London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202343786)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202343786

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

13 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:
1. Handling of the repairs to the property.
2. Handling of damp and mould and subsequent repairs.
3. Handling of the resident’s report of damage to her personal belongings.
4. Complaint handling.
This report has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident has held an assured tenancy since 2014. The property is a 2-bedroom house where the resident lives with her children, all under the age of 18. There are vulnerabilities within the household which the landlord was aware of. One of the resident’s children has allergies and a breathing condition.
The resident complained to the landlord on 3 April 2023. She said:
1. There was damp and mould in her property.
2. Her personal belongings have been damaged as a result.
3. There was outstandings repairs:
  1. a kitchen door needed to be rehung.
  2. a bathroom window sill needed to be replaced.
  3. the guttering needed to be replaced and the drains checked.
  4. the kitchen splash back needed to be replaced.
The next day the landlord sent a stage 1 response. It said:
1. It had already undertaken a damp and mould repair where it attended and completed removal of the mould and sealing to prevent further mould.
2. It would get a quote approved to replace the sill with a new plastic one.
3. It had arranged an appointment to look at the kitchen sealant around the worktops and the kitchen sink. It considered a backsplash would be classed as a home improvement and this would need to be self-funded by the resident.
4. There was no repair log about the kitchen door being reinstated. If the door was removed by the resident, it would be her responsibility to rehang the door.
5. An appointment was made for the replacement of a section of guttering and to clear all outlets to the balcony.
6. The resident needed to claim or her own insurance or write to the landlord’s insurance team about the damage to her personal belongings.
On 4 April 2024 the resident responded to the landlord’s stage 1. She said:
1. The contractor had conducted a damp and mould survey of the property. The workmen did not enter the flat to see the damage but took photographs of the outside wall. The guttering was faulty and rain runs down the side wall. This was causing severe damp and mould on the inside wall in the children’s bedroom.
2. Generally, the damp and mould contractors attend her property 2-3 times a year.
3. The windowsill has not been replaced.
4. She said she had asked if the bath could be changed to a shower.
5. The appointment to point the loose rear guttering pipe kept being rearranged and had now been combined with another repair.
6. The kitchen backsplash had not been completed.
7. The kitchen door had not been in place for many years.
On the same day the landlord responded to the resident. It said:
1. It had re-raised the windowsill repair.
2. It explained it would speak to a surveyor about the bath issue but it would be something it would not be able to assist with.
3. It wanted to check whether any of following repairs (the flashing, gutter section replaced and outlet had been cleared) had been completed.
On 23 May 2023 the landlord told the resident it had raised works for a kitchen fire door to be fitted on 28 June 2023. It offered the resident £150 as a good will gesture.
The resident responded the same day and said the damp and mould treatment had not been a permanent repair and the black mould had returned to her property. She said the children’s bedroom wall was damp and damaged. She explained that she believed her son’s health issues have been caused by ongoing damp and mould. She asked for the bath to be changed to a shower. The resident was unhappy with the amount of compensation awarded.
On 15 June 2023 the landlord contacted the resident to explain it would only be considering her complaint about the damp and mould, kitchen door, the bathroom windowsill and kitchen backsplash. It said the other repairs would fall outside the complaints process.
On 26 June 2023 the landlord’s contractor attended and put in a new plastic windowsill.
On 20 July 2023 the resident confirmed to the landlord the kitchen backsplash repaired and the kitchen door were fitted.
On 21 February 2024 the resident contacted the landlord as her complaint had been ongoing for months and she had not been contacted by the landlord since 3 September 2023. Her complaint had not reached stage 2. There was still damp and mould in her property.
On 1 March 2024 the resident requested the landlord to pay compensation for the length of time her and her family had been living in damp and mould conditions which had not been properly fixed. She said she has been constantly redecorating and had to replace some of her personal belongings due to damp and mould in the property. She was seeking for the repairs to be completed to stop the damp and mould from returning. She requested to be moved to a new property as she was now overcrowded and her son’s health was being affected.
The stage 2 response was issued to the resident on 9 May 2024. It said the works have been completed and the landlord awarded the resident £1,200. This was made up of £600 for inconvenience and £600 for distress.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the Investigation

The resident has said she considers the issues affecting her property have impacted her family’s health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments and notes the impact of damp and mould on the resident and her family’s health. However, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the damp and mould within the property and the resident and her family’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her and her family’s health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the direct effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any service failures by the landlord.
We can look at how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of damage and if this was appropriate and in line with any policy. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. Unlike a court we cannot establish the liability or award damages. This means we are unable to determine whether the landlord was responsible for any damage to the resident’s belongings.
It is recognised the situation was distressing for the resident and her family. The evidence shows it had been ongoing for a considerable period of time. The resident said she initially reported the repairs issues and damp and mould in 2017. This Service will consider the timeframe from 2023 until 2024 as the resident made an initial complaint to the landlord on 4 March 2023. Events from 2022 have been referred to for context. The scope of an Ombudsman investigation can be limited by various factors. This includes the amount of time that has passed since the events in question.
The resident told the landlord about further repair issues with the bathroom taps, damaged wall and skirting board in the bathroom, a damaged radiator and extractor fan, after the landlord issued the stage 1 response. It explained to the resident these repairs would be considered outside its complaint process. Further, the resident raised concerns with the bath to shower conversion and the way the landlord paid her compensation, after the stage 2 response. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. The landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any issues prior to our involvement. The resident can bring her complaint to this Service if she remains unhappy once the issues have completed the landlord’s complaint process.

The landlord’s handling of the repairs to the property

Sections 11 and 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 require the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the resident’s property in repair, and to ensure that the property is fit for human habitation throughout her tenancy. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that repairs will be completed within an average of 25 working days timeframe.
In this section of the assessment, we will consider the 3 repairs issues the resident raised, the windowsill, the fire door, and the backsplash.

Windowsill

In the landlord’s repairs policy, it says the landlord is responsible for indoor sills (replacing rotten sections). It is unclear when the resident first raised concerns about the rotten bathroom windowsill. The landlord’s repairs log shows it was aware of the issues by, no later than 25 January 2023.
On 25 January 2023, a repair was raised for a rotten bathroom windowsill to be replaced. The landlord was unable to replace the windowsill due to actions outside of its control. The repairs log shows the resident chased the landlord and the repair was raised with the contractor on 9 February 2023. The landlord called the resident as it was unable to get hold of a contractor to inspect the windowsill. It is not clear from its records if it scheduled any further work until the resident made her complaint.
In the resident’s complaint on 3 April 2023 she raised concerns about the use of plastic windowsill and whether this would be a long lasting repair. The resident did suggest an alternative repair with tiles. After the complaint the landlord sent a contractor to inspect the bathroom windowsill. In the repairs log the contractor has mentioned the resident declined the replacement of the windowsill and wanted an entire new window fitted. The resident disputes this was the case. Throughout the process there appears to be communication issues between the resident and the landlord which has led to a dispute between the parties.
The resident confirmed the windowsill was completed on 15 June 2023. This took 49 working days to complete. The repair log said the late completion was due to circumstances outside the landlord’s control.
A contractor attended on 26 June 2023 to put in a new window but decided a new window repair was not required. This was after a contractor had replaced the windowsill on 15 June 2023. This shows there was a lack of oversight and coordination of the repair by the landlord. This caused inconvenience to the resident. It was inappropriate that the landlord did not have update records of this repair having been completed which resulted in 2 contractors attending the property on 2 separate occasions.
The resident has raised concerns the contractor “put a new [plastic sill] down on top of the rotten windowsill”. The resident considered the windowsill repair was not repaired correctly or would not be long lasting. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident about her concerns. It was unreasonable for the landlord not to address these concerns. The resident has suggested alternative repairs such as a use of tiles. The landlord has limited resources and must carry out repairs and be cost effective so it used a plastic windowsill. While it is understandable that the resident may have concerns about the quality of a repair and in this case the landlord did not provide any reassurance. It is important to note that there is no evidence the repair has failed and should it do so the resident is encouraged to report this to the landlord. The landlord did not meet its repairs obligations under its repairs policy but there were some factors outside its control. It records keeping and communication did contribute to its delays. This was a failing.

The Fire Door

The landlord’s repairs policy says that the landlord is responsible for kitchen fire doors and frames.
The resident said she raised a report of the kitchen fire door repair online to the landlord on 6 January 2023. The resident made a further call to the landlord and said she had not received a response. She said she had called the landlord on 12 January 2023 and received a response on 13 January 2023. No evidence of this contact has been provided by parties so the Ombudsman is unable to comment further on this.
On 3 April 2023 the resident raised a formal complaint about the kitchen fire door which had not been in place for many years. In the landlord’s stage 1 response to the resident, it said there had been no repairs raised about the fire door and if the resident had taken off the door, then it would need to be rehung by her. The landlord took responsibility for the fire door but it is unclear from the records the reason why it changed its position. Its action was appropriate as the missing door could be considered a safety risk.
In the repairs log the fire door was to be rehung on 5 May 2023 but the date was changed to 28 June 2023. The repairs log does not explain why this was rescheduled. The contractor attended on 28 June 2023 to rehang the door. On the 20 July 2023 the resident confirmed that the fire door had been rehung.
It took 58 working days which is over the 25 working days in the landlord’s repairs policy. It has not explained the reason for the delay or the reason why the appointment was rescheduled. This was a failing by the landlord.

The Kitchen Backsplash

The landlord repairs policy says it will repair kitchen sinks. It is unclear when the resident first raised concerns about the kitchen backsplash. The issue was water was escaping through the sealant around the backsplash causing damage to the kitchen cupboard. The landlord’s repairs log shows it was aware of the issues by, no later than 11 December 2022. We have not been able to see any further records about the landlord’s actions in relation to this.
The resident first raised a complaint about this issue on 3 April 2023. The resident emailed the landlord and said the contractor did not complete the kitchen backsplash repair. The contractor was not willing to undertake the repair without confirmation from the landlord.
On 4 April 2023 the landlord appropriately raised a repair for the kitchen sealant on 27 April 2023. The landlord said a new backsplash would be considered as a home improvement.
On 23 May 2023 the landlord told the resident the repair to the sink and the backsplash was completed. On 20 July 2023 the resident confirmed that the repairs had been completed.
It took 17 days working days from the date the resident raised her complaint to complete the repair. This was within its time scale of 25 working days in the landlord’s repairs policy and was appropriate. However the landlord was unable to explain or demonstrate what action it had taken between December and April.

Summary

Some of the events surrounding the repairs are disputed and the lack of clear records has meant that this service has been unable to draw conclusions. The landlord’s communication with the resident about the repairs was not consistent and it failed to manage her expectations. There have been instances where its communication has caused the resident dissatisfaction with the landlord. The resident has experienced delays and repeatedly had to chase progress on her repairs. It frequently failed to keep the resident informed about the repairs. She understandably believed that the landlord was not taking the appropriate action to resolve the repairs. Again, this will have increased her sense of frustration. The landlord’s communication with the resident was unreasonable.
The matter became protracted and caused inconvenience time and trouble for the resident. The landlord did not meet its timeframes for the repairs to the windowsill, fire door and backsplash. Failing to make the repairs in a timely manner meant delays in resolving the issues which likely prolonged the resident’s sense of distress and frustration. It is understood that some of the issues may initially have been outside of its control when carrying out the repairs. The landlord received communication from its contractors on the resident’s position about the repairs but she did not agree with this.
Overall, the landlord has attempted to put things right with an offer of redress on 5 May 2023 in its stage 2 response. The landlord awarded the resident £1200. This was made up of £600 for inconvenience and £600 for distress. It did not provide an explanation of how it reached the figure or whether this is for the repairs and damp and mould collectively. The amount awarded was within the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there has been maladministration. However, the landlord should have given a breakdown to properly acknowledge its failings. While the landlord awarded compensation to the resident, its response did not recognise all its failings including the time it took to respond to the resident on several occasions.
Therefore, whilst noting the landlord’s subsequent offer of redress, the Ombudsman has made a finding of service failure for its delays in communication with the resident and the repairs.

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould and subsequent repairs.

The landlord’s repairs policy shows it will aim to complete the repairs in an average of 25 calendar days. Emergencies will be attended in 24 hours. The landlord repairs policy says it is responsible for the guttering and downpipes outside the property. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says following a report of damp and mould an assessment of the property will be carried out within 20 working days to understand the scale of the problem.
Landlords are required to look at the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards.
Damp and mould are potential hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS. The landlord is expected to conduct additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified. Landlords typically use inspections to assess, monitor, and control hazards. Inspections should specify any required repairs. When repairs are complete, reinspection is recommended to ensure any hazards have been removed or minimised.
On 8 March 2023 the damp and mould contractor cleaned and disinfected all the mould affected areas and added a mould shield to the entire property. This was appropriate action by the landlord. The report highlighted a possible leakage from the outside which was making the property very cold.
The landlords damp and mould policy says any remedial works will be raised to the repairs team within 10 working days of an assessment. The policy also says the resident will be informed of timescales and kept informed. The resident raised her concerns about the damp and mould in a complaint to the landlord on 3 April 2023. The resident explained that the guttering was faulty and when it rains, the water runs down the side of the wall. This was causing the wall to be severely damp which was creating mould. It was unsatisfactory that the resident had to chase the landlord as its damp and mould inspection on 8 March 2023 had already highlighted the issue of a possible leak from outside. The landlord did not comply with its policy as it did not meet its remedial work within its timeframe or keep the resident informed. This was unreasonable.
The resident chased the landlord again on 5 April 2023. She told it about the impact of the existing damp and mould on her and her family’s health. There is no evidence to show these concerns were addressed or acknowledged by the landlord at the time which was unreasonable. It could have considered if mitigating measures could be taken improve the condition of the home for the resident. There is no evidence of the landlord doing this and it missed opportunities to review its position.
On the same day the resident told the landlord that 2 contractors attended the property where they inspected the damage to the guttering outside the property. The landlord has not provided any reason as to why it did not begin works immediately after its inspection and does not appear to have taken appropriate action to mitigate this issue.
From the repairs log the landlord raised a job on 24 May 2023. It undertook a risk assessment and photos of the affected area. It appears the job was aborted but the landlord has not supplied the reason why. The loose pointing repair to the rear guttering pipe was scheduled for the 7 August 2023. However, this was later rescheduled for 27 September 2023 but there are no records to explain the reason.
The repairs log said the repointing was completed on 19 September 2023. On 27 September 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to report no one had arrived for the repointing repair. The landlord did not inform the resident that no one would be attending on that date. It is unclear if the external works had been completed as the landlord did not need to gain access to the property. It would have been good practice for the landlord to have kept the resident informed. The landlord’s communication was unreasonable with the resident. On 11 October 2023 it said the guttering clearance was completed. This was longer than the 25 working days in the landlord’s repairs policy.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy says where appropriate, regular monitoring of the situation with follow up calls and if required, additional visits. This is good practice especially when the resident raised concerns about her family’s health. There is no evidence that the landlord monitored the issue after it completed its repairs. Consequently, on 12 January 2024 the resident raised ongoing issues with damp and mould inside the property. The damp and mould had reoccurred through the walls despite the landlord completing repairs to the guttering. The landlord has not shown it had effectively monitored the damp and mould which was not in line with its policy.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to provide fair and proportionate remedies where maladministration or service failure has been identified. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
In May 2024 within the landlord’s stage 2 response it offered a total of £1,200. This did not include the £150 previously awarded as a good will gesture. There were delays in the landlord’s repairs and resolving the damp and mould in the property over the course of at least 4 months.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of the repairs and damp and mould was not appropriate. While it did identify the issue, there were delays in both the remedial work and the communication with the resident. This was despite the resident telling it her serious concerns about the safety of her home and the significant impact on her family’s health. The resident was exposed to avoidable worry for a prolonged period of time. The landlord’s repeated missed opportunities to respond sooner considering the serious concerns it was told about. It lacked a proactive approach.
There were failings in how the landlord handled the repairs to resolve the damp and mould in the property. Although it appropriately considered the impact of some of its actions in its stage 2 response there were still other issues it did not identify. It did not take learning from how the resident’s repair works were managed. It did not provide sufficient evidence it assessed the resident’s home when works had been completed. It could have done more to try and identify the works that needed to be completed rather than rely on the resident to report further issues. The Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration.
The landlord’s own compensation policy awards discretionary compensation for the seriousness of any other unfair impact. Using the landlord’s compensation policy a payment of an additional £300 is appropriate in recognition of the impact on the resident and her family. This is in line with this Service’s guidance on remedies where there has been a failing that have had a significant but not a permanent impact. Therefore, the Ombudsman considers an additional payment for the delays and the distress, frustration and inconvenience caused to the resident is reasonable.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of damage to her personal belongings

In April 2023 in the resident’s initial complaint, she said some of her personal belongings were damaged as a result of the damp and mould. The landlord addressed this point in its stage 1 response the same month. The landlord recommended the resident contact her insurer or contact the landlord’s insurer to make a claim. The landlord provided the insurance information to the resident within a reasonable timeframe. This was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s expectations (for instances where a resident holds a landlord responsible for damage to their personal items).
The Ombudsman has found no maladministration in its actions regarding the landlord’s handling of damage to the resident’s personal belongings.

Complaint handling

The resident has told us she previously contacted the landlord to complain multiple times over the phone. There is no evidence of this contact provided by either party so the Ombudsman is unable to comment further on this.
The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint procedure. A stage 1 response will be provided within 10 working days of the complaint being received, and a stage-2 response within 20 working days of an escalation. If these timescales cannot be met, then the landlord will contact the resident and agree an extension of time.
The resident complained to the landlord on 3 April 2023. The landlord responded the same day, which is in line with the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaint handling policy.
The landlord escalated the resident’s complaint on 21 July 2023. However, the resident did not receive the stage 2 response until 9 May 2024. The landlord failed its timescales when responding to the resident’s stage 2 complaint by taking 204 working days. There is evidence to show the landlord communicated to the resident that the delay was due to the large amount of complaints. The landlord should have considered an apology and financial redress given the duration of the delay. Since it failed to fulfil an important commitment, the landlord should have redressed the resident accordingly.
In the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code, it sets out that in stage 2 “the reasons for any decisions made, the details of any remedy offered to put things right.” The landlord’s stage 2 response does not comply with the code as it duplicated the wording of the resident’s complaint. The response did not address the resident’s concerns that she had raised about damp and mould in the property. The response addressed the complaint in a single line that the works had been completed and awarded her compensation. This was an unreasonable response from the landlord.
To avoid similar issues, the landlord should routinely consider its own complaint handling during every investigation. It should consider how it writes its complaint responses and the timescale it has to respond. This includes establishing the full complaint timeline and addressing any delays or procedural issues accordingly.
The evidence shows the landlord’s complaint handling was unfair, inappropriate, and contrary to its own procedure. Given the circumstances in that the landlord has not provided an apology and acknowledgement of what went wrong. Overall, there is maladministration in respect of its complaint handling.

The landlord’s record keeping

The repairs records provided to this Service by the landlord were limited in terms of detail and there appear to be significant gaps in the records. These gaps and omissions have meant the landlord has not been able to clearly demonstrate what steps it had taken to resolve the resident’s concerns, its overall management of the repair issues and the condition of the property.
Given the extent of the issues this investigation has highlighted, the protracted time over which there have been repair issues reported the resulting impact on the landlord’s ability to ensure that repairs were completed to an appropriate standard. The landlord missed an opportunity to fully review the history of the repairs issues when investigating the resident’s complaint under its own complaints procedure. The Ombudsman considers it is appropriate to make a separate finding of maladministration in relation to the landlord’s record keeping in this case.
In 2023, the Ombudsman issued a special report about this landlord, highlighting concerns with its record keeping. The report recommended the landlord review its process, practices and procedures to reduce the risk of similar failures in the future.
In this investigation we have identified failures similar to those in our special report. To avoid duplication, no further orders or recommendations for policy, process or practice review have been made. We do expect the landlord to take all relevant learning points from this case into account when delivering future service provision.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s handling of damp and mould and subsequent repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in the handling of the resident’s report of damage to her personal belongings.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord, within 4 weeks of the date of this report to:
1. To apologise in writing to the resident for failings identified within this report.
2. Pay the resident £1750, comprising of:
  1. £1200 previously offered
  2. £100 for the failings in handling the repairs
  3. £300 for the landlord’s handling of reports of the damp and mould
  4. £150 for the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. To arrange an independent damp and mould inspection. If any works are identified a schedule of works to be completed. A copy of this report and any schedule of works is shared with the resident and this Service.
4. To meet with the resident to understand any impact the situation has on her and her household’s health. Carryout a risk assessment and explain what steps it can take to mitigate any risk.
5. Provide evidence of compliance with the above to this Service.

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to meet with the resident to discuss any outstanding repairs in the property.
The landlord is recommended to contact the resident to find out if she needs any assistance in making a claim to its insurers.
The landlord is recommended to meet with the resident to explain the policy and criteria involved in a management move.