London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202317630)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317630

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

31 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 response to the resident concerning:
1. Reports of a leak and damp and mould.
2. The property condition.
3. A request to be rehoused.
4. Staff conduct.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is 2-bedroom terraced house. The resident reports that she has health issues and her child has asthma.
The resident is understood to have made a disrepair claim, after which repairs were raised in March 2021 and recorded completed in July 2021. The same month, a post-inspection report confirmed works were complete and the kitchen was usable, although it was noted a kitchen unit corner post and a plinth may be changed due to the post being a different shade to other units.
In October 2022, the landlord responded to a separate complaint and noted the resident had said she no longer wanted to live at the property. It referred her to the local authority for rehousing, but provided details for an internal department if there was a threat to life or she had a serious medical condition.
In January 2023, the resident made a complaint. This related to an appointment where contractors had attended for a morning appointment in the afternoon, and where a water leak was identified for which parts were to be ordered. The same month, the resident also reported mould in various rooms and a repair was raised for a damp specialist inspection. The following month, after contact from the resident, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to raise a complaint about a leak and mould. We noted the resident and her son had health issues including asthma.
The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 9 February 2023, after establishing that the damp contractor had a backlog. It said that it could not find any recent leak repairs, and detailed how to report repairs and manage condensation. It said the January 2023 repair was allocated to the damp specialist, and once their report was received recommended repairs would be raised. It acknowledged that the resident had experienced difficulties and delays, and it awarded £125 for distress and inconvenience, time and effort, and its delayed stage 1. The resident subsequently requested escalation of the complaint on 16 February 2023 as nothing had been done.
On 3 March 2023, the damp and mould specialist attended, and their report said:
1. there were indications of excessive moisture and condensation, and there was mould on a hall ceiling, walls in 2 bedrooms, and a bathroom ceiling and walls.
2. an ongoing leak to an upstairs immersion heater tank was causing damp to the hallway ceiling, and required repair.
3. the heating was not working and was creating a cold environment leading to condensation and mould.
4. the bathroom may benefit from an extractor fan to stop consistent condensation and mould which was occurring despite the resident leaving the window open.
5. a mould clean and treatment was carried out the same day, and repairs were raised for the boiler and the immersion leak.
On 21 March 2023, a repair was raised for “boiler not working, no heating or hot water creating a cold environment leading to condensation and mould,” which was recorded completed the same day, although the issue continued after this as noted in a separate determination by the Ombudsman about the boiler on 29 September 2023.
In July 2023, an engineer attended after which the resident told the landlord that she needed a new immersion tank as it was leaking. The contractor told the landlord that there was “a split cylinder” at the property and supplied a photo showing discoloured flooring beneath the immersion tank. The contractor also recommended conversion of the system to a combination boiler as the existing boiler was “very problematic.” Following this, the landlord emailed the resident asking her to contact the contractor to arrange an appointment. Around this time, the resident raised concern about the service from the contractor, including lack of communication about appointments, and said the way she was being treated was “racial discrimination due to age and disability.”
In August 2023, the resident and landlord were in discussions about arranging a meeting to discuss a complaint about issues at the property, and the landlord suggested 19, 20 or 21 September 2023. Around this time, the landlord internally queried if repairs staff could attend the proposed meeting, but this was noted not to be necessary as there were no recent outstanding repairs.
In September 2023, the Regulator of Social Housing contacted the landlord and raised concern about the property condition and the impact on the resident. On 14 September 2023, the contractors attended to carry out a boiler replacement survey but did not gain access, and the resident said she had been unaware of this visit. The resident subsequently requested for a different contractor to replace the boiler. The landlord and resident did not agree a meeting but the landlord offered a video call.
In October 2023, the new contractor carried out a boiler replacement survey. They noted that there was an uncontainable leak in the airing cupboard, causing damage to chipboard flooring and a ceiling below. They said that the leaking tank and pipework in the airing cupboard needed to be removed, and a carpenter should replace the damaged airing cupboard floor.
In November 2023, the landlord noted difficulties in the contractor contacting the resident to install the boiler, but an appointment was later booked and the boiler was replaced on 21 November 2023. The resident confirms the leaking tank was removed at the same time but no further works were carried out.
In December 2023, the landlord took steps to review repairs logs and noted that it was unclear what issues were outstanding. It was noted that the resident was called and she said that no repairs had been done since a disrepair case went to court, but it was noted that a disrepair case was closed in 2020 and a post-inspection showed works were completed. Later that month, it was noted that the landlord met with the resident but she only wanted to discuss anti-social behaviour issues. It was noted that the resident was not allowing access to the property to assess outstanding repairs, but she agreed to meet in January 2024 to discuss them.
The landlord subsequently provided a stage 2 response on 14 February 2024 after attempting to contact the resident:
1. It noted that the resident had reported mould affecting her health, and a specialist had inspected in March 2023 and submitted a report. It noted that an immersion heater tank was leaking causing damp in hallway, and a bathroom extractor fan was suggested, however as a new boiler had been installed and no further heating and hot water repairs had been raised, it trusted the leak was now fixed. It offered to raise a job to the specialist to complete an up to date report, and asked the resident to let it know if she wanted this.
2. It said that repairs had not been addressed as it was not aware what repairs the resident wanted to report. It said the best way forward would be for a surveyor to inspect, after which any necessary repairs would be raised and completed, and asked the resident to contact it to arrange this. It noted that an assessment by a repairs supervisor was previously discussed, but it was noted that the resident had not raised any repairs to the property. It explained that it operated a reactive service and relied on issues to be reported to address them. It also noted that the resident had not been allowing access and that it required reasonable access to carry out repairs.
3. It noted that the resident had requested to move, and it detailed how she could register to apply to move or mutual exchange, or apply to move on medical grounds.
4. It apologised if the resident felt she had been treated unfairly, and said it could not find any instances where this had occurred. It invited the resident to provide further information about this claim.
5. It apologised for the delay in its final response, and said it was taking steps to speed this up. It awarded £460, which it said was inclusive of its stage 1 award, and comprised £240 for distress and inconvenience, and £220 for the delay in stage 2 response.
The resident confirms that the immersion tank leak was not resolved until the boiler replacement in late 2023. She says there is damage in various areas, and the bedroom airing cupboard had got mould because of the leak, and a hall ceiling has a big patch where it has been affected by water ingress and is damaged and mouldy. She says that the immersion tank lacking a blanket was responsible for all the damp and mould in the property. She confirms that the damp specialist’s recommendation to install a bathroom extractor fan was not done. She says that she was contacted by a surveyor about a visit but they later ignored her. She says that she made a lot of complaints about the leak and settled a disrepair claim but nothing was done after these.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has been informed that a complaint about repairs to the boiler and a lack of heating and hot water over 3 months is not investigated here, as this was already determined by the Ombudsman on 29 September 2023. This has already addressed some outcomes she has mentioned such as increased electrics costs while the heating was not working.
The resident says her and her son’s health and belongings have been affected. It is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to determine cause, liability or negligence for the impact on the resident’s health and possessions, but we can assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case – we do so below.

The landlord’s response to the resident concerning reports of a leak and damp and mould

After the resident’s reports of damp and mould in January 2023, the landlord appropriately arranged a damp inspection, and it was positive that mould treatment was carried out at the same time as this inspection in early March 2023. The landlord was also positive to acknowledge and compensate for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, and a year delay in its stage 2 response. However, it did not satisfactorily acknowledge and address a number of issues evident.
The damp specialist did not attend until March 2023, and although the landlord established they had a backlog due to high demand, it is not evident that it made the resident aware of this to help manage her expectations. The resident escalated the complaint soon after the stage 1 response because nothing had happened, which may have been avoided if there was better communication.
The March 2023 specialist report identified that an ongoing immersion tank leak was causing damp to the hall ceiling, but the landlord does not demonstrate that timely steps were taken to resolve this, or that this was a clear focus of any repair. The report referred to a repair being raised, but a repair raised 3 weeks later only refers to lack of heating from the boiler. The evidence shows that a leak from the immersion tank was observed in January, March, July, and October 2023, showing it was ongoing for a long period. However, it is not evident that it was resolved until the November 2023 boiler replacement, 10 months later, when the leaking tank was removed. The time it took to raise the repair and lack of monitoring of issues seem to go against aims that the landlord formulated in 2022 in response to our report on damp and mould.
The specialist identified mould on the bathroom ceiling and walls, and recommended for a bathroom fan to be installed, but the landlord does not satisfactorily show this was contemporaneously considered or why it decided not to follow this recommendation. The landlord should show that it took into consideration that bathroom mould was occurring despite the window being opened, and that the heating issues and ongoing immersion tank leak were creating an environment leading to condensation.
The March 2023 damp report and October 2023 boiler replacement survey both refer to the immersion tank leak causing damage to the hall ceiling, while the boiler survey recommended for damaged airing cupboard flooring to be replaced, and such damage is evident in photos seen by the Ombudsman. However, there is no evidence that the landlord considered these reports and raised (or offered to raise) any works for areas such as the hall ceiling or the airing cupboard, as would have been appropriate for damage caused by delays resolving the issues leading to them. The resident raises concerns about the impact on her and her child’s health and belongings about which the evidence of communication between her and the landlord is unclear, and therefore a recommendation is made to the landlord in respect to this.
The communication about the damp specialist inspection could have been more effective, as noted above, and there is evidence for other ineffective communication, such as arrangement of a September 2023 boiler replacement survey without confirmation with the resident. It is understood that issues with management of appointments was not an isolated occurrence and this led to the resident requesting a different contractor to carry out the boiler replacement. The landlord was positive to arrange the replacement by a different contractor, however given the issue was a complaint it would have been appropriate for it to ensure the September 2023 survey was agreed with the resident. It is understandable that frustration will have been caused to the resident by issues with visits and the delays and time and trouble in rearranging them.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord did not go far enough to acknowledge issues evident, which leads us to find maladministration in its response to the reports of a leak and damp and mould. It took 10 months to resolve the immersion tank leak. It did not show it satisfactorily considered a recommendation for a bathroom extractor fan. It did not show that it considered repairs for hall ceiling and airing cupboard damage noted in reports it received. While the boiler is the subject of another determination, it is also not satisfactory it took 8 months to fully resolve the heating issues after the damp specialist report. It does not show it sought to address the environment leading to the excessive moisture and condensation in the property in an holistic, effective or timely way, which will have understandably caused frustration, distress and inconvenience to the resident and undermined her confidence.

The landlord’s response to the resident concerning the property condition

The resident raised additional concerns about the property condition and that no action was taken after a disrepair claim. The landlord shows that it considered this and initially established that after a previous disrepair claim, works were confirmed to be completed in July 2021. This seemed a reasonable conclusion, as a July 2021 post-inspection report advises that works were complete apart from potential replacement of a kitchen unit post and plinths for aesthetic purposes, and it is not clear that any significant works were outstanding since this disrepair claim.
Given the lack of clear information, the landlord was reasonable to have sought to visit the property or discuss this further with the resident. It would have beneficial if the resident had clearly detailed what works were outstanding or if a meeting at the property had progressed, in order to allow the landlord to gain a clearer understanding of the resident’s concerns. It is evident that the landlord provided reasonable opportunities for this when it provided dates for meetings, attempted calls to obtain more detail about outstanding repairs, met with the resident and invited her to discuss repairs, and offered surveyor inspections. The resident says she was ignored after responding to contact from a surveyor, however the Ombudsman sees no evidence of this occurring after the landlord’s final response.

The landlord’s response to the resident concerning a request to be rehoused

The resident says that she is unsafe in the property, and raises dissatisfaction that she has not been rehoused, however her complaint to the landlord does not seem to allege any service failings in its handling of any request to move on safety or medical grounds. It is not in the Ombudsman’s expertise to say whether the resident should be moved, and instead we assess whether a landlord’s response has been reasonable.
The landlord provided advice in 2022 about contacting the local authority in respect to rehousing, or contacting an internal department if there was a risk to life or medical issues. In its February 2024 final response, it provided further explanation on how the resident could apply to move or mutual exchange or apply to move on medical grounds. The resident has been appropriately made aware of her options to move, and the Ombudsman can seen no evidence that the landlord’s response was unreasonable.

The landlord’s response to the resident concerning staff conduct

The resident raised dissatisfaction about staff conduct, but the staff conduct in question is not entirely clear. The Ombudsman can see that the resident said in July 2023 that treatment from a gas contractor was “racial discrimination due to age and disability.” It is understood that service from the contractor around that time in respect to communication and appointments was frustrating to the resident, but the Ombudsman cannot see that conduct itself was inappropriate.
The landlord apologised if the resident felt she had been treated unfairly, said it could not find any instances where this had occurred, and invited her to provide further information about this claim. The landlord’s invitation to the resident to provide further information gave her opportunity to supply further information, and showed appropriate willingness for it to investigate specific incidents.
On the evidence available, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence to show that the landlord’s response was unreasonable, and its arrangement for a different contractor to carry out the boiler replacement reasonably addressed the resident’s concerns with behaviour from the previous contractor.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident concerning reports of a leak and damp and mould.
2. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident concerning the property condition.
3. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident concerning a request to be rehoused.
4. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident concerning staff conduct.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks:
1. pay the resident £500 compensation for the issues identified. This is in addition to the £460 it previously offered, which it should pay if it has not already.
2. liaise with the resident to inspect the property for required repairs which come under its repairs obligations. This should include assessment of any damage caused by leaks and damp and mould to areas such as the hall ceiling and the airing cupboard (including the flooring).
The landlord is ordered to, within 6 weeks:
1. write to the resident with the outcome of its inspection, a scope of works, and proposed dates to complete the works, based on availability she provides. The scope of works should include any works it identifies as well as repairs to resolve damage caused by leaks and damp and mould to areas such as the hall ceiling and the airing cupboard (including the flooring).
2. review how it detects, reviews and responds to issues and recommendations in attendance notes and reports such as the March 2023 damp specialist report and the October 2023 boiler replacement survey, and consider improvements in its repairs process to ensure that these are contemporaneously considered and actioned.
3. review the case and our spotlight report on damp and mould, and consider improvements in its repairs process to ensure that identified damp and mould issues are effectively monitored.
4. The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with the outcome to the above.

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to provide the resident with details of its liability insurer and information on how she can make a claim in respect to any impact on her health and belongings.
The landlord is recommended to liaise with the resident to record relevant vulnerabilities.
The landlord is recommended to review it and its contractors’ communication for complaints to ensure that appointments are directly confirmed with residents.