriously, investigated her concerns and invited her to submit evidence to support her view. It also noted her family’s health issues and ensured it carried out a medical review to ensure its information was up to date.
It took 4 months to find a suitable property to decant the resident to, but it needed to ensure the property met her needs and it started the process as soon as an inspection took place.
There were delays in its complaint handling at both stages, most significantly at stage 2 and the landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations in terms of when she could expect a response.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident:
  1. £2,500 compensation for the inconvenience and delays in addressing the damp and mould.
  2. £300 for the delays in its complaint handling.
3. Any amount already paid to the resident in respect of this complaint may be deducted from the above total.
Within 10 working days of this report, the landlord is ordered to give consideration to the independent surveyor’s reports dated 21 March 2024 and 12 November 2024. When reviewing these reports, the landlord must provide evidence of compliance with either of the two options below:

a) The landlord must show that it is following the recommendations outlined in the November 2024 reports, this includes progressing with decanting the resident and completing the works outlined in the survey reports.

b) If the landlord does not agree with the findings of the survey reports, in particular the recommendations to decant the resident, it must provide evidence showcasing that an appointment has been booked with the resident to inspect the properties. We consider that a joint survey inspection will be appropriate to ensure that both parties commit to an agreed surveyors finding. The landlord must ensure that a qualified expert independent surveyor completes the inspection.

Within 5 working days of the report, the landlord is ordered to contact the resident to discuss and arrange decant options from the second property. The landlord is expected to decant the known occupiers of the tenancy agreement; save for any children who may have been born since the tenancy was signed. The landlord must support the resident with the move to the temporary accommodation within 5 working days of the report.
Within 10 working days of the report, the landlord is ordered to provide the report findings to us from the inspections in April 2025. It must set out whether the surveyors consider that a decant is necessary to complete the repairs to the first property. If the surveyors consider that a decant is necessary, the landlord must complete the works while the resident remains decanted. If the surveyors consider that a decant is not necessary, the landlord can request that the resident return to the first property while it completes the works.
Within 10 working days of the report, the landlord is ordered to open a new stage one complaint for the resident in relation to the new/ongoing issues. If the resident has further issues she wants to add to this that are relevant to the new complaint points, she can email the landlord and us setting this out so it can also consider this when investigating the complaint. The landlord must provide a stage one response in accordance with the timeframes set out in its policy.

Recommendation

109. It is recommended that the landlord investigate any complaint raised by the resident regarding the behaviour and conduct of the contractors. Should the landlord identify any issues, it should take action to resolve this in accordance with its policy within a reasonable timeframe.