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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202342172)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202342172

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

13 November 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 resident’s complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould throughout the property.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s management transfer request.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident occupies her home, a 2-bedroom flat, under an assured tenancy with her 2 adult children and 2 children under 18. She had lived in the property for over 10 years. On 20 February 2024, the resident informed this Service that she has a debilitating illness and one of her children had recently been diagnosed with asthma. The landlord had recorded that she or a member of her family suffered from asthma. The note appeared to have been added in April 2024. On 27 August 2024, she reported to us that the landlord had not made reasonable adjustments but did not specify what.

Legal and policy framework

  1. Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord had an obligation to keep the property in good repair including the drains, roof, windows including decoration, internal walls excluding decorating, the plasterwork and the bath.
  2. Under Section 9a of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord has an obligation that the property is fit for human habitation in relation to freedom from damp.
  3. The landlord is expected to meet the home standard set by the Regulator of Social Housing (RSH), including that it meets the current statutory minimum standard for housing and provides a reasonable degree of thermal comfort under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The HHSRS is concerned with avoiding or minimising potential hazards, including damp.
  4. The landlord’s undated summary of its letter to the Regulator of Social Housing published on its website stated as follows:
    1. It had introduced a programme in April 2020 to “tackle the root cause of damp and mould in homes and identify any repairs needed to prevent damp and mould from returning.”
    2. It would respond to the first report of damp and mould within five working days and carry out a specialist assessment within 20 working days. Its specialist contractor would visit the home and carry out a “clean and shield”, treating the damp and mould, and make recommendations on follow up work when needed. That work would be passed onto contractors and could include improving ventilation, insulation and windows, alongside making improvements to the roof of the building. It would provide verbal and written advice to residents on managing damp and mould.
  5. The landlord’s repairs policy added as works that could be carried out: adjustments of heating controls, installation of humidity and temperature sensors, installation and/or upgrading of ventilation fans and undertaking repairs.
  6. Its website added that its contractor would identify the causes of the mould and advise on any repairs needed.

The complaint

  1. On 6 September 2023, the resident made a complaint as follows:
    1. She was complaining about repairs that had been carried out “recently” to the pipes, leaks, and other major works. No repairs had been carried out. The landlord had not got back to the resident for over a month.
    2. She requested temporary accommodation while works were carried out.
    3. The outstanding works consisted of wall cracks, wall to be reinforced, bouncy floors/shaky floors, damp and mould, rusty pipes, water leaking under the flooring, and bath leaking.
  2. On 26 January 2024, the landlord wrote with its Stage 1 response as follows:
    1. The landlord had upheld the complaint.
    2. It had been unable to find any repairs raised for the issues in the past year except for “the mould wash job” and it cited a job reference. In accordance with its complaints policy, it would not include jobs that were over one year old or had not been raised in the past year.
    3. Given images from the report of the mould wash, the works were completed and, if not, it asked for information about the location of the damp and mould. It would raise a job for an additional visit.
    4. The complaints officer remained her first point of contact and would monitor the works “as needed”.
  3. On 28 February 2024, this Service wrote to the landlord that if it had not responded to the resident’s complaint, it should do so by 6 March 2024. The landlord escalated the complaint on 5 March 2024 in response to our letter.
  4. On 20 March 2024, the landlord responded with its Stage Two response as follows:
    1. It referred to a Stage One response dated 26 September 2023 as well as that of 26 January 2024. The landlord did not provide us with the September 2023 letter.
    2. One of its surveyors had inspected her home on 21 November 2023, and raised a number of works as follows:
      1. A damp and mould contractor completed “clean and shield” works on 1 December 2023.
      2. Its asbestos contractor attended on 29 November 2023 to complete asbestos checks.
      3. Its drain contractor attended on 22 December 2023 to high pressure jet -wash and clear a drain.
      4. Its boiler contractor attended on 21 December 2023 to replace the overflow.
      5. Its building contractor attended on 19 February 2024 to complete the required wall strengthening works where the radiator had fallen off.
    3. The following works remained outstanding:
      1. The radiator was to be rehung.
      2. Rendering in areas of the hallway. The works were due to be completed on 4 April 2024.
      3. Repoint identified brickwork and repair 2 waste pipes leak in the rear courtyard.
      4. Install a “passive vent” in the front bedroom. The works were due to be completed on 23 March 2024.
      5. The landlord would confirm whether it would replace the back door.
    4. The surveyor had considered that the ceiling cracks were ‘hairline’ cracks and did not require any making good works. However, the landlord offered £150 as a contribution towards filling cracks and decorating.
    5. It also offered £120 towards decoration following the “internal” works other than to the ceiling cracks.
    6. The landlord no longer had an active transfer list. She should register with “the appropriate site and agencies”, searching for properties, bidding, and attending viewings where applicable. Another option would be an exchange. It provided the details of an exchange. It offered its helpdesk for support.
    7. The complaint was upheld. It apologised.
    8. It offered £860 consisting of £250 for the delay to the repairs, £240 for inconvenience and distress, £100 for time and effort getting the complaint resolved, and £270 as contribution to plastering over and painting the hairline ceiling cracks ceilings and “other noted decoration works”.
  5. On 21 March 2024, the landlord’s internal records noted that a “lesson learnt” was “repairs not raised”. The breakdown of the compensation stated that £240 was for “not recognising the resident’s vulnerabilities”.
  6. On 24 October 2024, the resident informed this Service that the ceiling had collapsed 4 years ago after which it had been repaired but some cracks were left. The landlord had carried out some works to fans at that time. She had reported the damp and mould every year. Each time, the landlord sent a surveyor which resulted in a mould wash. However, the mould would return. It was still present. Her kitchen window had not opened for 3 years. The landlord was due to repair or replace all the windows.

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. The repair records showed that there was a history or recurring damp and mould. The landlord’s position was that it only looked at events going back 12 months, which would have been to September 2022. The Ombudsman considers that to be an acceptable position as set out in our Complaint Handling Code. Complaint Handling Code 2024 | Housing Ombudsman Service (housing-ombudsman.org.uk) However, landlords must consider whether to apply discretion and accept complaints regarding events outside this time limit where there are good reasons to do so. This would include where the events were continuous, or past inaction had caused current issues.
  2. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman has not investigated repairs that were completed prior to September 2022, unless they are relevant to the ongoing condition of the property but will be referred to where they provide context.

The damp and mould and repairs

  1. The resident’s complaint was that all the landlord had done in relation to damp and mould was to carry out mould washes and that it did not address the underlying causes. Given the history of damp and mould, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to consider if there were any steps it could take to reduce the incidents of damp and mould such as repairs and ventilation. This is because the landlord had an obligation to keep the structure of the property in good repair, including the drains and bath, and to keep it free from damp and to maintain the standards set by the RSH. Moreover, it is good practice and in line with the landlord’s own position of taking damp and mould “very seriously”.
  2. The repairs log showed that works were carried out from 2021 to April 2023, other than mould washes, such as repairs to leaks, repairs to external drains and pipes, re-tiling the bathroom and improving the ventilation and resealing the bath, albeit there were delays.
  3. The landlord’s repair records, dating back to 2013 showed the following relevant reports from 2021 to April 2023 as follows:
    1. On 1 March 2021, the repairs log recorded there was green and black mould in the bathroom. The landlord replaced the “rotting” bath panel and a mould wash was carried out on 29 March 2021.
    2. On 19 July 2021 “very bad” mould in the bedroom was reported causing the light switch to trip. The bedroom light switch tripping electricity due to damp in the walls was repaired. The landlord wrote to the resident on 2 September 2021 stating some improvements were to be carried out following a damp and mould survey.to external parts and roofing which the repair log showed were carried out on 10 September 2021.
    3. On 11 October 2021, a job was raised to replace missing tiles, paint and reseal the bath which was causing mould in the bathroom. A complete re-tile was thought to have been “beneficial”. The works were marked as completed on 28 June 2022 and this was confirmed by an invoice from the contractors.
    4. Mould in the bathroom was noted again on 27 October 2021. A job was raised to retile the wall in order to prevent water ingress. A contractor invoice evidenced that the works were carried on or by 7 November 2022.
    5. On 27 February 2023, a job was raised to inspect the property. According to the repair log, a mould wash was carried out on 26 April 2023.
    6. An inspection was raised on 8 June 2023 and marked as completed on 12 June 2023. No jobs were raised as result.
  4. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint regarding events in the previous 12 months and acknowledged there were delays. It did not specify what delays it referred to. The lack of explanation will be addressed in more detail when investigating the landlord’s complaint handling. The Stage 1 response referred to a job reference which, according to the repair records, had been raised on 8 June 2023. The repairs log showed that the job related to an inspection by the landlord’s specialist contractor. The job was marked in the repairs log as completed on 12 June 2023 and no jobs raised as a result.
  5. Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord, or its contractor, carried out an inspection on 21 November 2023. A mould wash to the property was raised as “urgent” on 23 November 2023 and completed on 1 December 2023. It is therefore reasonable to assume the delay the landlord was acknowledging was that from June 2023 to December 2023.
  6. The report of the works included photos which were described as “paint flaking on affected walls and visible water marks on the affected bedroom walls”. The photos showed discoloration up the walls. Most of the property appeared to have been affected and the main bedroom in particular. Stains were still visible after the wash.
  7. The evidence showed that on 21 November 2023, the landlord reasonably considered, raised, and carried out further works to address the damp and mould, including as follows:
    1. ‘Drylining’ the bedroom walls, block and vents and installing a passive vent. An internal activity report showed that a contractor attended on 21 December 2023 and ordered the vent. The vent was installed on 22 March 2024. The photographs of the associated report showed extensive discolouration of the walls and what may be mould along the window frame. It was reasonable that the landlord offered the resident a contribution toward redecoration.
    2. The repairs log noted that the works referred to in the Stage 2 response have since been carried out. The resident informed us in October 2024 that the back door has been replaced. The repairs log showed that the repointing works were outstanding. The Ombudsman will make a recommendation in that regard.
  8. It is noted that, according to the resident’s report to us of October 2024, the kitchen window did not open and had not done so for the previous 3 years. This was not in the resident’s complaint, although we understand that the resident may have raised a fresh complaint regarding the windows. As a window that cannot open could prevent ventilation of the property, the Ombudsman will make a recommendation in that regard in order to support effective dispute resolution.
  9. It was not clear whether the resident reported the radiator falling off the wall prior to the complaint. While the wall appeared to have been strengthened within a reasonable period, the radiator was not refitted for several weeks. This was unreasonable, in particular as there was no hall radiator during the winter months and in the context where heating the property was an important factor in preventing the damp and mould.
  10. The evidence showed that the landlord had carried out works to prevent damp and mould, such as external works, repairs to and tiling of the bathroom. The landlord reasonably offered compensation for the delays to carrying out the mould wash from June to December 2023. The Ombudsman considers that offer of compensation for that delay reasonable, as it took account of the delay and the additional impact on the resident, as well as the unsightly staining on the walls of the property.
  11. The offer of compensation appears to have taken into account the resident’s vulnerability, though it was not expressed as such in the Stage 2 response itself. The landlord’s record of the household vulnerabilities was consistent with the resident’s report that a member of the household was diagnosed with asthma in early 2020. However, we find that the landlord’s note was insufficiently precise. The Ombudsman will make a recommendation that the landlord asks the resident for an update on the household vulnerabilities for it to assess what reasonable adjustments it should be making, including in its delivery of repairs.
  12. The resident reports that the damp and mould continue and that her son has been diagnosed with asthma which may be exacerbated by the condition of the property. The Ombudsman will therefore make a recommendation that the landlord carries out a further inspection and looks at whether there are any other steps it could take in relation to reduce the incidents of the damp and mould. The landlord is referred to its own policies and the Housing Ombudsman’s “Spotlight” report on damp and mould as to what measures the landlord should consider. Housing Ombudsman Spotlight report on damp and mould (housing-ombudsman.org.uk) and Follow up: Spotlight on damp and mould | Housing Ombudsman (housing-ombudsman.org.uk)
  13. According to the resident, the ceiling repairs had been carried out 3-4 years previously. The landlord reasonably raised a fresh inspection and diagnosed “hairline” cracks. While we cannot assess the extent of the cracks, this would likely to be normal. That is because it was not disputed that the ceiling was repaired and there was no evidence the ceiling was unsafe. We consider that the landlord’s offer of decorating vouchers in the amount of £150 to cover the cost of plastering and decoration to be a reasonable offer.
  14. However, the complaint response did not address the water leaking under the flooring or the bouncy floors. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman is not satisfied that these issues were addressed. The Ombudsman will make a recommendation that the inspection includes looking at any internal leaks and bouncy floors to ensure these issues have been addressed.
  15. While the landlord did not address all of the resident’s complaints, the evidence indicated that it responded to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. It investigated and carried out works to reduce the risk of damp and mould. The landlord recognised its delays and offered reasonable compensation. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman finds that there was reasonable redress offered which satisfactorily resolves this complaint.
  16. he resident has reported that there is a return of the damp and mould and the Ombudsman will make a recommendation accordingly.

The resident’s request for a management move due to overcrowding.

  1. On 16 June 2021, the landlord had written to the resident to state its internal transfer list had been closed and it prioritised those with a “severe and urgent need to move” and that her application for a transfer on medical grounds had been declined. It explained that while there was a “medical need” her application did not meet the threshold which was “very high” due to a shortage of social housing. It suggested an exchange.
  2. However, the landlord’s explanation was reasonable. The explanation showed that the landlord no longer has a system to offer a management move except in very serious circumstances. Those grounds set out on its website included:
    1. If the resident (or household member) was at immediate risk of violence.
    2. If a resident “has a significant medical need or disability which meant there was an immediate risk to life or if they could not access parts of their home due to a medical condition or required extra room for large scale medical equipment.
  3. There was no evidence that the resident’s circumstances fitted either of those criteria. She had been assessed in 2021 and it remains open to her to apply to be re-assessed if she considers that her circumstances have changed and that she may meet the current required criteria.
  4. The landlord reasonably signposted the resident to support, to applying for an exchange and to applying on the housing register of the local authority. However, its signposting was vague, and we will refer to this when investigating the landlord’s complaint handling. In the circumstances, while we note the resident’s home is overcrowded, and this will severely impact the family, we do not attribute blame to the landlord and we do not find there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request.

Complaint handling

  1. There was no evidence of a response to the resident’s complaint of 6 September 2023 until the Stage 1 response of January 2024 other than a reference to a response of 26 September 2023 that we was not provided to us. This was a significant delay to the landlord’s Stage 1 response. The delay was not acknowledged. However, the landlord had acted in the meantime, although there was a delay, by raising an inspection that took place in November 2023.
  2. There was no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident by phone when she requested to escalate her complaint as set out by the landlord’s complaint handling policy. This stated that “The Stage 1 case owner should urgently discuss the outstanding issues with the customer and try to resolve the complaint if that is possible – this is to prevent delays and unnecessary effort by the customer.” The internal records relating to the complaint did not demonstrate that the landlord recorded “all records connected with the complaint” on its case management system, as required by its policy. The Stage 1 decision did not provide timescales. While there was an internal note, neither Stage response set out what it had learnt from the complaint and any changes implemented. This was inappropriate.
  3. While it was positive it upheld the complaint, the Stage 1 complaint response did not explain why the complaint was upheld. We therefore investigated the repair records in order to understand what had occurred. The landlord did not consider offering compensation until the resident had escalated the complaint.
  4. While not its principal role, but as part of seeking a resolution for the resident, the landlord should have been more detailed and clearer when signposting the resident to the local authority. It was not reasonable to have expected her to understand that the landlord was referring her to the local authority based on what it had said. As has been noted, the complaint response did not address the resident’s complaint in full. While there was no evidence a decant was needed, it did not address her request that she be decanted.
  5. While the landlord recognised the delay in acting on the resident’s reports in June 2023, there were several failures in the landlord’s complaint handling. This delayed resolution and would have been frustrating for the resident. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to its complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s view, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to the resident’s reports of damp and mould throughout the property.
  2. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s management transfer request.
  3. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
    1. Within 4 weeks the landlord should pay the resident sum of £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in its complaint handling.
    2. In July 2023, the Ombudsman published a special investigation report regarding this landlord, which included a number of recommendations for improvement around its handling of complaints. The landlord is asked to consider any further learning from this complaint and any additional steps it can take to support improvement and to advise the Ombudsman of its findings within 10 weeks.
  2. The landlord should confirm compliance with the above orders within 4 and 10 weeks respectively.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
    1. If the works have not been carried out, the landlord should update the resident in relation to the repointing of the brickwork and provide a timescale within 2 weeks.
    2. Within 2 weeks, the landlord should contact the resident to check details of any current concerns regarding her windows, leaks, damp and mould and then arrange inspection or works as needed carry out a property inspection including:
      1. Inspecting the kitchen window and make any necessary arrangements for repairs. Windows may be due to be replaced under major works but any repair should be carried out within a reasonable period.
      2. Inspect for any internal leaks.
      3. Look at whether there are any other steps the landlord could take in relation to reduce the incidents of the damp and mould.
    3. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should speak to the resident to discuss her household circumstances, consider how its service should take account of those circumstances, whether to make any reasonable adjustments, including in its delivery of repairs and record this centrally accordingly. The landlord should provide a copy or screen shot of that record to the resident
  2. The landlord should feedback on the above recommendations to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.