London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202330174)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202330174

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

1. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
   2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The resident lives with their baby. The property is a 1-bedroom basement flat. The landlord is a housing association. The tenancy began in April 2018.
3. On 27 September 2023 the resident called the landlord to make a stage 1 complaint. They were unhappy that they had been reporting issues with damp and mould since 2018. They stated the landlord had repeatedly inspected the property and said it would make repairs, but that no repairs have taken place.
4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response the next day (28 September 2023). It advised it could only look back one year when investigating a complaint. It explained:
   1. It had raised a works order on 7 September 2022 for a property inspection. Following the inspection, a contractor had provided a quote for the required repairs on 12 October 2022.
   2. It had approved the quote on 4 January 2023.
   3. It had spoken to the surveyor for the resident’s area and the direct maintenance team who had advised they were looking into the ongoing matters.

The landlord did not offer any compensation but stated it would review this once it had completed the needed repairs.

5. The landlord contacted the resident on 29 September 2023 to advise that it had arranged a property inspection for 5 October 2023.
6. On 7 October 2023 the resident escalated their complaint to stage 2 of the complaints procedure. They said:
   1. They were disappointed the landlord would only look back 1 year when considering the complaint. They said the repairs raised in 2018 were the same repairs that remained outstanding.
   2. They appreciated the efforts to arrange the inspection on 5 October 2023, but they had now had 4 surveyors visit over the last 5 and a half years. They felt these inspections were insufficient to ensure the required repairs took place.
   3. Previous contractors had told them that the landlord would need to move them out of the property while the repairs took place.
   4. The landlord had promised the repairs would have begun by January 2023, but this had not happened.
   5. They were very concerned about the ongoing impact of the damp and mould on their and their baby’s health.
   6. Delays in completing the repairs had resulted in a deterioration in the property, their health, and their belongings.
7. The landlord issued its final response on 27 November 2023. It said:
   1. It had reviewed the report from the contractor who had inspected the property in 2022. This had identified multiple issues that needed addressing, but it had been necessary to inspect the property again. This inspection took place on 5 October 2023.
   2. It had raised 3 orders to cover the required repairs. it had assigned a contractor to complete the repairs, but it was waiting for its panel to approve the quote.
   3. Its complaint policy only allowed it to make an assessment from the date it had logged a complaint and generally only go back as far as 1 year. It explained it did take into consideration historic cases and investigated accordingly.
   4. It did not consider it would be unsafe for the resident and their baby to remain in the property while the repairs took place.
   5. The resident should make any claims for personal injury or damage to personal property to its insurer.
   6. It apologised for the service the resident had received and offered £1,020 in compensation. This comprised:
      1. £320 for 8 months inconvenience.
      2. £240 for 6 months distress.
      3. £200 for the resident’s time and effort.
      4. £100 for service failure.
      5. £100 for lack of communication.
      6. £60 for the delay in issuing its final response.

Events after the end of the complaints procedure

8. The resident contacted this service on 9 May 2024 to advise the repairs had not yet taken place.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

9. The resident has made it clear that they consider the matters raised in their complaint have been ongoing since 2018.
10. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made.
11. However, in this case, the available evidence indicates the damp and mould issue had been a consistent matter that the resident had been trying to resolve as a service request since 2018. Taking this into account, while this investigation has mainly focussed on the period from September 2022 onwards (as this is the period the landlord investigated during its complaint handling), we will review and refer to earlier events where it is considered relevant to do so.

The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould

12. The Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should deal with reports of damp and mould can be found on our website.
13. The landlord’s repair policy confirms it is responsible for the structure and exterior of its tenanted properties. It is also responsible for repairs to penetrative and rising damp internal to the property. The repair policy does not set out specific timescales for repairs.
14. The landlord has supplied a copy of a repair report for the resident’s property. This is a list of work orders which, for each order, indicates the date the landlord raised it, the status, the date the landlord completed it, and a brief description.
15. The repair report confirms that the landlord raised an order in September 2022 to inspect the resident’s property for rising and penetrating damp to wall and ceiling areas. The landlord has not provided a copy of the inspection report. However, its internal emails do indicate the report identified:
    1. Issues around external steps.
    2. Possible plumbing leaks.
    3. Condensation and ventilation fans not operating.
    4. High ground levels.
16. There does not appear to be any dispute that the contractor who inspected the property submitted a quote for repairs in October 2022 and that the landlord approved the quote in January 2023. There has been no explanation provided for why the landlord did not, or could not, approve the quote sooner. The Ombudsman therefore considers this was an undue delay by the landlord.
17. The resident has stated that, following the September 2022 inspection, the contractor told them the landlord would need to move them to temporary accommodation while the repairs took place. The available evidence confirms the landlord was aware of the contractor’s recommendation. While there is evidence that there was some internal consideration of whether to grant this request, the landlord has not provided any evidence to explain what factors it had considered or if it had reached a final decision before the resident submitted their complaint on 27 September 2023. On this basis, the Ombudsman cannot conclude that the landlord’s actions were appropriate or reasonable.
18. The failure in the handling of the request to temporarily move the resident appears to have prevented the contractor from completing the required repairs. This was a further undue delay by the landlord.
19. The landlord did not provide a clear explanation about why it was necessary to inspect the property again in October 2023. It appears that between January 2023 and October 2023 the landlord had stopped working with the contractor who had done the September 2022 inspection. However, it is unclear why the landlord could not assign the already approved repairs to a new contractor. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided an explanation for its decision to the resident.
20. The landlord has provided a copy of the inspection report from 5 October 2023, as well as details of the identified repairs. The issues identified in the inspection report appear to be substantially similar to the issues the landlord had said were identified by the September 2022 inspection. The issues also appear to include the same matters that are present in repair orders raised from 2018 onwards.
21. The landlord’s repair report indicates it was aware in 2018 that there were issues with damp and mould. The description of an order raised on 27 June 2018 refers to an external staircase above the resident’s kitchen that was broken and allowing water to enter the property when it rained. The landlord raised an order on 19 December 2018 to inspect damp and mould in the kitchen and noted an outside crack on the external wall which was allowing damp to spread in the kitchen and hallway.
22. There are further orders between 2018 and the date of the resident’s complaint which refer to possible water ingress from damage to external stairs and/or walls. These orders, and others, also indicate damp within the walls and ceiling of the kitchen and hallway, as well as mould throughout the property.
23. Having considered the available evidence, the Ombudsman considers it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord had been aware of the need to complete repairs to the resident’s property since 2018. While the repair records suggest inspections and some minor works may have been completed between 2018 to 2023, there is no evidence to demonstrate that the landlord took appropriate steps to remedy the substantial repair issues. This was a serious failing by the landlord.
24. The landlord had been carrying out regular mould washes of the property. The resident has confirmed these took place approximately twice a year. It appears these were part of the landlord’s Healthy Homes programme, which started in March 2020. Assisting the resident through this programme was a reasonable step for the landlord to take.
25. The landlord’s website indicates that the Healthy Homes Programme will identify the causes of the mould and advise on any repairs necessary. It states the landlord will focus on the root cause of the problem and carry out any repairs needed to prevent the damp and mould reoccurring. The landlord’s repair report does demonstrate that, in 2020 and 2021, it had raised orders for repairs identified following visits by the Healthy Homes contractor. However, it is unclear if these repairs were complete. Even if it were assumed the landlord had completed the repairs, the damp and mould issues persisted. On this basis, the Ombudsman cannot reasonably conclude the landlord had been focused on the root cause of the damp and mould or carried out the repairs needed to prevent reoccurrence.
26. The resident has provided this service with photographs showing the extent of the damp and mould issues within the property. These indicate a substantial growth of black mould on walls and ceilings, as well as mould growth on the resident’s belongings. The landlord also provided copies of these photographs to this service. While the photographs are undated, the landlord’s evidence indicates the resident had provided it with photographs in July 2022 and as part of their stage 2 escalation on 7 October 2023. The Ombudsman is therefore satisfied the landlord had seen the photographs and had been given an opportunity to consider them.
27. There is no evidence that the landlord had, at any point, treated the resident’s repairs or concerns as an urgent matter. This was neither appropriate nor reasonable. In particular, the Ombudsman would have expected a review of the photographs or the resident’s notification that they were pregnant (and later that they had given birth) to have been a trigger for the landlord to take urgent action.
28. Since March 2020 landlords have been required, under section 9A of the Landlord and Tenancy Act 1985, to ensure that properties remain fit for human habitation during a tenancy. This obligation applies to most types of tenancy. Given the nature of the matters raised by the resident the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have satisfied itself that the property was, and remained, fit for human habitation. The landlord has not provided any evidence to demonstrate that it has either done this or that it considers the obligation under section 9A does not apply. This is a failure by the landlord.
29. The landlord’s repair report shows the orders raised following the October 2023 inspection are still outstanding. This supports the resident’s notification to this service that, as of 9 May 2024, the required repairs had not been completed.

Summary and conclusions

30. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion, having considered all the circumstances, that there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports of damp and mould. This is because:
    1. The available evidence indicates the landlord did not act appropriately or reasonably in its handling of the reported matters.
    2. The landlord had been aware of the need to repair the property since 2018 but had not completed a suitable and lasting repair in the intervening period.
    3. There were undue and unexplained delays caused by the landlord.
    4. There is no indication the landlord considered the resident’s concerns as urgent, despite evidence suggesting that it would be reasonable to do so.
    5. There is insufficient evidence the landlord took all reasonable steps to meet its obligations under section 9A of the Landlord and Tenancy Act 1985.
31. The landlord’s failures have meant the damp and mould issues have remained unresolved for 6 years. This has led to the resident, and their newborn child, having to live in unsuitable conditions.

Redress

32. The landlord’s offered compensation only covers distress and inconvenience for a period of 6 and 8 months, respectively. This is not appropriate as it does not fully recognise or address the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failures.
33. The Ombudsman considers it would be appropriate for the landlord to provide compensation covering the full period during which there have been failures. This would be from 27 June 2018 to the date of this determination (a period of 72 months).
34. The resident made the landlord aware that the damp and mould issues had meant they were unable to use their kitchen for more than short periods and this had limited their access to necessities like washing and cooking. On this basis and considering the findings above, in the Ombudsman’s view it is reasonable to conclude the resident had a loss of their kitchen for the period from June 2018 to the date of this determination.
35. The Ombudsman has calculated that, for the period from 27 June 2018 to the date of this determination, compensation based on 25% of the rent paid by the resident would be £8,440.14. The Ombudsman has calculated this figure using:
    1. For 27 June 2018 to 31 March 2019, the rent value provided within the resident’s tenancy agreement (signed in April 2018).
    2. For 1 April 2019 to 31 March 2023, the average rent for the area.
    3. For 1 April 2023 to the date of this determination, the resident’s actual rent as provided by the landlord.
36. This compensation represents fair compensation based on the time the resident was without a kitchen. In addition to this, the landlord should pay the resident £1,200 for the distress and inconvenience caused.

The landlord’s complaint handling

37. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the ‘Code’) states that landlords should resolve complaints at the earliest possible opportunity, having assessed what evidence is needed to fully consider the issues, what outcome resolve the matter for the resident, and whether there were any urgent actions required.
38. The landlord’s complaint policy states, at stage 1, it will investigate all elements of the complaint. Its written decision will explain the outcome of the investigation, how it intends to resolve the complaint and the timescales. At stage 2 it will carry out a review of the complaint.
39. The landlord’s complaint policy includes response timescales that are in line with the requirements of the Code.
40. The landlord only took one day to issue its stage 1 response. There is no evidence that the landlord did any significant assessment or investigation of the raised matters before issuing the response. Its only action was to send an internal email to request clarification on the ongoing repair orders. The stage 1 response was then issued after its surveyor responded to state they were looking into the matters. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with the landlord’s policy or the provisions of the code.
41. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have waited for a response to its request for clarification. In this case, the surveyor responded the following day and advised an inspection of the resident’s property would be taking place within the 10-working day period allowed for a stage 1 investigation. The landlord therefore could have delayed its response until the inspection had taken place. This would have also allowed time for it to investigate the previous handling of the resident’s reports. It could then have issued a response which clearly explained what had taken place previously as well as the new repairs the landlord had identified, as well as estimated timescales for it to complete the repairs.
42. The landlord’s final response was issued 35 working days after the resident had escalated this complaint. This was outside the timescales in the landlord’s complaint policy and the Code. However, the landlord did acknowledge in its final response that there had been a delay. There is also evidence that it had contacted the resident during the stage 2 handling to advise there would be a delay. Both actions were reasonable ones for the landlord to take.
43. The final response did not provide any timescales for when it expected to complete the repairs it had identified, or for when it expected its panel to decide whether the quote would be accepted. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided this information to allow the resident to hold it to account if it failed to meet either deadline. This was particularly relevant in this case as the resident’s complaint was about the landlord’s failure to take actions it said it would do.
44. For the reasons set out above, the Ombudsman considers there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
45. The landlord offered £60 in compensation for the delay in issuing the final response. The Ombudsman does not consider this is an appropriate figure to address the landlord’s failures.

Determination

46. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there has been severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
47. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

48. The landlord must within 56 days of the date of this determination:
    1. Use its best endeavours to ensure that the repairs identified by its inspection of 5 October 2023 and referred to in its final complaint response are carried out. The landlord must create and maintain records to demonstrate to the Ombudsman what endeavours it has taken to have the works completed.
    2. Review its previous decision to not move the resident to temporary accommodation while the repairs are taking place. It must demonstrate it has contacted the resident to allow them to provide any relevant information. It must provide the resident and this service with confirmation of its decision and an explanation of the factors it considered.
    3. If the landlord is unable to complete the works within this period it must agree on a time-specific action plan with the resident for any outstanding works.
49. The landlord must within 28 days of the date of this determination:
    1. Provide the resident with an apology for the failings outlined in this report. This written apology must be from the landlord’s Chief Executive.

2. Pay the resident compensation of £9,880.14 compensation for the loss of use of the kitchen, the distress and inconvenience caused and time and trouble of having to raise a complaint. This is comprised of 25% of rent for the loss of use of the kitchen for the total period the matters remained outstanding as follows:

50. This above compensation awards replace any offers made to date by the landlord through its internal complaints process. The landlord is entitled to offset against these sums any payments already made to the resident. All payments must be paid directly to the resident and not credited to the rent account unless otherwise agreed by the resident.
51. In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord must, within 84 days of the date of this determination, undertake a management review of this case. The review should be presented to its senior leadership team and shared with the Ombudsman. This review must identify:
    1. The cause of the delays in dealing with the resident’s reports and completing repairs. If appropriate, the review should make recommendations how similar delays could be avoided in the future.
    2. Whether there were any missed opportunities for earlier resolution of the resident’s issues. The review should, if relevant, make recommendations for how any missed opportunities could be prevented in similar future cases.
    3. If there have been any recent service improvements, including any following the Ombudsman’s special report, which should avoid a similar outcome occurring in the future.
    4. What it could do to encourage positive behaviours and prevent the same failures from occurring in future.
    5. Consideration of whether more training is required for staff to address the failures identified in this report or implement any recommendations reached by the review.