London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202329496)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202329496

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

20 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:
1. Reports of leaks, damp and mould and a subsequent pest infestation.
2. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a flat in a building comprised of similar properties. The resident lives in the property with her husband and 2 children. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the household.
The property has 2 bathrooms, one of which is an en-suite from the main bedroom.
In August 2022, the resident reported issues with damp and mould to the main bathroom. The landlord inspected the bathroom on 1 September 2022 and identified follow-on work to the grout on the bathroom tiles. The landlord completed the tiling work on 25 October 2022.
On 14 December 2022, the resident made further reports of damp and mould to her bathroom and in the communal hallway on the 1st floor. The landlord completed a further inspection on 14 February 2023 and treated the affected areas in the bathroom and hallway. It is unclear if the landlord identified any further works during this visit.
On 20 April 2023, the resident called the landlord to chase up what further actions it was taking to address the damp and mould. It is unclear what actions the landlord took after this call.
On 10 August 2023, the landlord logged, acknowledged, and responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. The landlord apologised for the issues and said that it raised a new repair to investigate any leaks and to check the damp and mould.
On 15 August 2023, the resident emailed the landlord and said that contractors had previously told her that some of the leaks may have contained human waste. She also said that the bathroom floor was holding water.
On 17 August 2023, the landlord completed a new inspection of the property following the resident’s complaint. During this visit the landlord identified the leak was coming from the shower in the flat above and that it had spread to other parts of the building, including the communal hallway. The landlord appears to have repaired the leak to the flat above on 18 August 2023.
At around this time, the landlord temporarily moved the resident into a hotel whilst it completed the works to the property for approximately 6 weeks.
On 11 September 2023, landlord logged a new repair for a leaking soil stack which ran through the resident’s en-suite bathroom. Human waste had leaked onto the walls behind the plaster board where the stack was located. This caused smells in the property and an infestation of drainage flies.
Throughout September 2023 the resident exchanged emails with the landlord whilst she was decanted (temporarily moved) in the hotel. She asked the landlord for information about the works being completed and for carpets to be cleaned. The landlord said that all required works would be completed on 22 September 2023. The resident moved back to the property on 27 September 2023.
When the resident moved back to the property, she told the landlord about an infestation of drainage flies in the property and ongoing damp and mould in the communal areas. The resident also told the landlord about the impact the situation was having on the health of her family. The landlord arranged for a pest control contractor to visit on 10 October 2023 and for the communal areas to be checked and treated on 11 October 2023.
The pest control contractor attended on 10 October 2023 and treated the affected areas. The contractor’s notes said the source of the damp and mould should be resolved otherwise the infestation would return.
On 16 October 2023, the resident emailed the landlord. She said there was a continuing smell from the en-suite bathroom, and she had been unable to sleep in the bedroom as a result. The resident also said she had not received the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response and asked for it to formally respond.
The landlord completed a new damp inspection of the affected communal areas and the resident’s individual property on 9 February 2024. The landlord appears to have completed a further mould treatment to the affected areas.
On 12 February 2024, the resident emailed the Housing Ombudsman and said she had not received the landlord’s final response to her complaints from August 2023. On 20 February 2024, this service emailed the landlord requesting it issued its stage 2 response by 12 March 2024.
On 12 March 2024, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord recognised it got things wrong and offered the resident a total of £1445.89 in compensation. This was comprised of:
1. £500 as a gesture of goodwill for service failures
2. £455.89 due to the loss of use of a room because of the infestation
3. £360 for distress and inconvenience
4. £130 for the delays in issuing its stage 2 complaint response
5. The landlord also provided the resident with information about its liability insurance procedure in view of the resident’s concerns about the impact on her health.
In her complaint to this service, the resident said the property is still impacted by smells of human waste and she is unable to sleep in the bedroom. The resident is seeking increased compensation from the landlord and for it to fully resolve the smells and outstanding repairs in the property. The resident has also asked to be refunded her rent payments for the time period she was in temporary accommodation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

This investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports from August 2022. This is when the resident first told the landlord about issues with damp and mould in her property. It will consider how the landlord responded to her reports of damp, mould and leaks and how it formally replied to her through its complaints procedure. We will also consider what actions the landlord took in its attempt to resolve the resident’s complaint.
During the period of the complaint, the resident says the condition of her home impacted both her and her family’s health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about this. It is widely accepted that damp and mould can have a negative impact on health. It is outside the Ombudsman’s role to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can we calculate or award damages for damage to health. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim to the landlord’s liability insurer. This is explained in paragraph 42.f of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, available on our website.
It was appropriate for the landlord to refer the resident to its liability insurer if she wished to pursue a personal injury claim. It is outside the Housing Ombudsman’s remit to comment on the actions of insurers as we can only investigate the actions of social landlords. Therefore, we cannot comment on the outcome of a liability claim if one is made. However, we will consider any distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced because of any failings by the landlord. We will also consider the way in which the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about her family’s health.
In her correspondence with this service, the resident has raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of queries about her service charges. In accordance with paragraph 42.c of the Scheme, the Housing Ombudsman is unable to investigate matters which have not been brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint. If the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her service charge queries the resident should first raise a complaint at stage 1 of the landlord’s complaints procedure. If she remains dissatisfied after the landlord’s final complaint response, she may be able to bring a new case to this service. A recommendation has, however, been made for the landlord to follow up on this and respond to the resident’s concerns about the service charge.

Policies, procedures and legislation

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in a good state of repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
The landlord’s repairs policy says it is responsible for the structure and exterior of its homes. This includes fixtures and fittings for water, gas, electricity, heating, and sanitation. The repairs policy also provides information about when the landlord will deal with pest infestations. It says that if the resident has been unable to resolve a pest infestation, the landlord will address it.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy outlines its approach to responding to and handling reports of damp and mould within its properties. The policy says that the landlord will first establish if an immediate repair is needed, because of a leak, and will follow its repairs policy. The landlord also says it will assess its properties within 20 working days to understand the scale of the problem and identify potential underlying causes of the damp and mould. The landlord said any remedial works it identifies should be raised within 10 working days of the assessment.

The landlord’s handling of the leaks, damp, and mould

When the resident first reported issues with damp and mould in August 2022, the landlord’s initial response was reasonable. It promptly inspected the issue and arranged for follow-up work to be completed to the bathroom tiles in October 2022. This was both fair and in accordance with its procedures.
Between December 2022 and July 2023, the resident made further reports of issues with damp and mould in both her property and the communal hallway. The landlord logged inspections in response to this and treated the affected areas with anti-mould paint. However, the landlord did not appear to identify what may have been causing the damp and mould in both the resident’s individual property and in the communal areas. The landlord missed these early opportunities to investigate the potential root cause of the damp and mould. This goes against what the landlord says it will do in its damp and mould policy where it says any underlying causes of damp and mould will be identified during its inspection and the appropriate follow-on work raised within 10 days.
When the resident raised her stage 1 complaint about the damp and mould, the landlord inspected the property on 17 August 2023. It determined the cause of damp and mould – in both the flat and the communal area – was due to a leak from the shower in the flat above. The landlord fixed the leak by 18 August 2023. It was reasonable for the landlord to take prompt action once it became aware of the cause, however, it had an opportunity to identify this sooner as explained above.
The landlord decanted (temporarily moved) the resident into a hotel whilst it resolved the leak to her property in August 2023. It was reasonable for the landlord to offer a decant whilst it completed the repairs. It remains unclear which specific date the resident was moved from the property based on the evidence seen by this service, although it appears that she moved back to the property on 27 September 2023. The evidence indicates the resident was decanted for around a total of 6 weeks.
When the resident was in temporary accommodation she exchanged emails with the landlord about the condition in the property. The resident said she visited the property to collect some items on 18 September 2023 and said it was in a poor condition. The resident asked for clarification when all the repairs were going to be completed and if the carpets in the communal area were going to be cleaned. The landlord said all repairs would be completed by 22 September 2023, and it arranged for the carpets to be cleaned. The resident visited the property on the 26 September 2023 and told the landlord that the carpets to the communal hallway had not been cleaned. The landlord said the carpets had been cleaned, escalated this with its contractor, and confirmed the resident could return to the property. Although it was reasonable for the landlord to arrive at this conclusion, based on the information it had received from its contractors, it failed to fully resolve the issues before she moved back home. This was unreasonable and further compounded the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
The resident has said she should be refunded in full for the rent paid whilst she was decanted. Although we understand the resident’s reasoning for this, the Ombudsman would not order a landlord to refund rent whilst a resident is temporarily decanted. This is because the landlord covered the costs for the hotel placement. If there was documentary evidence which shows the landlord charged the resident for the time spent in the hotel, then the Ombudsman may consider ordering the landlord to reimburse the resident’s costs as it would be unreasonable to expect a resident to pay for the use of a hotel and their own property at the same time. However, there we have not seen any evidence which suggests the landlord did not pay for the hotel placement.

Sewage leak and pest infestation

When the resident moved back to the property on 27 September 2023 she told the landlord about an infestation of drainage flies in the property as a result of the waste leak from the soil stack. In response, the landlord arranged for a pest control contractor to visit the property and treat the area. The contractor’s notes suggested that the infestation would not fully clear until the underlying damp and mould was resolved in the property. It is unclear if the landlord considered this information from its contractor or followed it up any further. It was reasonable of the landlord to offer a pest control visit in view of the resident’s concerns and in accordance with its policies. However, the landlord had an opportunity here to consider the underlying cause of the damp and mould and liaise with the resident about the impact. It did not appear to do so and this was therefore unreasonable.
Internal emails and repairs logs seen by this service, indicates that the landlord was aware of problems with the soil stack on 11 September 2023, because this was when it logged an emergency repair for the soil stack. This was prior to the resident returning to the property. Whilst the landlord appears to have repaired the soil stack at this time, it had an opportunity here to ensure that when the resident returned to the property the issue was fully resolved. The landlord failed to do so and the issue continued to impact the resident upon her return home. Although it was reasonable for the landlord to repair the soil stack, it appears the repair was not adequate. This led to an infestation and continued smells in the property which the landlord should have investigated further, completing additional repairs as required until the issues were fully resolved.
On 16 October 2023, the resident emailed the landlord and said the smell in the en-suite bathroom was still present and she had been unable to use the bathroom or sleep in the bedroom as a result. In response, the landlord appears to have logged a visit for its plumbing contractors to check for ongoing leaks. This visit took place on 27 October 2023, and the notes from this visit shows that the leak had already been repaired but the infestation of drainage flies remained to be the issue. Again, it is unclear what the landlord did with this information and what further steps the landlord took to resolve the infestation. On 6 November 2023, the resident emailed the landlord and asked for it to visit and fully assess the property. It appears the landlord did not respond to this. It was unreasonable for the landlord to not respond to the resident’s concerns and requests for a visit. The landlord missed another opportunity to review the situation and assess the ongoing the impact the situation was having on the resident. This may have further eroded her confidence in the landlord.
At various points in her communications with the landlord, the resident raised concerns about the impact of the situation on the health of her family. The resident said she and her children were coughing due to the smells in the property. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord considered this or explored whether repairs may need prioritising. This was unreasonable. Although, as explained above, it was reasonable for the landlord to refer the resident to its liability insurer. However, it could have done this sooner.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 21 February 2024 as part of its stage 2 complaints investigation. During this call, the resident told the landlord about a new leak from the communal water meter cupboard. The landlord emailed the resident on 6 March 2024 confirming the leak from the water meter cupboard had been fixed and that it would revisit to do additional cleaning once the area had dried off. However, it remains unclear if the further follow-up visit was completed based on the evidence seen by this service. The resident has also said that no further remedial work has been completed in the communal area following the leak. The lack of ownership by the landlord in ensuring the situation was fully resolved in the communal areas and its failure in keeping the resident up to date was unreasonable and would have caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident.
When the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response, it recognised it got things wrong. It offered a total of £1445.89 in compensation, as summarised above. At the time the stage 2 response was issued, the compensation was reasonable for the impact on the resident and her family up to that date. This is because the landlord’s offer was in line with the amounts set out in the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (available on our website) which sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. The impact on the resident was significant at the time, and the landlord’s failures exacerbated the situation for the resident. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to consider financial compensation at this level.
However, since then the resident has said that works to the communal area are still outstanding and the smell in her property continues to prevent her from fully using the bedroom and en-suite. The resident repeatedly raised her concerns, and the landlord failed to respond. It would have been distressing for the resident to feel that the landlord was not hearing her concerns and that no progress was being made to resolve the issues in the property. In her correspondence with this service in November 2024, the resident has said the property still smells and she has now resorted to sleeping in the living room, which suggests the situation may have worsened. This service therefore makes a finding of maladministration with regards to the landlord’s handling of the leaks, damp and mould and the subsequent pest infestation.
We consider that additional financial compensation is appropriate to remedy the continued distress, inconvenience and impact on the resident and her family from March 2024 onwards. The landlord is therefore ordered to pay the following compensation:
1. An additional £200 for the continued distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident due to the delayed communal repairs and investigation into the smell within the property after the landlord’s final response.
2. An additional £800 due to the resident’s loss of use of her bedroom and en-suite and continued smells in the property. This has been calculated at an additional £100 per month from April 2024 to November 2024, following the landlord issuing its stage 2 complaint response in March 2024.
The amount ordered is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, as referenced above.
The landlord is also ordered to write an apology letter to the resident for the failures identified in this report. In the letter, the landlord should set out its plans to arrange a new survey of the property and the communal areas to identify any further remedial works which may be needed. The landlord should also arrange a new deep clean of the resident’s property, paying particular attention to the areas affected by the sewage leak.
In her correspondence with this service, the resident has said she is vulnerable and is currently awaiting surgery. In view of this information, it is also recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to consider her circumstances and update its records with details of any vulnerabilities within the household which may affect the landlord’s delivery of its services.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. At stage 1, the landlord says it will respond to complaints within 10 working days. At stage 2, the landlord says it will respond within 20 working days of the resident’s escalation request. At both stages, it says it may extend by an additional 10 working days but would notify the resident for the reasons why.
Although the landlord has provided a copy of the resident’s request to raise a complaint at stage 1, it is unclear based on the evidence provided to this service what date the resident made a formal stage 1 complaint. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said this was logged on 10 August 2023. The landlord also responded to the stage 1 complaint on 10 August 2023.
Based on the evidence seen by this service, it is clear the resident requested for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process on 16 October 2023. However, the landlord failed to issue its stage 2 complaint response until 12 March 2024, following an intervention by the Ombudsman. There was an 83 working day delay by the landlord in issuing its stage 2 complaint response. This was unreasonable and unnecessarily delayed the resident to bring her case to this service. It may have also been distressing for the resident and it could have led her to feel that the landlord was not taking her complaints seriously.
However, the landlord recognised it got this wrong. When it issued the stage 2 complaint response it offered the resident £130 of compensation for the way it handled her complaint and the delays in recognising her request to escalate. Although this service recognises and understands the resident’s frustration with how the landlord handled her complaint, the compensation the landlord offered was in accordance with its compensation policy and in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The landlord recognised the failing and made a proportionate offer of compensation for the way it handled her complaint. This service therefore makes a determination that there has been reasonable redress with regards to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord with regards to its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp, mould and the subsequent pest infestation.
In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of compensation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint handling element satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 6 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident an additional £200 in compensation for the continued distress, inconvenience and impact of the situation on her.
2. Pay the resident an additional £800 for the loss of continued use of the bedroom from March 2024 onwards.
3. Complete a survey of the resident’s individual property and the communal areas, ensuring consideration is given to the resident’s historical reports of leaks, damp and mould.
  1. The landlord should share a copy of the survey report with both the resident and the Ombudsman and confirm a timeline of remedial works, where identified.
4. Complete a deep clean of the resident’s property and the affected communal areas, paying particular attention to the areas affected by the sewage leak.
Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write an apology letter to the resident in acknowledgement of the failures identified in this report and setting out the actions it intends to take relating to the orders outlined above.
  1. In writing the apology, the landlord should consider the Housing Ombudsman’s apologies guidance, available on our website.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to provide her with an opportunity to raise a formal complaint about her service charges, should she still wish to do so.
It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to update its medical information for her household (if she consents to this) with details of any vulnerabilities which may affect the landlord’s delivery of its services.