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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202406901)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202406901

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

7 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 complaint is about:
    1. A recurring leak from the balcony resulting in damp and mould throughout the property.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 3-bedroom maisonette in a block. The block is part of a development that was built around 2015, and is managed by a managing agent. The resident lives in the property with her husband and their 4 children.
  2. The resident says that since she moved into the property in 2015, she has experienced an issue with rainfall pooling on her balcony and not draining away properly, resulting in water ingress. In 2016, she says that she and her then family of 5 lived in 1 bedroom for 3 months, while repairs were carried out to a bedroom ceiling. She says that the water ingress issue has recurred, and reports about water ingress from the balcony are evident in 2017, 2019, 2020 and 2021. In 2021, the landlord carried out further investigation and told the resident not to use the balcony. In 2022, it raised a repair that said a downpipe may need to be repositioned. From around 2022, the evidence shows that the managing agent has been progressing remedial works to the resident’s development. These relate to wider issues with water ingress, condensation and the structure, and they have been updating affected residents on progress.
  3. In June 2022, the resident made a complaint. She was unhappy that she and her family had lived in 1 bedroom for 2 weeks in 2016. She was concerned that she was told the balcony was at risk of collapse and with her children’s bedroom being under the balcony. She was unhappy that she was paying full rent but unable to use the balcony. She was unhappy that she was being passed between the landlord and the managing agent about the issue.
  4. The same month, the landlord provided a stage 1 response. It said that after a visit by its damp and mould specialist, the issue had been referred for an inspection and follow on repairs.
  5. In July 2022, the landlord updated the resident that the balcony issue was the managing agent’s responsibility, and had been passed to staff to manage the works with them. It apologised for the inconvenience and the resident having gone back and forth between it and the managing agent. The same month, the landlord internally noted that the managing agent had erected scaffolding and remedial works were taking place. The resident has confirmed that the balcony area was covered to avoid further water ingress.
  6. In November 2022, the landlord escalated the complaint, and noted that the resident was seeking compensation for loss of facilities and amenities.
  7. In January 2023, the landlord’s damp contractor treated mould in bedrooms and the living room. This was caused by excess moisture and condensation due to the leak issue, for which it was noted scaffolding was still up.
  8. In April 2023, the information provided says that affected residents were updated that a scope of works was being compiled after investigations, and that they would be updated when further information was available.
  9. In March 2024, the landlord took steps to progress the complaint, and liaised with the resident to receive information.
  10. In May 2024, the landlord provided a stage 2 response. It detailed the issues that the resident raised. It noted that the resident requested compensation for the loss of the balcony, and said that the managing agent was responsible for the works and any compensation due to the loss of the balcony. It said that works at the resident’s block were of a large scale and were likely to be ongoing until 2026. It noted that the resident’s service charges had been frozen until the major works were carried out, and that she had received a refund of over £3,000 for the period January 2023 to April 2024. It acknowledged service to the resident was below expected levels and awarded £659.99. This comprised £60 for distress, £60 for inconvenience, £60 for time and effort, £340 for complaint delays, and £139.99 reimbursement for a dehumidifier that the resident had purchased.
  11. The same day, the landlord’s damp contractor treated mould in bedrooms, bathrooms, the kitchen and living room. They noted that there was no ongoing leak into the property, and lack of proper ventilation and use of trickle vents had caused some condensation and mould growth. They noted that repairs for the balcony were still in progress and there were no structural concerns that might need further investigation by the landlord.
  12. In early October 2024, the managing agent visited the property and noted that areas inspected were dry to the touch and there had been no recent leaks.
  13. The resident brought their complaint to the Ombudsman. She said that she and her family of 5 slept in one bedroom for 3 months while another bedroom dried out and repairs were done, and raised dissatisfaction that the landlord had provided compensation for 2 weeks. She said it knew the bedroom was not repaired in 2 weeks and she should be compensated for a 3 month period from November 2016. She raised dissatisfaction that there was no communication, apology or compensation until the complaint in 2022. She raised dissatisfaction that mould problems were addressed several times but kept reoccurring.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The Ombudsman’s approach to the investigation of complaints is set out by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. Paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme states that we may not consider complaints which, in our opinion, “were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.” This reflects that it is normally considered reasonable for complaints to be made closer to the time of events complained about, as the longer time goes on, the more the ability to conduct an effective investigation may be impacted. This means that the main focus of our investigation is events around the time that the resident complained in 2022, as we recently confirmed to her.

The landlord’s response to the resident about a recurring leak from the balcony resulting in damp and mould throughout the property

  1. The resident’s main complaint is understood to be about the 3 month loss of a bedroom during some 2016 repairs, and then about the landlord only awarding compensation for 2 weeks rather than 3 months. The resident said that she and her family lived in 1 bedroom for more than 2 weeks in her original complaint, so the landlord acknowledging 2 weeks seems to have been due to some reasonable confusion about the period affected. The Ombudsman understands that events in 2016 were distressing, however as noted above, the Ombudsman normally considers complaints about issues that occurred within 12 months. The landlord’s policy reflects this and so it was not obligated to consider issues that occurred 6 years before the complaint.
  2. The resident complained about the loss of the use of the balcony since she was told not to use it, which will be frustrating for her. The landlord said that the managing agent was responsible for any compensation due to the loss of the balcony. The landlord’s response was not entirely satisfactory, as her contract is with the landlord. However, the tenancy terms are not clear that the landlord should refund the resident rent for the inability to use it. The landlord could have provided details for both its own and the managing agent’s liability insurers for the resident to pursue compensation further, and the Ombudsman makes a recommendation for it to do so.
  3. The resident complained about leaks resulting in damp and mould, and the evidence shows that she has reported leaks almost annually since 2015, with damp and mould mentioned from 2022. The extent of the issue is not always clear, but the recurring nature of the issue will have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident and her family. The landlord was obligated to take action within its power to help resolve it and assist with any internal issues it caused. The evidence shows that from around the time that the resident complained in 2022, this obligation was reasonably fulfilled. It investigated the leaks, the managing agent was referred the issue to resolve it, and the balcony was covered to try to prevent further water ingress. The managing agent later identified that remedial works were required to the whole development, which are still ongoing, during which time the landlord has treated damp and mould at the property. This confirms that appropriate action is being taken on different fronts, and that the landlord appears to be providing what support it can during what is recognised will be a difficult time for the resident.
  4. The resident has complained about communication, particularly before she complained. The evidence does have gaps at some points and indicates that communication with the resident was not as effective as it should have been. However, the resident confirms that after her complaint she has been kept updated, and the landlord and managing agent have informed her that she will be temporarily relocated when works to her property are carried out next year. The landlord supplies evidence including regular newsletters to residents which also confirms that communication has improved. This confirms that when the resident complained, the landlord responded in a way that the Ombudsman would expect to see, by improving areas complained about such as communication. 
  5. The resident reported that she had been caused distress and inconvenience by the issues, and had incurred costs buying a dehumidifier. The landlord acknowledged this and offered compensation which included reimbursement for a dehumidifier. This was positive and customer focused, and showed that the landlord was seeking to acknowledge the impact of issues on the resident.
  6. The £180 that the landlord awarded for elements excluding the reimbursement and complaint handling appears in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, and seems reasonable for the service issues evident in the timeframe of the complaint about the leak resulting in damp and mould. This leads the Ombudsman to find reasonable redress in the landlord’s response about the leak and damp and mould.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s stage 1 response was provided in a reasonable timeframe, as was an update a month later which confirmed that the managing agent was responsible for the issue. However, after the resident escalated the complaint in November 2022, the landlord took 18 months to provide a stage 2 response. This is not satisfactory, and therefore the landlord was appropriate to acknowledge the delays and award compensation.
  2. The £340 that the landlord awarded for the lengthy delay is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, and seems reasonable for the complaint handling, particularly as it is not disputed that the resident was updated about progression of the managing agent’s remedial works in the meantime. This leads the Ombudsman to find reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident about:
    1. A recurring leak from the balcony resulting in damp and mould throughout the property.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to:
    1. pay the compensation it awarded, if it has not paid this already.
    2. liaise with the managing agent and resident to provide details for both its own and the managing agent’s liability insurers, in order for her to pursue any further compensation if she wishes.
    3. liaise with the resident to consider if she incurred any additional utility costs due to the issues, such as additional electricity costs due to the use of the dehumidifier.
    4. liaise with the resident to inspect and consider if there are any interim actions it can take before works next year, for occasional water ingress that she reports blows into the property, and a damp and mould smell.