London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202323654)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202323654
London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)
16 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
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of disrepair to the windows, causing damp and mould in her property.
- The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint and level of compensation offered.
Background
- The resident is an assured tenant of the property which is a 2–bedroom ground floor flat. She lives in the property with her partner and 2 daughters. The resident has informed both the landlord and the Ombudsman that one of her daughters has asthma.
- The resident contacted the landlord on 25 September 2023 to raise a formal complaint regarding her windows. She said she was not happy as the landlord had failed to complete required works. The resident said this had resulted in damage to her property. The resident stated that the landlord raised works orders for the windows in 2019, 2020, 2022, and 2023. She said she would like for the landlord to complete the works and to pay compensation to account for her need to redecorate, the cost of heating, and the inconvenience caused.
- The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 29 September 2023. It explained that it would only be able to look into the repairs raised within 1 year of the resident logging the complaint. It said that there was only the resident’s formal complaint which was raised within that time. It said it had raised a repair for an inspection of the resident’s windows on 8 November 2023 following her report that they were rotten. The landlord upheld the complaint and said following the inspection it would advise on the next steps.
- The resident escalated her complaint on 26 October 2023, she said the landlord brought the initial inspection forward to 26 October 2023, but no-one turned up. The resident felt that as per the landlord’s complaint policy, the landlord should have considered her complaint as an exceptional circumstance and evaluated it back to when she first reported the issue. She said she did not understand why the landlord could not review its previous inspections and measurements to proceed with the necessary replacements. The resident said she was feeling let down.
- The inspection took place on 8 November 2023 and following this the landlord confirmed it had submitted the windows for component renewal but that it was unable to provide a timeframe for that. It said it would contact the resident when the works were due to commence but if she required any repairs in the meantime, she should raise them through the usual process. It offered £200 in recognition of the resident’s time, effort, and inconvenience related to getting the complaint resolved.
- The landlord’s records from 8 November 2023 also show it raised a repair following the inspection to “make safe” and board up the living room window as the frame was “seriously rotten”, and the glass was about to fall out.
- The resident contacted the landlord on 17 November 2023 and said that she was deeply concerned about the recurring delay in addressing the issues with her windows. She said the ongoing situation had caused her significant stress and the £200 offered did not reflect all the problems she had dealt with. She said the window in the kitchen posed safety concerns due to its inability to close properly, she said it was allowing cold air in and compromising security. She said she expected the staff to promptly address the repairs needed for the frames and window renewal. The resident said that every tenant deserved to reside in a habitable property.
- The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 3 December 2023. It confirmed that it could make exceptions in extreme circumstances to extend its review of the issues beyond 1 year, however, it could not do so in this instance. It said it appreciated there had been a huge delay and it would take into account her incurred heating costs and redecoration. It reiterated that it had added the windows to the list for the replacement, but it could not offer insight as to when the replacement would take place. It upheld the complaint and offered an additional £100, £50 was for the delay in responding to the complaint and £50 was for distress.
- The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said she had little faith that the replacement would happen anytime soon. The resident said the boarded-up windows remained unsafe as they were easily removable. She said she was unable to open most windows in the house which had led to poor ventilation, condensation, and recurring mould. The resident said she was concerned about her daughter’s asthma and that she would become ill.
- At the time of writing this report, the window replacement has not taken place.
Assessment and findings
Scope of the investigation
- Paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the window replacement was raised in 2019. However, in line with the above, the investigation will focus on events 12 months prior to the resident’s formal complaint in September 2023. Separate issues, and events that pre-date the complaints procedure have not been investigated and are referenced for contextual purposes only.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of disrepair to the windows, causing damp and mould in the property.
- Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. This includes windows and window frames.
- The landlord’s maintenance policy has 2 categories of repair. For emergency works it states it will attend within 24 hours. For routine day to day repairs it states it will aim to complete the repair within an average of 25 days.
- The landlord’s component renewal procedure states that the landlord must complete a component renewal form to record the outcome of an assessment and its recommendation. The referral form has a section which covers any immediate health and safety concerns and for the landlord to outline how it will address them. It states that the resident should be informed of the outcome within 10 calendar days of the inspection and told that there is a 14–week leading time for works to commence.
- Landlords also have a responsibility to keep properties free from category one hazards, as per the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). For the purposes of this report, this can include damp and mould, secure windows, and ensuring there are means of escape from all parts of a dwelling.
- The Ombudsman finds that the landlord’s communication with the resident about the replacement windows was not appropriate. It was not open and transparent about the status of the window replacement and/or what action it had taken. Examples of this are outlined below.
- In its stage 1 response, the landlord stated that it could only look at repairs raised within 1 year of the resident logging the complaint. The Ombudsman acknowledges that this was in line with its complaints policy. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have explained what the current status of the window replacement was. If it found there were delays in its handling of the replacement, it should have explained why and considered how it would put it right. In not doing so, the landlord did not fully address the resident’s complaint.
- The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s complaint handling later in this report.
- The resident reported that she had received letters the previous year which showed that the landlord’s contractors had scheduled the work for between April 2022 and March 2023. The landlord’s records show that the resident chased the replacement on 5 June 2023 and the landlord advised her to allow more time as it would be in contact soon. The stage 1 response did not acknowledge this or the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property that year, which was a failing.
- The landlord’s internal emails at the time show that it considered the letters the resident had received. It confirmed that the works were “probably moved to a later time in the programme.” The internal emails also suggested that the contractor who was initially overseeing the window replacement had its contract ended in March 2023 and was therefore unable to finish any properties on the programme which required planning permission. It said some of the planning applications were still in process.
- It is unclear whether the landlord has obtained planning permission for the resident’s property. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have sought clarification on this and provided some of the reasons for the delays to the resident. By not doing so, and based on the previous assurances, it was understandable that the resident did not believe that the landlord would replace the windows any time soon. The Ombudsman acknowledges that any delays with the planning application would have been out of the landlord’s control. However, without knowing when the landlord initially applied for planning permission, the Ombudsman cannot conclude that the landlord’s actions were reasonable in all the circumstances.
- Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord raised an order for an inspection of the windows. The landlord brought the initial date offered forward following the resident’s concerns regarding the safety of the windows. However, no-one attended on the 26 October 2023. The landlord apologised for the missed appointment and said it would feed it back to its planning team. It would have been reasonable for it to have also offered compensation in line with its policy. The inspection took place on 8 November 2023, which was outside of its repair timescales and therefore, the delay in inspecting the windows was not appropriate.
- While it was reasonable to arrange a further appointment to inspect the windows for any immediate repairs required, the landlord should have had access to its previous inspections which informed the previous decisions to replace the windows. The property should have already been on the list for component renewal, therefore it would have been reasonable to confirm the current status of the resident’s property, and whether more needed to be done to progress the process. By stating that it would need to assess the windows again for renewal, this would have likely been frustrating for the resident, and it delayed any progress being made.
- The resident repeatedly raised that the windows and window frames had caused damp and mould in the property. The resident stated that the landlord carried out mould washes, but the mould was recurring due to the ongoing issues with the windows. The landlord’s records show that damp and mould visits and inspections took place in September 2022 and March 2023. The landlord has not provided any reports from the visits. However, it raised a job on 19 May 2023 to change an extractor fan. In the absence of the report, it is difficult to determine if the landlord’s actions were reasonable at the time.
- The Ombudsman has not had sight of an inspection report from the visit on 8 November 2023 or the completed referral form for the window replacement. Therefore, it is difficult to determine whether the landlord fully considered the risks to the household and any temporary measures it could take to ensure the property was habitable.
- The Ombudsman understands the landlord boarded one of the windows in line with its emergency repair timescales, however, the resident stated that nothing else was repaired, and nobody would want to live in the conditions she was living in. An inspection report or risk assessment would have shown the landlord showed due regard to other temporary measures it could take in lieu of the window replacement to ensure the property was of a decent standard.
- In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that there had been a “huge delay” in replacing the windows. It said it would take into account the resident’s incurred heating costs and costs of redecorating due to the damp and mould. It was positive for the landlord to acknowledge this impact on the resident.
- However, it then offered £50 for distress which was not proportionate to the failings. It said it could not offer any insight into when it would complete the window replacement, which again, was not appropriate. It is now over a year after the landlord’s stage 2 response, the windows have not been replaced, and the resident has had to live with at least 1 of the windows being boarded for an unreasonable length of time.
- Overall, it is clear that the matter has been ongoing for a prolonged period of time. There may have been circumstances which were out of the landlord’s control, but it should still have communicated effectively with the resident, managing both the works, and her expectations. It is concerning that since its attendance on 8 November 2023, the resident raised further safety concerns about the windows and frames, and the landlord failed to acknowledge those concerns. This likely caused distress to the resident who asked the landlord to “comprehend the urgency and severity of the situation”.
- A more proactive approach to replace and monitor the condition of the windows to ensure they did not pose a safety risk would have been appropriate, considering the delays. In not adopting such an approach, the resident likely experienced significant time and trouble, distress, and inconvenience in chasing the landlord, and living in conditions which she reported as not safe.
- As such, the Ombudsman has found severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of disrepair to the windows, causing damp and mould in her property. Orders will be made with the aim of putting things right for the resident.
The landlord’s handling of the complaint and level of compensation offered.
- The landlord’s complaints policy provided for a 2 stage complaints procedure in which it responds to a complaint at stage 1 within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days. Its policy states that it does not cover complaints over 6 months old unless there are exceptional circumstances.
- The landlord’s complaints policy states that compensation of £20 should be paid for its failure to keep an appointment without at least 24 hours notice.
- The landlord provided its stage 1 response 4 working days after the resident’s formal complaint. It provided its stage 2 response 27 working days after the stage 2 escalation, which was outside of its timescales outlined in its policy. The landlord, did however, offer £50 in compensation for the delay, which was reasonable.
- In its stage 1 and 2 responses, the landlord stated that it would only look into repairs raised within 1 year of the resident logging the complaint. It later explained that it was in line with its policy. While it was reasonable for the landlord to scope its investigation in that way, it did not consider the contact from the resident and the repairs raised within that year. By not doing so, its response appeared dismissive and unsupportive of the impact on the resident, and its handling of the issues remained unaddressed. The landlord said it had upheld the complaint but it did not acknowledge any failings on its part.
- In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged that there had been a “huge delay” in resolving the issues and it would take into account the resident’s incurred costs for heating and redecoration. The landlord has not shown how it took into account the resident’s incurred costs. The further compensation offered was £50 for the stage 2 delay and £50 for distress. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to outline how it would consider her incurred costs.
- The Ombudsman has already considered that the landlord’s response regarding there being no timeframe for the window replacement was not appropriate. The landlord also failed to consider the resident’s reports that there were still safety concerns for the windows and mould issues. The stage 2 response was an opportunity for the landlord to learn from its mistakes and put right all the issues, and it is a failing that it did not do so.
- The landlord offered a total of £300 compensation. £200 was for the time, effort, and inconvenience in getting the complaint resolved and £100 was for the stage 2 delay and distress. The Ombudsman finds the amount offered was not reflective of all the failings in this case. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £1,070 which accounts for the following:
- £20 for the missed appointment on 26 October 2023.
- £550 which is based on approximately 5% of the resident’s rent to account for the resident’s loss of enjoyment of the property from 17 November 2023. This was when the resident said she was deeply concerned about the recurring delay and raised further concerns in the property which the landlord failed to sufficiently respond to. The amount has been calculated up to the week of this determination. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord has carried out further temporary repairs in the resident’s property since the stage 2 response, however, the resident has reported that many issues still remain.
- £400 for the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s poor handling of the window replacement. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where the circumstances for maladministration apply and the redress needed to put things right is significant.
- £100 for the complaint handling failures.
- Overall, the landlord’s complaint responses lacked detail, missed opportunities to show learning, and failed to put things right. The compensation offered was not proportionate to the failures in this case and the landlord failed to outline that it had fairly considered the reported incurred costs. As such, the Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and level of compensation offered.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
- Severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of disrepair to the windows, causing damp and mould in her property.
- Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and level of compensation offered.
Orders and recommendations
Orders
- A senior member of the landlord staff must apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this case.
- The landlord must arrange for a surveyor to inspect the resident’s property. The inspection report must include a current assessment of any damp and mould in the property and a position on the current condition of the windows. The landlord must consider the immediacy of any repairs or replacements identified, in accordance with any risks, and the time taken to complete them so far. If there are any works required, the landlord must provide an action plan with defined timescales for it to complete the work.
- Alongside the report, the landlord must complete a risk assessment in line with the HHSRS and taking into account the vulnerabilities in the household.
- The landlord must pay the resident a total of £1,070. This is inclusive of the £300 it previously offered.
- The landlord must provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders within 6 weeks of the date of this report.
Recommendations
- The landlord should reflect on its complaints policy and wording regarding “exceptional circumstances” and how it remained unclear what they would be in this case. It should consider whether adding examples of exceptional circumstances to its policy would be beneficial in helping to manage resident’s expectations.