London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202306491)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306491

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

5 September 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 the resident’s:
1. Reports of damp, mould, and the associated repairs.
2. Reports of repairs to the windows.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord in a 3 bedroom house, and her tenancy started in January 2004. The landlord does not have any recorded vulnerabilities for her.
The resident contacted the landlord to report a concern about damp and mould in 1 of the bedrooms at her property, on 17 January, and 17 May 2022. The notes reflect she reported mould on the walls and ceilings and that the windows were “rotten”. It is unclear what action the landlord took at that time. The resident reported further concerns on 5 December 2022 where she reported a leak from the ceiling in the bedroom and damp and mould on the ceiling. It is unclear what action the landlord took at that time.
The resident contact the landlord on 6 December 2022 to make a complaint. She said the landing area in her property was very “draughty” due to it removing coving “years” before. She raised a concern about mould and said the landlord had been out on 3 occasions to clean it, but it kept coming back. She reported there was a leak from the ceiling in the bedroom, there was “brown water dripping from the ceiling”, and the windows needing replacing.
The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 7 December 2022, and said it had arranged to inspect the leak on 3 January 2023, but would try and bring the appointment forward. It said it would not assess its removing of the coving from “years” before, but would inspect it as a new repair. It set out that the windows were not due to be replaced, but it would attend to any repairs needed if the resident provided more details. It said it had logged her concerns about damp and mould as a “separate complaint” and it would send a separate response.
The resident contacted the landlord on 15 December 2022 and said that it had done no works to the windows, and wanted to “escalate” her concerns.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response, in relation to the damp and mould on 15 December 2022. It upheld the resident’s complaint, and said it had arranged for a property inspection to “carry out an assessment and clean any affected areas”.
The landlord raised a repair to the roof on 29 December 2022, and inspected on 24 February 2023 and created a proposed scheme of works. It does not appear the works took place at that time.
The landlord reinstated the ceiling and filled the cracks to prevent the draft on 17 March 2023. The landlord contacted the resident on 20 March 2023 and offered £100 in compensation for its handling of the repairs. It apologised for the length of time taken to resolve the issue, and the “time and effort” it took. It set out that the compensation did “not include repairs related to the damp and mould case”.
The resident contacted the landlord on 30 March 2023 and said her complaint had not been resolved. She reported that the landlord had cleaned the mould in January 2023, but it had returned “within weeks”. She reported the ceilings were “peeling and dropping”. She was concerned the landlord was acting with “no urgency” to resolve the matter. The landlord responded on 3 April 2023 and advised it had resolved the leak, and the walls may take time to dry out. It advised that redecorating was the resident’s responsibility. The landlord repaired “damp patches” and broken plaster patch on 26 April 2023.
Following intervention from this Service, the landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 19 July 2023. It gave a timeline of the repairs that it had completed. It said it had inspected the windows and identified follow on works, and it would “get in touch” with regard to her concerns about damp and mould. It upheld the resident’s complaint and offered a total of £395 in compensation for the repairs, and complaint handling.

Events after the complaints procedure

The evidence indicates it completed a “mould wash” on 7 August 2023. The resident contacted this Service on 7 August 2023 and asked us to investigate her complaint. The resident stated she was unhappy with the compensation the landlord offered, its handling of the complaint, and the repairs.
The resident contacted the landlord on 8 November 2023, and said the mould had returned in the bedroom. She stated that the landlord had been out to clean the mould, but it had come back and it was now appearing in other rooms. The resident said the situation was impacting on her health.

Assessment and findings

Damp, mould, and the associated repairs

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, and keep in good repair the structure of the property. For the purpose of the Act, the windows and roof are considered to be part of the structure of any property.
Landlords are required to consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential health hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS. Where potential hazards are identified, improvement works are typically the starting point and additional monitoring is expected.
The landlord’s repairs policy in operation in 2022 (when the resident first complained) stated that it would attended to emergency repairs within 24 hours, and routine repairs at a “mutually convenient appointment”. The landlord amended its policy in May 2023 to state routine repairs would be attended to in “an average of 25 calendar days”.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy, which came into force in May 2023, states that when a resident reports damp and mould it will inspect the property within 20 working days to “identify the underlying cause of the problem”.
Throughout her complaint, and when she asked this Service to investigate her complaint in November 2023, the resident raised a concern about the impact on her health. The resident stated that the landlord’s handling of the damp, mould, and associated repairs had impacted on her health and mental wellbeing. The serious nature of this is acknowledged and we do not seek to dispute the resident’s comments. However, this aspect of the resident’s complaint ultimately requires a determination of liability for personal injury.
Claims of personal injury, including damage to health, can be considered via a landlord’s public liability insurance or in a court of law. Such claims will take into consideration medical evidence and allegations of negligence. These matters fall outside of the Ombudsman’s remit. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim, if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.
The evidence shows that when the resident raised concerns about damp and mould in her property, in 2022, the landlord raised an inspection with its damp and mould contractor, in January and May 2022. The landlord’s repair log shows that both jobs were marked as complete within 2 weeks, which was a reasonable timeframe. However, the landlord has supplied no corroborating evidence of what action it took at that time, and it is unclear what works its contractor completed. This is a failing in its record keeping. While it attended within a reasonable timeframe, we have seen no evidence it completed a thorough inspection to identify the root cause of the damp and mould.
The evidence shows that the landlord did not adopt the recommended approach to damp and mould, as set out in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report. The report said that landlord’s “technical staff and repairs managers willing and able to properly inspect and remedy issues was crucial to being able to identify root causes”. It is apparent that the landlord did not conduct an appropriately thorough assessment of the property to identify possible “root causes” of the damp and mould. The resident was evidently distressed at the conditions she described that the landlord did not complete a thorough inspection at the time, increased the distress she experienced.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, of 7 December 2022, was reasonable in terms of the coving. While it set out that it would not investigate a matter that occurred “years” before, it set out that it considered it as a report of a repair. This was appropriate in the circumstances, as it was not reasonable to assess the removal of the coving, due to the passage of time. That it sought to investigate the reported repair and the resident’s concerns about draughts, and its contribution to the damp and mould in the property, was reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, of 15 December 2022, was inappropriate in relation to the damp and mould. The response lacked detail, and showed no learning about its handling of the matter, despite upholding the complaint. This was unreasonable, and not in line with the Ombudsman dispute resolution principles of learning from outcomes, and putting things right. It is concerning that it set out that it would “clean” the affected areas. This is further evidence that it did not adopt the approach set out in the spotlight report to identify “root causes”. Its dismissive approach to the damp and mould reported caused a further inconvenience. That the landlord did not offer redress for its admitted failings was unreasonable and a further failing in its handling of the matter.
It is noted that its stage 1 response set out that it would conduct a “full assessment” of the issue, after its contractor had cleaned the affected areas. However, we have not been provided with any evidence to indicate that it did so. This was a further failing in its handling of the matter, which caused a disappointment and further distress. Again, the landlord missed an opportunity to adopt the thorough approach recommended in our spotlight report to seek to identify the root causes of the issue.
The landlord was on notice about the resident’s concern about a leak from the roof above the bedroom from 6 December 2022. The evidence shows that it did not inspect and identify the works needed until February 2023. While it is noted its policy at the time did not include target timeframes, 2 months amounts to an unreasonable delay which caused a further inconvenience. The evidence shows that the landlord’s information management around the repair was poor. Internal email from 6 March 2023 show that after it identified a scheme of works this was “declined” due to its records showing another contractor had attended to the repair. While it is not possible to determine what caused the confusion it is evidence its poor record keeping contributed to a further delay.
The evidence indicates it attended to the ceiling and roof repair on 16/17 March 2023, which amounts to an unreasonable delay. While we welcome the landlord’s decision to offer compensation to try and put things right, its approach to the compensation caused confusion. It set out that its offer did not include its handling of the damp and mould issue, but we have seen no evidence to indicate that it sought to offer compensation for the damp and mould issue, at the time. Its approach caused the resident confusion and caused a further inconvenience.
The evidence shows that the landlord raised a further inspection of the roof in May 2023. The outcome of the inspection is unclear, which is a further shortcoming in the landlord’s record keeping. That the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, of July 2023, was silent on the further works to the roof was also inappropriate. The landlord’s response to the matter lacked learning, and it missed an opportunity to build trust with the resident.
In relation to the damp, mould, and associated repairs the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was also inappropriate. The landlord showed very little learning about its handling of the issue, despite admitting failings. That it simply set out that it would be “in touch” about the damp and mould issue was unreasonable. It failed to reflect that it had been on notice for over a year at that point and the resident had raised concerns the issue kept returning after it cleaned the mould off. The lack of learning shown was unreasonable and the landlord failed to reflect that it had not sought to identify the root cause of the problem. This is evidence that it failed to adopt the approach set out in its damp and mould policy that states it will seek to find the “underlying cause”.
It is noted that the landlord raised a further inspection of the property in August 2023, and completed a further mould wash at that time. The evidence indicates that it did not conduct a full inspection to identify the causes. When this Service asked for further information about the later inspection, an internal email from August 2024 stated that its contractor was “only sent out to carry out a mould wash”. This was a further failing in its handling of the issue. This is further evidence the landlord failed to adopt the approach set out in its damp and mould policy which caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident.
Considering, the resident reported the mould had returned, in November 2023, it is reasonable to conclude the landlord’s further actions had not resolved the issue. We have therefore made an appropriate order below.
The evidence shows that the landlord did not adopt the recommended approach set out in our spotlight report on damp and mould. Its actions in 2023 indicate it failed to apply its own damp and mould policy that had come into force in May 2023. Its record keeping around the issue was poor, which impacted on its ability to respond.
It is welcomed that the landlord sought to offer redress for its admitted failings. However, its complaint responses lacked learning, and we have seen no evidence to indicate it sought to identify the root causes of the issue, when the resident reported the mould kept coming back. Given the issue remained outstanding as recently as November 2023, and the failings above, we have determined its offer of £345 in compensation did not fully put things right. As such, we have determined there was maladministration and made a series of appropriate orders below.

Reports of repairs to the windows.

As with the resident’s reports of damp and mould, the resident reported that her windows were “rotten” in January and May 2022. The landlord’s repair log shows that both jobs were marked as complete within 2 weeks, which was a reasonable timeframe. However, the landlord has supplied no corroborating evidence of what action it took in relation to the windows at that time, and it is unclear if it completed any works. This is a failing in its record keeping. While it attended within a reasonable timeframe, we have seen no evidence it completed any works to the windows at that time.
Considering what the resident was reporting, this is concerning. The resident was evidently distressed at the condition of her windows, the landlord’s actions increased the detriment she experienced.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, of 7 December 2022, was inappropriate in relation to the windows. The landlord was already on notice that the resident was of the view the windows were “rotten”. She was already inconvenienced by the need to raise a complaint in order for it to take action, that it sought more information before progressing with an inspection was unreasonable. That it did not simply raise an inspection when she complained caused a further delay and increased the inconvenience she had experienced.
That the landlord used its stage 1 complaint response to explain the resident’s windows were not due for renewal, but it would complete interim repairs, was appropriate. While the resident was evidently disappointed with its decision, it explained its position with consistency and clarity.
The evidence shows that the landlord did not raise a thorough inspection of the windows until July 2023, as part of its stage 2 complaint investigation. This was over a year after it was put on notice about the matter, and amounts to an unreasonable delay. The delay increased the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, of July 2023, lacked detail and learning. That it simply stated it had raised “follow on” repairs following its inspection was unreasonable. That it showed no learning of its handling of the matter up to that point was also unreasonable. That it did not acknowledge or apologise for the fact that it had been on notice for over a year was unreasonable. The landlord missed an opportunity to try and put right its evident failings.
That the landlord did not set out what repairs it would complete to the windows, or when it hoped to complete them by, was unreasonable. This caused a further inconvenience as she was left not knowing the landlord’s position on the repairs to the windows.
The landlord’s record keeping around the repairs was poor. The evidence indicates it had not completed a thorough inspection until July 2023, a year after it was on notice. It set out its position on whether it would replace the windows with clarity. The stage 2 response lacked detail and learning. As such we have determined there was maladministration, and made a series of appropriate orders below.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure, which states it will response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and it will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response on 7 December 2022, 1 day after the resident complained about the substantive issues. That the landlord issued its response in such a short time was unreasonable. That it did so is evidence it did not adopt the approach set out in our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which states a complaint investigation must “consider all information and evidence carefully […] seeking sufficient, [and] reliable information”. It is reasonable to conclude that by issuing its response a day later, its investigation was not completed with the appropriate thoroughness. This caused the resident an inconvenience as she did not have her concerns addressed in an appropriate, and comprehensive manner.
It is unclear why the landlord decided to split the complaints, and handle the damp and mould issue separately. That it offered the resident no explanation as to why, and simply setting out it sat with a different team was unreasonable. It was evident the resident felt the repairs issues and the damp and mould were linked. The landlord’s decision to split the complaints created a confusing and protracted complaints process for the resident. Its approach to the stage 1 complaints caused the resident an inconvenience.
The resident was evidently unhappy with the content of its stage 1 complaints, and expressed dissatisfaction with its responses (emails on 8 and 15 December 2022), including challenging its version of events. There is no evidence to indicate that the landlord opened a stage 2 complaint investigation at that stage, which was a failing in its complaint handling. The Code states that “if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1 it must be progressed to stage 2.” The resident evidently felt the complaint was not resolved, that it did not progress to stage 2 in December 2022, caused an inconvenience.
The resident was cost further time and trouble, by emailing on 30 March 2023 stating that her complaint was not resolved. Again, the landlord did not open a stage 2 complaint investigation at that stage, which caused a further inconvenience. The landlord operated a protracted and hard to access complaints process for the resident. The resident was further inconvenienced by the need to seek assistance from this Service, in June 2023, in order to get the landlord to progress the complaint.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was sent 7 months after the resident first expressed dissatisfaction with its stage 1 responses. While it is noted it offered £50 in compensation for the delay at stage 2, it offered no apology for this which was inappropriate. Neither did it show appropriate learning about how it would prevent similar failings happening again. We have therefore determined its offer of compensation did not fully put things right for the resident, and there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Special investigation

The Ombudsman completed a special investigation, in July 2023, into the landlord using its systemic powers under paragraph 49 of the Scheme. It found the landlord responsible for a series of significant systemic failings impacting residents. This included findings about the landlord’s handling, including but not limited to:
1. Appointments were missed or duplicated as the landlord has no idea who had visited properties.
2. The landlord raised the same repairs on multiple occasions, often closing an issue as resolved only to reopen it when the resident got back in touch to say the issue was not resolved.
3. Residents were not kept informed of the progress of their repairs leading them to chase and complaint about issues.
Our special investigation also identified systemic failings in the landlord’s complaint handling which included not responding to all aspects of the complaint, not identifying all failings, not showing appropriate learning.
The Ombudsman required the landlord to make changes including improvements to its complaint handling and approach to repairs. Many of the failings identified by this complaint mirror the issues noted by the special investigation. As such, and in view of the age of this complaint, this Service does not make any wider order.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould, and the associated repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the windows.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £975 in compensation. The landlord’s offer of £395 in compensation should be deducted from this total, if already paid. The compensation is broken down as follows:
  1. £550 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the damp, mould, and associated repairs.
  2. £250 in in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the repairs to the windows.
  3. £175 in recognition of the inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by its complaint handling.
Within 8 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Instruct a suitably qualified, damp specialist, surveyor to inspect the resident’s property. The inspection should:
1. Be a full inspection of the property to identify possible causes of damp and mould
2. Consider the resident’s concerns about ongoing repairs issues in the property.
3. Create an action plan of proposed works to be shared with the resident, and this Service.