Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202310740)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310740

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

13 March 2025

 

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 the landlord’s handling of reports about: the central heating system; leaks and associated repairs; the external fan to the bathroom; and bedroom window frames.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of:

a.     Repairs to the bathroom light following a leak.

b.     Mice infestation.

c.      The formal complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a 4 bedroom ground floor flat. The resident has told the landlord she has physical disabilities.
  2. From April to September 2022 the landlord’s records showed 3 entries relating to pest infestation. Its contractor could not gain access to the property and this resulted in delayed action.
  3. The resident submitted an online complaint on 17 January 2023 about mice infestation and disrepair issues. The landlord noted that her first complaint had not been answered, but it has not provided any further details.
  4. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 23 January 2023 (no copy provided) it upheld the complaint and told the resident its contractor had not been able to contact her by telephone to arrange work associated with the mice infestation. It said it would arrange another appointment.
  5. Between 28 February and 30 May 2023 the landlord’s records referred to 7 pest control entries. On 4 of these it noted proofing work was required and kitchen kickboards needed to be removed. The landlord removed bait from the property on 30 May 2023 and noted that was the final visit.
  6. The landlord’s repairs history of 16 May 2023 refers to it isolating the bathroom light fitting and the work was completed the same day. The landlord then arranged a full electrical test on 1 June 2023 and this work showed as completed on 15 June 2023.
  7. On 6 June 2023 the resident submitted a new complaint about mice in the kitchen (no copy provided).
  8. Between 21 July and 15 August 2023 the landlord carried out 3 pest control inspections. It recommended the removal of the kitchen kickboards for further investigations.
  9. On 22 August 2023 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate her complaint about ongoing pests, the repair to the bathroom light and work associated with the disrepair claim. The following day, the landlord’s records refer to further work to “inspect behind a few kitchen units, fit plates and carry out various proofing measures”. On 29 August 2023 the landlord raised a job for the bathroom light to be reinstated.
  10. The resident contacted the landlord on 1 September 2023. She was concerned that there had been mice at the property for over a year and this had caused her extra cleaning. She was also concerned that she had not had a light in the bathroom for around 5 months and had used a lamp when showering. She said the situation had “taken a toll on her health and wellbeing.” She confirmed to the landlord on 6 September 2023 that the light had been fixed.
  11. In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 12 September 2023 it itemised the pest control visits and confirmed recommended proof work. It acknowledged outstanding work to the bathroom light, upheld the complaint and offered £550 compensation. It did not explain the breakdown of compensation that related to each part of the complaint. Instead, its compensation offer grouped together the complaints and offered the resident the following amounts:

a.     £200 it had awarded and paid at stage 1.

b.     £100 service failure for the lack of communication from the surveyor.

c.      £50 time and effort.

d.     £250 distress.

e.     £150 inconvenience.

  1. The landlord’s records showed it completed pest proofing work on 14 September 2023.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot investigate is called our jurisdiction and is set out in the Scheme. Paragraph 42.e of the Scheme says we may not consider complaints which concern matters where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings.
  2. The resident started a disrepair claim against the landlord on 28 July 2023. This related to ongoing repairs to the central heating system, leaks, and associated repairs (excluding the bathroom electrical light fitting), the external door, extractor fan in the bathroom and the bedroom window frames. This disrepair claim was settled in January 2024. As a result, these issues have been raised as part of legal proceedings and therefore fall outside our jurisdiction in accordance with paragraph 42.e of the Scheme. Therefore, they are not addressed further in this report.

Scope of investigation

  1. The landlord’s records refer to an issue with mice infestation dating back to 2020. The landlord’s complaint investigation focuses on mice infestation from 2023, but in the interest of fairness, our investigation takes account of landlord action from 2022 onwards.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the bathroom light following a leak

  1. Following a leak at the property, the landlord isolated the bathroom light on 16 May 2023. It then arranged for a full electrical test on 15 June 2023, but it did not reinstate the light until around 6 September 2023.
  2. The landlord was under a duty to repair the light within a reasonable time of being given notice that it was not in working order. This is set out in the written tenancy agreement and the implied terms in section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The landlord’s repairs policy states it will carry out:

a.     Emergency works, where there is an immediate danger to the occupant or members of the public, within 24 hours. Out of hours attendance should be within 4 hours to make safe.

b.     Routine day to day repairs in an average of 25 calendar days.

  1. Landlords are required to assess the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Local authorities have powers to act under the HHSRS and will typically work with landlords to address identified hazards in a home. There are 29 hazards that include, but are not exclusive to, electrical, falls and psychological hazards such as lighting.
  2. The landlord attended to isolate the bathroom light the same day, in compliance with its repairs policy. It therefore recognised the electrical hazard and made safe the light by isolating the electrical supply. We consider this to be a reasonable timeframe. However, the landlord did not reinstate the bathroom light until September 2023, despite the resident’s chasers and her concerns that she had to use a lamp in the bathroom.
  3. It is concerning that the landlord did not repair the light for a prolonged period of 4 months. While it isolated the immediate electrical hazard, its delay in reinstating the light caused associated hazards of: electrical safety from the use of a lamp in the bathroom; lack of light; and risk of falls from the lack of light.
  4. The resident could not safely use the bathroom while the light was not working and the landlord failed to acknowledge the associated hazards when it responded to the stage 2 complaint. While the landlord did compensate the resident a total of £550, we cannot be satisfied it applied an appropriate level of compensation to this particular aspect of failure. This is because it did not acknowledge the full extent of its failures and neither did it provide the resident with a breakdown of how it had reached the level of compensation for this part of the complaint. For these reasons, we have found maladministration.
  5. The landlord should compensate the resident £475 for the loss of safe use of the bathroom over the 4 month period. This has been calculated based on the loss of amenity at 20% of the weekly rent of £177.62 for 4 months. This is aligned to the landlord’s compensation policy. The landlord should also compensate the resident £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her during this period (which is aligned to our own remedies guidance).

The landlord’s handling of mice infestation

  1. There is evidence the resident reported her concerns of mice infestation  throughout 2022 and the landlord delayed attending the property due to an access issue. It acknowledged its delay in its stage 1 response upheld the complaint on that basis. It appears it compensated the resident £200 as part of its stage 1 response, but it is unclear if this amount was apportioned to other aspects of the complaint. The landlord committed to arrange an appointment to attend to the mice infestation and it appears this appointment took place on 28 February 2023. Other inspections were carried out and work was identified to ‘proof’ the property to stop the mice infestation.
  2. The resident escalated her complaint towards the end of August 2023. The landlord arranged another inspection the following day, when there is evidence it inspected behind the kitchen units and carried out proofing work. The landlord’s stage 2 response of mid-September 2023 dealt with a number of issues. Again, while it upheld the complaint and offered compensation, it is unclear what amount it apportioned to this specific aspect of the complaint.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy says it is responsible for the treatment of “rats, cockroaches, squirrels, pharaoh ants, bedbugs, wasps, and mice where the tenant has been unable to deal with it or there is an infestation affecting the whole block. This includes blocking and filling holes following pest removal treatment”.
  4. The landlord has demonstrated it had attended the mice infestation on a number of occasions between July 2022 and September 2023, but it  recognised its delayed action when it was unable to gain access in September 2022. This resulted in delays in treatment of the mice and proofing work. The landlord’s attempts to resolve the infestation continued throughout 2023. It evidenced it attended and continued to treat the infestation, but proofing work was required which was delayed until its completion in September 2023.
  5. There is evidence the landlord treated the mice infestation on a number of occasions, but it delayed in carrying out an inspection in 2022 and delayed in carrying out some proofing work until September 2023. It attempted to put things right for the resident through its cumulative offer of £550 compensation. While it is unclear the amount of compensation it apportioned to these specific failures, it would be reasonable to attribute £200 compensation for its failures. We are therefore satisfied that the landlord adequately recognised its failures and put things right for the resident. As a result, a finding of reasonable redress is made and no further orders are made.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint handling record keeping is poor. There are key pieces of information missing as follows:

a.     The date the resident first complained to the landlord.

b.     The reasons why the landlord did not receive the complaint.

c.      A copy of the landlord’s stage 1 response.

d.     The resident’s complaint escalation request.

  1. From the evidence we have received, it appears the resident complained about the mice infestation on 17 January 2023 and the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 23 January 2023. The resident escalated the complaint on 6 June 2023 and the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 12 September 2023.
  2. The stage 2 response dealt with various repairs related to the disrepair claim and other matters outside our jurisdiction. While the landlord upheld the complaint, we are unable to determine what level of compensation it apportioned to each of the complaint points.
  3. Our Complaint Handling Code of 1 April 2022 (the Code) says:

a.     “When a complaint is made, it must be acknowledged and logged at stage 1 of the complaints procedure within 5 days of receipt. Within the complaint acknowledgement, landlords must set out their understanding of the complaint and the outcomes the resident is seeking. If any aspect of the complaint is unclear, the resident must be asked for clarification and the full definition agreed between both parties”.

b.     “A full record must be kept of the complaint, any review, and the outcomes at each stage. This must include the original complaint and the date received, all correspondence with the resident, correspondence with other parties and any reports or surveys prepared”

c.      There are specific timescales for a response which is 10 working days from the complaint being logged at stage 1. Exceptionally, landlords may provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason

d.     At stage 2 of the complaints procedure, a landlord must respond within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. Exceptionally, landlords may provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason.

e.     If an extension beyond 10 working days is required to enable the landlord to respond to the complaint fully, this should be agreed by both parties.

  1. The landlord’s stage 1 response was issued within 4 working days, in line with the Code. However, its stage 2 response was issued in 70 working days, far exceeding the 20 working day timeframe detailed in the Code. There is no evidence the landlord agreed a mutual extension timeframe with the resident and its late response was therefore inappropriate.
  2. The landlord did not comply with the Code in relation to: record keeping; late stage 2 response; lack of communication with the resident; and failure to recognise the full extent of its failures and put things right through its complaints process. We have, therefore, found maladministration with the landlord’s handling of this complaint and ordered it to pay £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused (which is aligned to our own remedies guidance).

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.e of the Scheme, the complaint about repairs to the central heating system, leaks, and associated repairs (excluding the bathroom electrical light fitting), the external door, extractor fan in the bathroom and the bedroom window frames, is outside our jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:

a.     Repairs to the bathroom light following a leak.

b.     The formal complaint.

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of mice infestation.

Orders and recommendations

Order

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has paid the resident £1075 compensation (including the remaining £550 compensation already offered) as follows:

a.     £675 for the loss of safe use of the bathroom, distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of repairs to the bathroom light.

b.     £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

  1. Within 6 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has reviewed the findings of this report, identified how it can learn from the complaint and set out the action it will put in place to improve its repairs service and complaint handling.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord is recommended to pay the resident the £200 we have attributed to the mice infestation complaint, as this recognised genuine elements of service failure and the reasonable redress finding is made on that basis.