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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202218346)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218346

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 response to the resident about:
    1. A pest infestation.
    2. Works being done to the flat below without notice.
    3. His concerns that problems with the property cause him health issues.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 2002. The property is a first floor flat in a converted house.
  2. In March 2023, a contractor attended for a report from the resident about wires hanging from the ceiling and noted that the resident reported feeling static electric shocks from time to time. They noted that there were no visible issues and that while the resident mentioned wires in the loft, this “seems ok.”
  3. On 18 and 21 April 2023, the resident complained to the landlord. He reported a rodent issue and said he experienced pains which meant he had to protect his body and head with coverings. He also raised dissatisfaction with void works in the flat below, which he said pins and needles he experienced were partly related to. The same month, works were raised to a pest contractor.
  4. On 30 May 2023, the landlord spoke to and emailed the resident. It apologised for the delayed response. It confirmed works were raised to the pest contractor. It apologised that he was not told that contractors would be carrying out works to the flat below, leading him to feel vulnerable, and said this would be discussed with its voids team. The following month, the pest contractor visited and reported no access.
  5. On 22 July 2023, the resident complained again. He said that he experienced “heavy rapid firing” to his head in the living room and bedroom from the direction of upstairs and downstairs, which he felt were partly related to loft areas being above the living room and bedroom. He raised dissatisfaction with having to live with issues which had been reported to previous housing managers.
  6. On 8 August 2023, the landlord provided a stage 1 response. It said pest control works were completed in June 2023. It said it would like to meet with the resident to discuss the issues. It recommended that he obtained a medical or occupational therapist report from his GP to assist it in supporting and managing his needs. It apologised for the inconvenience and the delay and awarded £10. The same month, the resident said the pest control had not been done, and asked how to make the meeting happen and what it would entail.
  7. On 4 November 2023, the resident requested escalation of the complaint. He raised dissatisfaction that the landlord refused to do anything, despite evidence such as extra cushioning he used on his bed which showed that something was definitely going on. He invited the landlord to look at faults that could be causing the problems, such as a dent in bedroom flooring and fallen electrical wires in the loft. He separately told us that the landlord had solved problems with mice entering the property by blocking holes, but rodents were still heard behind bedroom walls.
  8. On 19 January 2024, the landlord provided a stage 2 response. It noted the resident wanted to move and provided details for mutual exchange. It noted the pest contractor did not gain access in June 2023 and scheduled a new appointment. It said it could not see any outstanding repairs and detailed how to make new reports. It recommended that he contact his GP, for advice about his symptoms and a report so it could assist him.
  9. It also provided details for 2 mental health services. It apologised for distress caused by not being told that contractors would be carrying out works to the flat below. It awarded £240, which comprised £50 for distress for failure to recognise impact due to vulnerabilities, £50 for inconvenience for failure to recognise impact due to vulnerabilities, £100 for delay escalating to stage 2, and £40 for delayed stage 1 response.
  10. The resident confirms that after the pest contractor did baiting and proofing between January and March 2024, and a kitchen upgrade was done in February 2024, there was a massive decrease in rodents being heard. However, he says he still hears rodents behind bedroom walls, during which he sometimes feels tapping to his head. He also says he continues to experience frequent drilling/shooting to his head and body, and a newer issue of static and a sharp pinning sensation to his feet from the direction of the bedroom window. He suspects that the potential causes include dents in a bedroom floor, 2 antennas on a chimney, electric wires in the loft, and vents in the flat below. He is seeking for the landlord to investigate and resolve his problems with the property, and also feels that he is entitled to a direct move by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. There has been reference to antisocial behaviour and noise in correspondence such as the landlord’s stage 2 response. However, it is not evident that antisocial behaviour or noise caused by other individuals was the subject of the resident’s complaint. This investigation therefore focuses on the issues at paragraph 1.

The landlord’s response about a pest infestation

  1. The landlord took reasonably timely action to refer matters to a pest contractor, after the resident reported hearing rodents in the bedroom wall in April 2023. The pest contractors attended in June 2023 but did not gain access, so the landlord’s August 2023 stage 1 response saying that the pest control was completed was not satisfactory, as this should accurately reflect matters.
  2. The evidence is also unclear about action taken when in August 2023, the resident said the pest control had not been done and he was having difficulty with the contractor. The landlord should have taken action after this.
  3. In December 2023, the resident told us that the landlord had solved problems with mice entering the property by blocking holes in the property, although he still heard rodents behind walls, which suggests action may have been taken between August and December 2023. This lack of clarity is not satisfactory, but the evidence is also limited about contacts from the resident, to show the extent of his time and trouble to progress the issue and the frequency that he experienced and reported rodent issues.
  4. The landlord’s January 2024 stage 2 response confirmed it referred the issue to its pest contractor again after correspondence from the Ombudsman the same month. The landlord also acknowledged some issues and awarded £240 total compensation. The resident confirms that after baiting and proofing between January and March 2024, and a kitchen upgrade in February 2024, there was a massive decrease in rodents being heard. This confirms that the landlord took reasonably timely and effective action after the issue was brought to its attention again.
  5. Overall, there were some issues in the landlord’s handling in August 2023. It should have identified pest control was not completed, and shown it took action when the resident said the pest control was not done. This did not have enough regard for the resident’s vulnerability and may have led to him feeling ignored.
  6. The landlord awarded £240, which was not specifically stated to be for the rodent issue. However, its early 2024 actions were clearly effective, and there is limited evidence that the resident will have been caused significantly more distress and inconvenience than the landlord acknowledged.
  7. In the Ombudsman’s opinion therefore, the landlord’s compensation and subsequent actions provided a reasonable remedy for the issues identified. The resident has referred to still hearing rodents behind walls, and seeks further investigation of this, and he has the option to make a new report to the landlord about further rodent issues.

The landlord’s response about works being done to the flat below without notice

  1. In its initial May 2023 reply and January 2024 stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged and apologised that works in the flat below without notice caused the resident distress and led him to feel vulnerable. It confirmed that this was brought to the attention of its voids team to improve future service. It awarded £240 which included amounts for failing to consider the impact on vulnerabilities.
  2. The landlord’s policies do not require it to inform tenants about works to take place in properties above, below, or adjacent to them. However, it is understandable that the resident may have felt vulnerable due to contractors attending, and works starting, without any prior warning, particularly as the flat is a converted house with a shared entrance.
  3. The landlord showed it recognised this as it empathised with his concerns, sought to address distress caused, and took steps to try to ensure things were done differently in similar future circumstances. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns and in a way that we would expect to see, and we find no maladministration in its response.

The landlord’s response about the resident’s concerns that problems with the property cause him health issues

  1. The Ombudsman understands that the resident experiences physical sensations and pains such as pins and needles, shooting and drilling in his head and body. He believes that these are due to problems at the property and may be linked to various issues he has observed, such as a dip in some upstairs flooring, loose wires in the loft, an antenna on a chimney, and 2 new external vents in a downstairs property, as his symptoms often come from the directions of these. In its responses, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s health issues, recommended that he obtain reports from his GP to assist it in supporting him, and recommended that he consider a mutual exchange.
  2. The Ombudsman understands the resident’s situation and recognises that the concerns he has reported have affected and caused distress to him. In the case of the problems reported, it is not our role to definitively determine if there are problems present, what the cause is of any physical sensations and pains the resident experiences, or whether he should be moved. However, we can assess if the landlord has acted in line with its obligations and responded reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.
  3. The resident is clearly distressed by the issues, and it could have been beneficial for the landlord to address the specific issues he raised and set out its position on whether it considered there to be any issues with various items he raised. This could have been beneficial given his vulnerability, and potentially have helped provide him some reassurance. However, the landlord’s response to suggest that the resident obtain a medical or occupational therapist report seems overall proportionate to the evidence, as does its recommendation to consider a mutual exchange.
  4. The Ombudsman accepts that the resident experiences issues and uses coverings to protect himself. However, the landlord would not be expected to take action based on his reports alone, and there should be evidence that there are issues for which it is obligated to take action. The landlord’s main obligation is to provide a decent home that is fit for human habitation. This includes being in a reasonable state of repair and free of any serious hazards defined by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), which local authorities use to assess and enforce health and safety in rented housing.
  5. The landlord does not appear to be failing its obligations to ensure that items in the property are in an adequate and safe condition. The resident does not seem to report any significant disrepair that the landlord is obligated to rectify, or raise issues that would give reason for concern. He also does not seem to report serious hazards defined by the HHSRS, but has the option to ask his local authority private sector housing to review this. The dip in flooring is not reported to have any other impact. The March 2023 contractor visit did not consider action to be required for loft wires, which seems reasonable since the loft is not part of the living space. The concerns about 2 antennas on the chimney, unlike other properties, and vents related to the flat below, do not indicate any disrepair or give the Ombudsman any reason for concern.
  6. The landlord could have shown that it responded to the resident’s enquiries about a meeting, which would been beneficial given his vulnerability. However, his account about staff not believing him and requests for re-visits indicates there have been discussions beyond what has been seen by the Ombudsman.
  7. The March 2023 contractor visit about wires, and other contractor visits, confirms that there have been multiple visits to the property and physical issues have not been reported to be experienced by other parties. The lack of evidence for disrepair, and lack of verification of issues by other parties, means that actions that the landlord could reasonably take to resolve the alleged issues seem limited without further evidence. The medical or occupational therapist report that the landlord requested could help provide further evidence about the issues that affect the resident, and allow the landlord to better understand them and the resident’s support needs.
  8. The landlord would also not be reasonably expected to offer a direct move to the resident, unless his circumstances met rehousing criteria in its allocations policy. This sets out that it may directly rehouse tenants for reasons that include if tenants are at immediate risk, due to issues such as antisocial behaviour or a severe medical condition or disability. The Ombudsman understands that the resident has been greatly affected and feels he should be moved, but it is not evident that he met the allocations policy rehousing criteria or that a qualified professional agreed that he needed to be moved.
  9. Overall, the Ombudsman recognises that the concerns the resident has reported have affected and caused distress to him. In our opinion the landlord’s response was proportionate to the lack of evidence for disrepair, lack of verification of issues by other parties, and lack of evidence that the problems are due to it failing in its main obligations in respect to the property condition.
  10. It was reasonable for the landlord to seek to see independent medical evidence which provides clearer insight into the resident’s health issues, and identified causes, to consider what further actions or support may be required. This leads the Ombudsman to find no maladministration in the landlord’s response about the resident’s concerns that problems with the property cause him health issues.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident about a pest infestation.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident about works being done to the flat below without notice.
    2. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident about his concerns that problems with the property cause him health issues.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to pay the resident the £240 it offered, if it has not already.
  2. The landlord is recommended to consider, if it has not already, putting a process in place to check if properties below or above properties where void works or major repairs will be carried out have vulnerable tenants, who would benefit from advance warning of such works.
  3. The landlord is recommended to:
    1. Consider visiting the resident and setting out its position in writing to him about whether his physical problems are due to any disrepair issues for which it is responsible.
    2. Re-offer to review a medical or occupational therapist report if the resident obtains and supplies this.
    3. Liaise with the resident to discuss the extent of support he has in place for issues such as his physical issues, and consider if any further signposting or referrals is appropriate.
    4. Liaise with the resident about his vulnerability, and consider if it needs to update its system records with more detail.