London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202402163)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202402163

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

25 October 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:
1. the landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal front door.
2. the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould and repairs at the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord’s since 2011. The property is within a converted house divided into 3 flats, all owned by the landlord. The resident lives with her 2 children in a 2-bedroom top floor flat.
On 8 November 2019, the resident told the landlord that cracks had appeared in the internal walls of her flat. She also reported damp and mould in the property. The landlord raised a job for an inspection. The resident reported damp and mould at her property, a further time, on 25 September 2020. The landlord raised another job for this repair.
On 2 February 2022 the resident reported again to the landlord that there were cracks in the property’s internal walls. The following year, on 12 January 2023, the resident told the landlord the damp and mould in her property was getting worse.
The resident raised her complaint to the landlord on 5 January 2024. She said she had reported damp and mould many times to it. The landlord replied at stage 1 of its internal complaints process on 8 January 2024. It said it would chase up the repairs. The landlord upheld her complaint, however, no offer of compensation was made.
The resident escalated her complaint with the landlord on 19 January 2024. She said she was disappointed with its lack of action and communication regarding her repairs.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 16 April 2024 regarding her complaint. On 29 May 2024, the landlord issued a response at stage 2 of its internal complaints process. It upheld the resident’s complaint and offered her £60 in compensation. The landlord said it had also completed a surveyor referral form in order to get a ‘comprehensive inspection’ of her flat. The resident told this Service in October 2024 that the repair to the communal front door and the repairs to the brickwork at the back of her property had not yet been completed by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

The scope of an Ombudsman’s investigation can be limited by various factors, including the time that has passed. Between 2019 and 2023 the resident raised repairs for damp and mould and the cracks in her property. The evidence provided shows the landlord attended following the reports of repairs. Given the above, our assessment has focused on the events that directly preceded and followed the resident’s complaint that was raised on 5 January 2024. However, the information and reports of repairs prior the period under investigation provide relevant context. They have been considered in general as part of the landlord’s overall response and handling.
The resident told the landlord that because of the damp and mould she was concerned for her and her children’s health. It is recognised the situation was distressing for the resident. The evidence shows it had been ongoing for a considerable period of time. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. This means we are unable to determine if the landlord was responsible for any health impacts. However, where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal front door

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is referred to as the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In her correspondence with this Service, the resident raised concerns that repairs to the communal front door have not been completed by the landlord. This matter, however, has not been raised or referred to within the formal complaint responses by the landlord as part of its internal complaints process. A key part of the complaints process is that a landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction before the involvement of this Service.
Therefore, the complaint made by the resident in relation to the communal door at the property is outside of this Service’s jurisdiction at this time. In accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. If the resident remains dissatisfied and wishes to refer the matter to this Service, she may do so after the matter has exhausted the landlord’s complaint process.

The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould and repairs at the property

On 8 November 2019, the resident told the landlord that she had damp and mould in her property and cracks in the internal walls. The landlord’s repairs log shows a job was raised for an inspection of the resident’s property on the same day. Within the resident’s tenancy agreement, it says the landlord ‘will make sure the structure and exterior’ of her home are ‘kept repaired’. This job was marked by the landlord as not completed due to no access given by the resident, on 14 November 2019. There is no evidence that the landlord or the resident contacted each other following this failed appointment.
On 25 September 2020, the resident reported damp and mould to the landlord. The landlord raised a new repair. The resident disputed that the landlord had attended the year before. She said the note of ‘no access to her property’ which the landlord had recorded on its system was incorrect.
On the 13 October 2020, the landlord attended the property to investigate the issues, and it produced a healthy homes report. A healthy homes report is an assessment of a property’s damp and mould and possible reasons for it. Part of the purpose of the report is to make recommendations on dealing with the root causes of the issue. During this visit the landlord cleaned the walls of the resident’s property that were affected by damp and mould. The healthy homes report listed the repairs needed to tackle the damp and mould in the property. These included repairs to the flashing and gutters on the roof and repointing of the brickwork on the external walls.
The landlord raised repairs on 12 January 2021 following the recommendations in the report. The specific repairs were to check the roof, the flashing and the gutters at the property. It also raised a repair to check an external wall for a possible cause of damp. These repairs were marked as completed by the landlord on 12 February 2021.
The landlord sent an internal email on 3 February 2022. It said the resident was concerned about the cracks in the internal walls and damp and mould at her property. The landlord said that a job had been raised to investigate the cracks in the internal walls, but it had been ‘closed down’. No reason was given why this repair was not completed. It also said the resident reported the cracks were bigger than a £1 coin and she was ‘very concerned’.
The landlord’s records show an inspection was carried out on 28 February 2022, around 17 working days later. It said the repairs would be forwarded on to the ‘major works’ team. The landlord said that the cracks were likely caused by building works on the adjoining property. It said it would address any structural issues with the developer next door.
There is a gap in evidence of any further repairs following the inspection in February until September 2022. On 23 September 2022 the landlord raised a repair for damp and mould in one of the resident’s bedrooms at the property. It is not clear from the evidence if the resident had raised this repair or if it was a follow up job from 6 months previously.
On 27 September 2022, there was a follow up inspection for the healthy homes report. The report said there was an ‘outstanding repair’ from 2 years previously to repoint the mortar on an external wall. It said the resident had followed advice, but the damp and mould had returned.
The landlord’s repairs log show there was a repair raised on 17 November 2022 and completed on 21 November 2022. This was to repoint the mortar on an external wall. The repair had been raised around 24 months earlier by the first healthy homes report. The landlord has not accounted for why the repair was not conducted when it was first highlighted 2 years previously.
On 12 January 2023, the resident asked the landlord for an update on the repairs to the cracks in the walls of her property that she had raised 3 years previously. She said the damp in her child’s bedroom was getting worse. The landlord noted it had previously recorded that a large crack in an internal wall at the property was letting water in. It raised a job for the repair and also sent the resident an email with advice on reducing condensation and treating mould in her property.
In an email on 9 February 2023 the resident asked the landlord for a breakdown of dates and times for future appointments. No evidence has been provided by the landlord to show this was provided to the resident.
On 7 March 2023, the landlord raised a repair for the roof and for damp in a bedroom to be checked at the resident’s property. The repair was marked as completed 4 months later. The landlord’s damp and mould policy, effective from 22 May 2023, says it will ‘take reports of damp and mould seriously’. It also says it will ‘focus on tackling the root cause of the problem and carry out any repairs necessary to prevent damp and mould from occurring’.
On 19 September 2023, the landlord raised a job for a structural survey on the property. This survey concluded the cracks at the property were not caused by subsidence but from an extension on the property next door. It said repairs to internal walls could be carried out as normal and this job was marked as completed 2 November 2023.
The resident complained to the landlord on 5 January 2024. She said she had reported damp and mould several times to it over the years but the issues had not been resolved. She said there was a risk to her and her children’s health. The resident said the situation was causing her stress and after several visits it had not completed all repairs to the property. She said outstanding repairs were to the roof, gutters and brickwork.
On 8 January 2024, around 2 working days later, the landlord replied. It upheld the resident’s complaint, but compensation was not offered. The landlord said the job to clean the gutters had been passed to the ‘relevant’ team. It said it would be in touch to ‘confirm an appointment as soon as possible’.
The landlord’s reply at stage 1 acknowledged the outstanding repair to the gutters. However, it did not acknowledge the concerns the resident had raised regarding the impact on her and her children’s health from the damp and mould. The report failed to address the repeat visits over a period of years to address, what could reasonably be assumed to be, a reoccurring issue. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) March 2022 says, ‘landlords must address all points raised in the complaint’. It was inappropriate of the landlord to not address the concerns raised by the resident regarding the impact on the damp and mould to her and her children’s health.
The landlord also failed to realise from the repairs history that the damp and mould repairs were reoccurring on a cyclical basis. No compensation was offered and there was a lack of investigation and professional curiosity in regard to the resident‘s complaint. Its response was an example of poor communication, and this will have compounded the issues for the resident. The failure to address these issues as part of its stage 1 complaint response was unreasonable.
On 19 January 2024, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. The landlord replied on 1 February 2024 and told the resident it had raised a job for the damp and mould at her property. It said its contractors would contact her directly to arrange an appointment. The landlord said it was still waiting for a response from its contractor to clear the gutters at the resident’s property. It asked the resident to confirm the reasons why she wanted to escalate her complaint.
The resident replied on 14 February 2024. She said it was ‘unacceptable’ the landlord had not addressed the issues of damp and mould in her property. The resident said she had been experiencing these issues for many years. She said that she had not heard from any contractors regarding the guttering, scaffolding or the external brick work since she had raised her complaint.
On 19 February 2024, the landlord confirmed it had escalated the resident’s complaint. It said it had also tried to chase the repairs with the contractors.
Evidence provided by the landlord shows it visited the resident on 7 March 2024 and a third healthy homes ‘revisit’ report was written. During the visit the report says the walls of the resident’s property were cleaned, however, no comment was made on outstanding repairs. On 16 April 2024, the resident brought her complaint to this Service.
The landlord contacted the resident on 21 May 2024. It said the repairs raised for internal cracks, damp and mould and guttering had been marked as completed. The landlord wanted to confirm with the resident if there were any outstanding issues. The resident replied on the same day. She said that since raising her complaint to the landlord there had been ‘no communication and no repairs’.
On 29 May 2024, the landlord replied at stage 2 of its internal complaints process. It said it had reviewed the repairs notes for the property following the resident saying there had been no communication or repairs. It said the following had been completed:
1. Roofing/guttering’ repairs were completed ‘back in 2023’. No scaffolding had been required at that time.
2. A ‘finishes and painting job’ was raised and completed. This repair was marked completed in September 2023.
3. A structural survey was carried out and this determined the cracks in her property were not caused by subsidence. The landlord’s repairs log shows this was raised and completed in November 2023.
4. A mould wash had been completed in March 2024 earlier during the third healthy homes.
The landlord said that it appeared the damp and mould issues occurred at the property yearly. It said it had completed a ‘surveyor referral form’ in order for a ‘comprehensive inspection’. The landlord said this was a new process in line with its repairs policy. It upheld her complaint. The landlord said it recognised there was a delay in responding at stage 2 and it offered £60 in compensation for the complaint handling failure.
The landlord identified at stage 2 that the damp and mould issues occur at the resident’s property on a yearly basis. However, the landlord failed to account for why this analysis was not conducted or communicated as part of its stage 1 investigation and response. This failing highlighted the lack of due diligence at stage 1 of the landlord’s process and the failure to apologise or recognise its shortcomings was unreasonable. This meant there was a delayed finding which caused inconvenience to the resident.
It was a positive step that the landlord had recognised the recurring nature of the damp and mould experienced by the resident. However, the evidence shows it had been aware of reports of damp and mould ranging back circa 5 years. Furthermore, it had conducted various interventions and measures in the interim period, including 3 healthy home reports. The landlord’s inability to diagnose a recurring issue over this period was a serious failure. In the circumstances, one that the resident could reasonably have expected not to have occurred or have been identified sooner.
The landlord’s stage 2 response also did not address the health concerns the resident had for herself and her children from living with damp and mould. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) identifies damp and mould as a hazard in a residential property. It states that damp and mould can be a threat to health, including breathing difficulties and asthma. It was inappropriate for the landlord not to address these concerns in its stage 2 responses to the resident.
The excessive length of time taken to identify the recurring damp and mould issue, mirrors the landlord’s general approach to conducting repairs. It is reasonable to categorise some of the issues reported by the resident as being complex to co-ordinate, such as understanding the causes of cracks in the walls or roofing repairs. However, the individual responses when viewed together in a timeline demonstrate a lack of appropriate urgency or adherence to policy timescales. The landlord did not empathise with the resident on the prolonged impact to her of living with the damp and mould.
In relation to the internal repairs conducted by the landlord, the resident subsequently told this Service that she was unhappy that the landlord painted over the cracks on the internal walls in a different colour to the original paint. She requested the landlord redecorate the rooms effected. Evidence provided to this Service shows the landlord painted over the repaired cracks with a colour that closely matched the original colour of the walls.
The landlord’s repairs policy says it will not redecorate after a repair unless it is ‘obligated to or in exceptional circumstances’. The resident’s tenancy agreement says that she is responsible for keeping her home in ‘good decorative condition’. It says the exceptional circumstances will be entirely at the landlord’s discretion. It also says the landlord ‘will make good any surfaces affected by the repair ready for the resident to redecorate’. Therefore, the extent of the landlord’s redecoration was reasonable because it was not obliged to redecorate the entire room. It also took reasonable steps to mitigate the cosmetic nature of the repair by attempting to colour match the effected area.
The Ombudsman’s role is to consider if the landlord resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. To do this we considered the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord’s reply at stage 2 shows it reviewed the case history and completed a referral form for a surveyor to attend the property. These were both appropriate actions. However, the stage 2 response did not recognise the delays the resident had encountered with the repairs. It did also not address the wider issues around its failure to review its previous interventions, in order to effectively diagnose a reoccurring damp and mould issue at the property. The landlord also failed to address why a previously identified brickwork repair was still outstanding.
In summary, the repairs history for the property shows that the damp and mould was reported yearly by the resident. The evidence shows that the landlord did respond to each report, However, it failed to realise it was a reoccurring repair and tackle the root cause in a timely manner. It did not effectively diagnose and communicate the issue until its stage 2 response to the resident. The landlord did not fully address the impact upon the resident for delays and living with damp and mould. Not did it take steps to put right its previous inability to provide an effective resolution for the issues being experienced by the resident. The landlords handling of this complaint point was unreasonable and amounts to a determination of maladministration.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The resident complained to the landlord on 5 January 2024. The landlord replied to her at stage 1 of its internal complaints process on 8 January 2024. This was around 2 working days later. The landlord’s complaint handling policy says that stage 1 complaints should be responded to within 10 working days. The response was therefore within the policy timeframe. The landlord said it was only able to look back on the last 6 months of its repairs history to investigate the complaint. It noted that the resident said it had been an ongoing issue.
By looking back on the last 6 months of the repair’s history only, it was unlikely the landlord would be able to fully investigate the resident’s concerns. The landlord’s reply at stage 1 therefore lacked knowledge of its delays in dealing with the historical repair. The landlord did not identify any failings, and no compensation was offered. There was a lack of investigation into the resident’s complaint. Its response was an example of poor communication, and this will have compounded the issue for the resident. The failure to address these issues as part of its stage 1 complaint response was unreasonable.
On 19 January 2024, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She said the lack of communication had caused her stress and inconvenience. The landlord replied on 1 February 2024, 9 working days later, and asked her to confirm what she was unhappy with and the reasons why she wanted to take her complaint to stage 2.
The resident replied on 14 February 2024 and confirmed she wanted her complaint escalated to stage 2. She said she was unhappy that she had reported the repair many times over the years, but it was still not resolved. The landlord replied on the same day and said there may be a delay in responding to her complaint. It said this was due to an increase in the amount stage 2 complaints it was dealing with.
The landlord’s complaint’s policy says that complaints will be responded to within 20 working days at stage 2 of the process. It says that if there is a need, it may take a further 10 working days to respond to a complaint. In these circumstances it will write and explain why to the resident. It states that in ‘exceptional circumstances’ it will agree an extension with the resident if longer to reply is required.
The landlord replied to the resident at stage 2 of its internal complaints process on 29 May 2024. This was around 72 working days after the resident confirmed she wanted to take her complaint to stage 2. This was a delay of around 52 working days. No evidence has been provided to show an extension on the complaint was agreed with the resident. The landlord therefore did not adhere to its complaints policy or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, and this delay was inappropriate.
Within its stage 2 response the landlord failed again to acknowledge the delays and its failings. It offered £60 compensation for the complaint handling delays.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right. In this case the landlord offered £60 compensation for its delay in dealing with her complaint. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord has not evidenced it made reasonable and proactive efforts to resolve the complaint in a timely manner. The compensation offered by the landlord did not fully reflect the detriment caused to the resident due to the delays. It therefore failed to “put things right” in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
In summary, the landlord failed to investigate the resident’s complaint appropriately at stage 1 of its process and took too long to respond at stage 2. Both failings were inappropriate. These failures amount to maladministration and an order for compensation to reflect the inconvenience and delay to resolution for the resident will be made.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint relating to the landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal front door is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to her property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should do the following and provide evidence of compliance to the Service:
1. The landlord to apologise in writing to the resident for the failings outlined above.
2. The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £650 total, broken down as follows:
  1. £500 for the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould and repairs at the property.
  2. £150 for the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord is free to deduct any amount of the £60 previously offered, if this has been paid to the resident.
3. The landlord should arrange an independent survey, or an independent review of its survey raised as part of its stage 2 response if this has already been conducted for the property. Independence within the process is necessary to promote trust between the parties as the has been a divergence of view on actions required and taken throughout the timeline. Independence will provide reassurance for the resident on the appropriate future course of action. This is also necessary to restore the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s ability to effectively resolve the issues that have been present over the period from her first repair reports.
4. In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord should conduct a review of the key failures highlighted in this report. Within 8 weeks, it should present this review to its senior leadership team and provide the Ombudsman a report summarising its identified improvements. The review should focus on, but is not limited to the following:
  1. The landlord should identify and understand why it was unable to identify and remedy a re-occurring damp and mould issue within the property in a reasonable time frame. The report should focus on why its healthy homes reports and stage 1 investigation were ineffective in diagnosing the issue and what changes the landlord will make a result.