London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202233774)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233774

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

29 July 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of repairs required in the property’s kitchen.
2. The resident’s reports of a rodent infestation.
3. The associated formal complaint.

Background

The resident has been the assured tenant of the property, which is leased from the relevant local authority (the council) by the landlord. The landlord has been aware that she has various physical and mental health vulnerabilities since 2020. One of her children also has mental health issues.
The property is a ground floor flat with a garden, in a social housing development which is managed by the landlord.
The resident had reported problems with mice at the property on several occasions earlier in her tenancy and the landlord had sent its pest control contractor (the exterminator) to address the problem. In January 2022, she told the landlord that a surveyor had told her in December 2021 that she needed a new kitchen. She raised this issue again in June 2022. The landlord said that it would not install a new kitchen but would install extra kitchen cupboards.
The resident complained formally to the landlord about the condition of the property on 6 June 2022. She said she had been told by social services that it would take her 14-year-old child into care if the house was not made safe within 6 weeks. The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response on 27 July 2022 offering the resident £70 for inconvenience and distress.
The landlord arranged for some extra cupboards and a new kitchen surface to be installed. It told the resident that it would not replace the rest of the kitchen as, it did not require replacement but that it had placed the property on the waiting list for a new kitchen in 2023 to 2024. The landlord also arranged for a further inspection by an exterminator in August 2022. The exterminator said they could not say whether there was currently an infestation because of the presence of considerable food and rubbish in the kitchen and garden.
In October 2022, the resident told the landlord that mice had chewed through her washing machine hose and asked it to replace it, which it declined to do. She complained about this to the landlord in early October 2022.
The landlord provided a further stage 1 response on 17 October 2022 in which it said it “upheld the complaint” but that it had not been required to install the washing machine hose as the washing machine space in the kitchen was occupied by a dishwasher. It added that it would deal with the subject of the rodent infestation in another response. The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated the next day. She said that she had been caused a great deal of expense by the decision not to replace the hose as she spent £40-£50 per week at the laundrette. She said it was very difficult for her to carry the washing to and from the laundrette because of her disabilities.
The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 12 October 2023 after being asked to do so by this Service. It apologised for its failures and offered the resident £1290, including £300 for its delay in providing the stage 2 complaint response. It said it would attend the property to resolve the issues. It would provide compensation for the laundrette costs if the resident provided evidence of these expenses.
The resident complained to this Service in April 2023. She said the landlord had not properly compensated her for the problems it had caused her or for the money she spent on laundry.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

Under paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the member landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period (which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising). The resident says she has reported concerns about her kitchen and about rodent infestation of the property for several years. However, we will limit this investigation in line with paragraph 42(c) to events occurring within a reasonable period before the complaint. The evidence indicates that the resident reported concerns about mice at the property in January 2022 but there is no evidence of reports between 2019 and January 2022, so we will only consider events from then onwards.

The resident’s reports of repairs required in the property’s kitchen

The landlord’s programmed maintenance policy says it will ensure that its properties meet the Government’s “Decent Homes Standard”. To do so, it will ensure that they have “a reasonably modern kitchen” which is defined as one being 20 years old or less. It will replace kitchens reaching this age as part of a programme of planned works.
The landlord’s repairs policy says that it will carry out repairs as required on their being reported. It says that it will be responsible for replacing damaged kitchen units where they are rotten or where hinges, handles, runners or drawers are damaged. The policy says that residents are responsible for installing additional units if they require them and it will provide 1 space for a washing machine or dishwasher.
The policy says that the landlord will, where possible, carry out any repairs at “the earliest mutually convenient appointment”.
The resident says that a surveyor told her that she required a new kitchen in December 2021. This Service has seen no evidence to support this claim. However, she did raise the matter with the landlord in January 2022. There is no evidence that the landlord investigated this claim. She raised the matter again in June 2022 and at this point, a manager stated that the landlord would not fit a new kitchen as it was not necessary, but it would install extra cupboards and a new work surface which it did in August 2022.
The resident continued to press for a new kitchen. The landlord refused to provide one on the basis that it was of a decent standard and therefore did not, in its view, need replacement. However, it asked for the property to be added to its list of planned works and told her that she would probably be provided a new kitchen in 2023 to 2024. This was a reasonable and proportionate response to her concerns. On the evidence therefore, there was no significant failure in the way in which the landlord dealt with the resident’s request for a new kitchen except in one regard which we have considered below.

The resident’s reports of a rodent infestation

The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is a system used by local government to assess the potential risks to health caused by deficiencies identified in dwellings. Councils will assess properties and see if they pose a risk to health. If necessary, they may issue “improvement notices” requiring landlords to remedy the hazard. Pest infestation is identified as a hazard in the HHSRS guidance.
The landlord’s pests policy says that it is generally responsible for clearing infestations of mice and other pests only when it affects multiple flats and/or communal areas or where it has been served with a notice under the HHSRS. It is generally the resident’s responsibility to clear pests in their own dwelling and they must ensure they do not encourage pests by leaving out sources of food.
However, both the landlord’s repairs policy and its pests policy state that, where a resident is vulnerable, it will help in clearing infestations in line with its Vulnerable Residents Policy. On its website, the landlord sets out its “customer promise” to “work with the relevant partners to help resolve issues causing concern to you and your community”.
The resident reported concerns about the mice to the landlord on 6 June 2022 and said that her 14-year-old child would be taken into care if the property was not made safe within 6 weeks. This should have been recognised by the landlord an indication that the situation required more proactive consideration and action. It should also have recognised the resident’s vulnerabilities which, according to its policies, required it to take action.
The local council contacted the landlord on 15 July 2022 and raised the issue of the infestation. It warned the landlord that, if it did not provide details of any defects, and a timetable for dealing with them, it would inspect the property and, if it found HHSRS hazards, issue an improvement notice requiring it to carry out the works within a specified time and charge it £645.
The landlord told the resident that she would have to clear all the food and rubbish from the kitchen and the garden before it could bait the traps again as, with so much potential food available, the mice would not eat the poison unless she did so. While this was good advice, it did not appear to adequately recognise the resident’s vulnerability. It could have asked to contact social services on her behalf or directed her to other local services which could have offered her assistance.
The landlord sent the exterminator to the property on 2 occasions in July and August 2022. On the first occasion, the resident refused to admit the operative as she said the council was taking the landlord to court and she wanted the evidence to help it to do so. On the second, she let the operative in. The exterminator’s report said that it could not tell whether there was a current infestation at the property because it could not say whether mouse droppings were recently deposited or had been there for some time. It advised the landlord to require her to clean so that it would be possible to see if any fresh mouse droppings appeared and to remove food and rubbish from the kitchen and garden as this would encourage mice and rats.
The landlord asked the resident to ensure that food in the property was kept in sealed containers. There is evidence on the files that on 20 September 2022, the landlord visited and confirmed that she had done so and placed the containers in the new upper cupboards installed by the landlord.
In October 2022, the landlord refused to replace the resident’s washing machine hose, following her reports that it had been chewed by mice. It said that it would not carry out this repair because the resident had both a washing machine and a dishwasher and because she had altered the kitchen which, according to its policy, meant that the landlord was no longer responsible for repairs to the kitchen.
The landlord’s policy says that, when a resident makes unauthorised changes to a kitchen, it is no longer responsible for it. However, the resident was reporting a problem likely caused by a rodent infestation and not asking for repairs to her kitchen at this point. Therefore, the landlord judged her request under the wrong criteria. Under its policy, given her vulnerability, the landlord should have, considered taking more proactive action to solve the ongoing problems at the property.
Throughout 2023, the council corresponded with the landlord, encouraging it to take action and threatening it with an HHSRS inspection. The landlord continued to insist that the resident should clear the house and garden of clutter before it took any action on the infestation.
It was not until October 2023 that the landlord addressed the question of the resident’s vulnerability when discussing the extent of the infestation in an internal email. At this point, the landlord considered temporarily rehousing her to “make it easier for us to get in and proof all the areas, do a deep clean, and repair/renew any kitchen units”. These would have been appropriate considerations in response to the resident’s concerns if the landlord had thought about them after the original reports of a mouse infestation. There is no evidence in the documents seen by this Service that, up until this time, the landlord had ever considered her or her daughter’s vulnerabilities. This was, therefore, a failure to abide by its own policies.
The evidence shows that, throughout 2022 and 2023, the council sent many emails demanding that the landlord deal with the problem and occasionally threatening it with HHSRS inspections and the possibility of issuing improvement notices. The landlord was resistant to these requests as the evidence does not indicate that it considered the resident’s vulnerabilities sooner.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it would work with the council’s social services department to assist the resident in clearing the clutter and refuse from the property and its garden. It also committed to “go through all the issues raised”, to address the pest problem and to block any entry points allowing mice into the property. It awarded her £1290 in compensation. This included £990 for inconvenience, distress, time and effort, service failure and “good will” and £300 for the delayed complaint response. It offered to compensate her for the cost of her visits to the laundrette if she provided evidence of those expenses.
This was an appropriate response to the resident’s reports, recognising the delay as well as the impact the infestation had had on the resident. The resident says she has not been compensated for her laundrette expenses, but the landlord has made it clear that it will recompense her on production of evidence. It is still open to her to provide such evidence.
The landlord arranged for a visit from the exterminator on 31 January 2024. This allowed the infestation to continue for some 3 and a half months after the stage 2 response. The resident had acted on its advice to tidy the property months previously, but it continued to delay in completing the extermination.
The landlord’s policy says that non-urgent repairs should be carried out as soon as possible and, though it contains no set timeframes for repairs to be done, this was an unacceptably long delay. There is no evidence that the landlord further considered decanting the resident and her family in the interim as it had considered previously. It is, however, likely that this may not have been required. The resident had, for nearly a year and a half been making reports of the distress and hardship the infestation had caused her family. This Service has, therefore, recommended an additional sum in recognition of this further delay.
The Ombudsman recently published a report on this landlord in which we made an order requiring it to review its dealings with residents with vulnerabilities. The Ombudsman has therefore not made further orders (other than for financial redress) or recommendations around these aspects of service in this report but expects the landlord to take learning points from this case.

The associated formal complaint

The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and provide a stage 1 response within a further 10 working days. It will provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days of a complainant requesting an escalation to stage 2.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, (the Code), says landlords must address all points raised in a complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.
A positive complaint handling culture is integral to the effectiveness with which landlords resolve disputes, the quality of the service provided, the ability to learn and improve, and the relationship with their residents. The Ombudsman encourages landlords to use complaints as a source of intelligence to identify issues and introduce positive changes in service delivery.
In this case, the original complaints were made in June and July 2022. The stage 1 responses came in October 2022 and the landlord failed to apologise for these delays or compensate the resident for them in its complaint responses. There were confusing elements of both responses. The response to her complaint about mouse infestation came on 4 October 2022. It stated that it was the landlord’s “final response” when it was not. The second response of 17 October 2022 said it “upheld” the complaint before stating, in effect, that the complaint was not justified. Both of these seem to have been administrative errors. Nonetheless, they would have been confusing for the resident.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response to both complaints in October 2023, over a year after the stage 1 responses. In the meantime, the resident’s concerns remained unaddressed. Had the complaints process been completed sooner, it is likely that the failure to take account of the resident’s vulnerability would have ended sooner as it was the stage 2 investigation that led to this being addressed. This was poor complaint handling which had an adverse impact on the resident.
At stage 2, the landlord awarded the resident £300 for its complaint handling errors which it calculated by awarding the resident £25 for each month of delay in providing that response. While this adequately compensated her for the delay of a year between the stage 1 responses and the stage 2 response, it did nothing to address the 5–month wait at stage 1.
After the stage 2 response, the resident stated that she did not understand how the calculation of compensation had been made and felt it was inadequate. The stage 2 response set out a list of the resident’s concerns and a timeline of events. It accepted responsibility for carrying out repairs, but it is not clear from the response, what failures it accepted and how it had calculated its offer of compensation. It would have been good practice for it to explain why it accepted it had failed and to make commitments to improve matters and ensure that it acted on its commitments.
The failure to respond in a timely fashion added to the delay. The landlord’s complaint responses did not adequately address and remedy its failures, for example by providing her with compensation for its failure to respond in a timely way at stage 1. For these reasons, we have ordered it to pay a further sum, in line with our guidance on remedies to remedy the complaint handling failures.
As is stated above, the Ombudsman has published a report on this landlord on about its complaint handling. We have not, therefore, made further orders around this element of the complaint but we expect the landlord to take all relevant learning points from this case into account in its future complaint handling practice.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs required in the property’s kitchen.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a rodent infestation at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the formal complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord must:
1. Send a letter to the resident apologising for the fault identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident the total sum of £1,600 inclusive of the £1290 already offered, comprising (rounded up):
  1. £150 for its handling of the resident’s reports of a rodent infestation.
  2. £150 for its handling of the associated formal complaint.
3. On the provision of evidence of increased expenditure over the period when the resident was without a washing machine, recompense her for that expenditure.