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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202324168)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324168

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

19 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to address a leak from the roof and the associated damp and mould.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared owner of the property. The property is a newly built 2-bedroom flat, on the top floor of the building.
  2. The resident lives at the property with his partner and 2 children. Both children were infants at the time of the complaint.
  3. The resident raised a repair request on 6 September 2023, after noting a damp stain on the bedroom wall, which was getting bigger. The resident clarified that this was an external wall. The resident stated that his infant children slept in this bedroom. He expressed worry that the damp might cause his children respiratory issues.
  4. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 16 October 2023. The resident:
    1. Said the landlord had not acted in a timely manner, following his report about a leak from the communal roof, which had caused damp and mould in both bedrooms.
    2. Explained that he had purchased a dehumidifier to deal with the mould, but he was still having to wipe the walls down every 2 days. In his children’s room, he was also having to catch drips in buckets. He expressed concern about the potential health risks this presented to his children.
    3. Recognised that the landlord had inspected the property and had instructed its roofing contractor to attend on 13 November 2023. However, the resident felt the landlord’s roofing contractor should attend sooner than this.
    4. Said the landlord should arrange to inspect the roof immediately. Thereafter, it should repair the roof. But as a minimum, it should protect the property from further water ingress. Once the roof had been repaired, the landlord should put right any damage caused to the inside of the property.
  5. The landlord sent the stage 1 acknowledgement and decision on 16 October 2023. The landlord upheld the complaint. To resolve the complaint, the landlord said it would ask if its roofing contractor could bring forward the appointment. It offered £350 compensation as a gesture of goodwill, which recognised the length of time it had taken to resolve the issue and for the resident’s time and effort. It said it was unable to offer a rent reduction via the complaint process and suggested that he speak to its revenue team about this. It directed the resident to make a public liability claim via its insurance team, in respect of any loss or damages incurred.
  6. The resident raised another stage 1 complaint on 3 November 2023. The resident said that he had requested a rent refund for September 2023 and October 2023, due to ongoing issues with damp, mould, and an unresolved roof leak. The resident said his request had been ignored. To resolve his complaint, the resident said the landlord should refund his rent back to September 2023 and suspend future rent payments until the roof repair had been completed.
  7. The landlord emailed the resident on 17 November 2023, explaining that it had joined the resident’s latest complaint, with his previous complaint. The resident replied to the landlord on the same day, expressing his view that the 2 complaints should be considered separately.
  8. The landlord issued the stage 2 acknowledgement on 21 November 2023. The resident emailed the landlord later the same day, clarifying:
    1. The complaint was about:
      1. The property being unhabitable.
      2. The resident’s request for the landlord to put a temporary solution in place for the roof until the issues were fully resolved.
      3. The resident’s request for a full refund between 6 September 2023 and the date the property was fully repaired.
    2. That to resolve the complaint, the landlord should:
      1. Provide immediate temporary rehousing and cover the cost of any moving expenses.
      2. Make a proper offer of compensation. The resident said this should recognise the time that had been wasted, as well as the stress, anxiety, and the impact caused to the resident and his family.
  9. The resident emailed the landlord again on 22 November 2023, asking the landlord to issue a stage 1 response to his second complaint, or escalate the matter to stage 2. The resident emailed the landlord again on 8 December 2023, stating that he wanted a proper explanation as to why his second complaint had not gone through the complaint process. Hedemanded this be considered separately at stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaint process.
  10. The landlord issued the stage 2 response on 18 December 2023. The landlord:
    1. Apologised for the issues that the resident had experienced and the impact this had caused. It recognised that the resident had expressed serious concerns about the health and safety of his young children.
    2. Identified that it had not managed the resident’s reports about water ingress as well as it should have done. It said it should have acted sooner and it should have provided the resident with clearer guidance.
    3. Said it should have managed the resident’s request for temporary accommodation better. Had it done so, it may have been able to identify what was needed sooner, rather than taking several months before confirming that it would cover the cost of this.
    4. Clarified that it would not usually provide a temporary decant for shared owners, in accordance with its lettings and allocation policy. However, after reviewing the case, it had agreed to accommodate the resident’s need for temporary housing. It would also make arrangements to store the resident’s belongings.
    5. Accepted that its communications had been poor and there had been many instances where it had not provided responses to the resident’s emails. It noted instances where the resident had been misinformed because different departments did not know the full details of what was happening.
    6. Acknowledged there was a significant delay in it arranging for its roofing contractor to attend, after receiving the report from the resident’s contractor, identifying the cause of the leak.
    7. Stated that it should have identified sooner that the roof would be covered by the NHBC guarantee, meaning that its contractors would be unable to complete any repairs.
    8. Said it was unable to provide a definitive timeline for completing the repairs as further investigation was required. However, it was exploring options to address the leak and implement a temporary solution if possible.
    9. Recognised there had been delays responding to the resident’s requests to escalate his complaints, and that the complaint handler had given an incorrect email address on the stage 1 complaint.
    10. Apologised for the confusion surrounding the resident’s request for a rent refund. It clarified this should have been considered as part of the initial complaint.
    11. Recognised that the property had been significantly impacted by the leak. However, it had been unable to evidence that the resident had lost full use of the property. Accordingly, it was unable to issue a full rent refund.
    12. Explained that it had launched an investigation into how it had managed the resident’s report about the leak. The landlord indicated that any findings would be used to inform future service improvement. It also explained more generally, some of the measures it had taken to improve its repairs service and complaint handling.
    13. Offered £3,072 compensation, which was broken down as follows:
      1. £1,260 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the issues experienced with the leak.
      2. £1,000 as a gesture of goodwill, to reflect the severity of the situation and how the matter had been handled.
      3. £630 in recognition of poor communication, time and effort raising the matter, the lack of responses, and for miscommunication.
      4. £132 to reimburse the cost of the independent survey arranged by the resident.
      5. £50 in recognition of complaint handling failures.
  11. The resident told the Ombudsman on 9 July 2024, that he moved into temporary accommodation in December 2023. Repairs to the roof were completed and the resident moved back to the property in March 2024. The resident confirmed that the landlord paid the compensation it offered at stage 2. It also covered the resident’s costs associated with the temporary move. The resident felt that the compensation awarded by the landlord should have been higher.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s obligations, policies, and procedures.

  1. In accordance with the lease, the resident was required to “repair and keep the property in good and substantial repair and condition, (except in respect of damage by risks insured against)”. The landlord was required to maintain and keep in repair, the load bearing framework, and all other structural parts of the block. This included the roof.
  2. There was a 2-year defect warranty period on the property, which ended in or around March 2023. During this period, the developer was responsible for attending to reported defects. After this period, the landlord was responsible for completing identified repairs to the structural parts of the block, unless the repair was covered by the NHBC guarantee.
  3. The NHBC guarantee is a form of insurance cover, which applies to newly built homes. The guarantee provides a 10-year protection for homeowners against future issues arising to specified parts of the building (such as the roof), that arise from the developer not complying with the NHBCs technical requirements.
  4. The landlord’s repairs policy did not set out the landlord’s approach or expected timescales for completing major or complex repairs. However, under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord would have been obliged to carry out repairs to the roof within a reasonable timescale once it was notified of the problem.
  5. The landlord had a damp and mould policy, which set out its approach to dealing with reports of damp and mould. For shared owners, the policy stated that the landlord would meet the responsibilities set out in the lease. However, it would always provide relevant guidance and advice.
  6. The landlord did not provide the Ombudsman with a copy of its letting and allocation policy. However, it is understood from the landlord’s stage 2 response that the landlord would not usually provide temporary decants for shared owners.

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to address a leak from the roof and the associated damp and mould.

  1. The first record of the resident raising a repair request about damp and mould, was on 6 September 2023. The landlord told the resident 2 days later, that he should get a report confirming that the damp was being caused by a communal source, following which it would investigate. The resident instructed his own survey on 9 September 2023, which identified a possible leak from the roof. The resident forwarded the report to the landlord the following day, which recommended a further inspection of the roof and the use of dehumidifiers.
  2. The Ombudsman accepts that the resident was responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the property. But is troubled that the landlord told the resident he needed to prove that the damp was being caused by an external issue before it would investigate. The landlord ought to have inspected the property itself, given that the resident had stated the damp was on an external wall. The landlord does not dispute that it did not manage the resident’s concerns about water ingress as well as it could have done, that it should have acted sooner, and that it should have provided the resident with clearer guidance. This was encouraging.
  3. The resident phoned the landlord on 13 September 2023, stating that he had sent his survey report to the landlord twice but had received no response. He impressed upon the landlord that the matter was urgent as he had young children. Although the landlord said a member of its maintenance staff would contact the resident the same afternoon, the landlord did not contact the resident until 2 days later. This was unreasonable and left the resident uncertain as to how the matter would be progressed.
  4. Having received a copy of the survey report from the resident, the landlord ought to have arranged a timely inspection to identify what was causing the roof leak. Thereafter, it should have made a plan of action to address the leak in a timely manner. It is noted that the landlord did not raise a works order for its roofing contractor to investigate until 26 September 2023. The landlord does not dispute that there was an unreasonable delay in it arranging this inspection.
  5. It is understood that the landlord’s surveyor inspected the property on 5 October 2023, however, the surveyor did not complete an inspection report. This is a concern. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of its actions relating to each casefile, which can be provided to the Ombudsman upon request.
  6. The landlord’s roofing contractor sent a report to the landlord on 14 November 2023, with its findings from the roof inspection. This report was not shared with the Ombudsman. However, after the report was received, the landlord commented in an internal communication, that “a resolution needed to be found quickly” as water was entering the property from the roof, even if it was a temporary measure.
  7. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have acted expediently upon this information, taking whatever steps were necessary to mitigate further damage to the property and loss to the resident. If the landlord did have a plan to remedy the roof leak and mitigate further loss, its plan was unclear from the evidence seen. Ultimately, the landlord’s failure to address the leak in a timely manner, led to a significant deterioration in the resident’s living conditions. This was both inappropriate and unfair.
  8. Given that the block was newly built, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have first considered if it were able to progress a claim via the NHBC guarantee, and then acted accordingly. The landlord does not dispute that it should have explored this at an earlier stage.
  9. The resident chased the landlord for an update on the roof repair on 20 November 2023. The resident said that the leak was uncontainable, the ceilings looked weak, and other damage was being caused within the property. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident, leaving the resident uncertain as to the landlord’s plan. This was both inappropriate and unreasonable.
  10. The landlord does not dispute that there were multiple occasions when it did not provide the resident with a response, or where it gave the resident incorrect or conflicting information. This was unhelpful and was likely to have caused a loss of trust. While it is accepted that the resident was in frequent contact with the landlord over the period of the complaint, the landlord should still have provided the resident with timely and comprehensive responses.
  11. The Ombudsman notes that the resident repeatedly sought reassurance from the landlord about the steps it was taking to resolve the roof leak. On the occasions that the landlord did reply, it would explain that it was looking at options. However, it did not explain what those options were or when the roof repairs would begin. The landlord’s communications were inadequate and did little to reduce the resident’s continued uncertainty and worry.
  12. The Ombudsman notes that the resident made it abundantly clear throughout almost all his correspondence with the landlord, that he was worried about the impact of the damp and mould on the health of his infant children. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. But given the considerable anxiety expressed by the resident about this, it is troubling that this was not properly addressed by the landlord until it issued the stage 2 response. The absence of any risk assessments carried out by the landlord in this case is also concerning.
  13. On 21 November 2023, the resident told the landlord that it needed to provide his family with temporary accommodation as the property was no longer habitable. In the meantime, he said the landlord should provide him with an industrial dehumidifier. A few days later, the resident sent photographs and a video evidencing the severity of the situation. On 24 November 2023, the resident said he could “hear the water running down the walls” and his carpets were wet. The resident suggested that the landlord ought to inspect the roof immediately and implement a temporary solution if it was unable to authorise a temporary move quickly.
  14. In relation to the resident’s request for a commercial dehumidifier, the landlord initially told the resident to raise a request with its insurer. However, later it issued the resident with a shopping voucher, so he could buy his own dehumidifier. This shows the landlord was trying to find a solution. However, the landlord’s offer was ill received because the resident had already explained that his domestic dehumidifier could no longer manage the damp and mould in the property. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, given the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have lent the resident a commercial dehumidifier until it had resolved the leak.
  15. In relation to the resident’s request for a temporary decant, the landlord suggested the resident explore this with its insurer, which the resident did. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord ought to have also considered signposting the resident to the local authority homelessness team, given the deterioration in the living conditions being reported by the resident.
  16. It is noted that the landlord’s insurer cancelled the resident’s insurance claim at the beginning of December 2023, after it was established that the landlord needed to progress a claim through the NHBC guarantee. As this would take time to progress, it was positive that the landlord made an exception under its letting and allocation policy and agreed to cover the costs associated with the resident moving into temporary accommodation. Nonetheless, the landlord does not dispute that its handling of the resident’s request for a temporary move fell short.
  17. Once the resident moved into temporary accommodation toward the end of December 2023, the immediate risk to the household was removed. The landlord repaired the roof and the resident was able to return to the property in March 2024. This suggests that after the resident moved out, the roof repair was progressed in a timely manner.
  18. In total, it took around 6 months from the date the landlord first became aware of the roof leak, for the roof to be repaired. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord could have completed the repair in a timelier manner, had its staff been clearer on how the matter ought to have been progressed and if there had been more coordination between the various teams involved.
  19. Overall, the Ombudsman considers the landlord’s handling of repairs to address a leak from the roof and the associated damp and mould to be inadequate. However, the Ombudsman is encouraged that the landlord used its complaint process to identify what went wrong, to apologise for identified failings, and to consider how it could put things right. The landlord recognised the distress, worry, and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of the substantive matter and showed its commitment to learning from the complaint. By way of redress, the landlord apologised and made an offer of compensation, which was in line with the landlord’s own compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
  20. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the overall sum of compensation offered by the landlord and the measures it took to address what went wrong, were proportionate to the impact caused to the resident and his family by the failings identified during this investigation. Therefore, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of repairs to address a leak from the roof and the associated damp and mould.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord had a 2-stage complaint process. The landlord aimed to acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and provide a full response within 10 working days. The landlord aimed to provide a full response at stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord would provide a detailed explanation if did not accept a complaint or it decided not to escalate it.
  2. The landlord had a compensation policy, which set out the landlord’s approach to paying compensation. For shared owners, the landlord would consider making a discretionary payment of compensation if the resident had been unable to use part of the property due to a failure in its service.
  3. The landlord sent a combined stage 1 acknowledgment and stage 1 response on 16 October 2023. While the stage 1 response was issued within expected timescales, the landlord ought to have sent the stage 1 acknowledgement prior to it issuing the stage 1 response. The landlord’s approach would have deprived the resident the opportunity to correct the landlord’s understanding of the complaint, if necessary.
  4. The landlord does not dispute that it should have considered the resident’s request for a rent refund as part of its initial complaint response. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord corrected this at stage 2.
  5. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s second complaint made on 3 November 2023 within expected timescales. This was inappropriate and would have left the resident uncertain as to how the complaint was being handled.
  6. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the resident was not significantly disadvantaged by the landlord’s decision to join the resident’s first and second complaints together. However, the landlord ought to have logged the resident’s second complaint as a new stage 1 complaint. This is because the root cause of the resident’s dissatisfaction in the second complaint was different to the first complaint, in that it related to the adequacy of subsequent communications with the landlord’s revenues team.
  7. The landlord has accepted there were delays in it responding to the resident’s requests to escalate his complaints, for which it apologised.
  8. Overall, there were failures in the landlord’s complaint handling, which were likely to have caused the resident uncertainty, inconvenience, as well as time and trouble. The landlord apologised, made a commitment to learn from the complaint, and offered compensation to put things right. Therefore, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in:
    1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to address a leak from the roof and the associated damp and mould.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should reoffer the £3,072 compensation it previously offered the resident at stage 2, if this has not already been paid to the resident.
  2. If the landlord has not already done so, the landlord should write to the resident with a summary of its findings and outcomes arising from its own case review, which it carried out following the stage 2 response. The landlord should explain how any outcomes have translated into policy or service improvement.