London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202007591)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007591

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

31 October 2022

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 regarding:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould and its handling of repairs, including to a bedroom window.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be rehoused.

Scope of Investigation

Within her correspondence with the landlord and this Service, the resident has advised that she has reported damp and mould issues to the landlord over a period of 13 years, without them apparently being resolved. It is not possible for this Service to fairly investigate such historic issues, or ones which cover such a large period of time. This investigation will therefore consider how the landlord responded to concerns raised regarding damp and mould within the 12 months leading up to the resident’s complaint via this Service in October 2020.
From the information available, it is apparent that the resident submitted a previous complaint to the landlord in 2019, which was finally responded to around the time the landlord accepted a new complaint from the resident in October 2020. Correspondence seen by this Service indicates that the resident clarified that issues raised in the 2019 complaint, including regarding a reported pest infestation and kitchen repairs, were not part of her October 2020 complaint. This investigation has therefore not considered these issues and instead focuses on the landlord’s overall response to the damp and mould issues during the time period noted above, along with repair issues raised during this time.
In correspondence with both the landlord and this Service, the resident has also advised she believes the conditions within her property have affected her and her family’s health. The Ombudsman does not have the expertise to make a determination on whether there is any causal link between the landlord’s actions or inactions and any reported health conditions. The resident may therefore wish to seek independent advice regarding this if she has not already done so.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. She has resided in the property, a two-bedroom ground floor flat, since July 2007.
The landlord’s Lettings Policy states that households deemed to be “severely overcrowded” are placed into Band 3 on its Choice Based Lettings (CBL) scheme (Band 1 being the highest priority and Band 4 the lowest). Records show the landlord suspended its CBL scheme in 2020 during the coronavirus pandemic, although it is not apparent when the scheme became live again.

Summary of Events

On 21 October 2020, the resident contacted this Service to advise she was “stressed, depressed” and worried about her children and her health. She stated she had been asking the landlord to move her to “appropriate accommodation” for the past 13 years due to damp as her property was affected by “damp and cold conditions”. She advised her four children were all sleeping in the same room, and she wanted to be moved away from her overcrowded accommodation but the landlord’s bidding system for new accommodation was “not active” due to the Covid-19 pandemic. She did note the landlord had put in new ventilation within the property and painted over “damp areas on walls several times”, but had also advised her to keep windows open, which made the property colder, and removed ventilation from her sitting room.
This Service wrote to the resident the same day and advised her to submit a formal complaint to the landlord as there was no evidence she had yet done so.
Landlord records show it wrote to the resident on 28 October 2020 apparently in response to a previous complaint made in 2019 regarding “tiling in kitchen and snagging to tiling and worktops”, “extractor fan in kitchen and bathroom not working”, “guttering leak” and “painting in kitchen after repairs”. After acknowledging “several long delays that occurred between (repair) appointments”, it offered the resident compensation totalling £1,315. Information provided by the resident indicates she refused this and returned the cheque.
The resident contacted this Service again on 11 November 2020 to advise repairs at the property remained outstanding. She stated the landlord had “lied” about sending a surveyor to the property and again requested she be rehoused. She believed the landlord should compensate her but did not specify the amount she sought.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 25 November 2020 to acknowledge her new complaint. It stated it understood the complaint to be regarding:
1. “Damp/mould issue” which had been “going on for 13 years and not resolved”.
2. “Living room window” which was missing an air vent that had not been replaced.
3. “Basement window” which the resident had been advised would be fitted with a grill that would “allow easy opening”, but this had not been done.
4. “Rehousing issue”, noting that the resident was “disputing (her) bed need” with regards to potential rehousing options.
The landlord also advised it would request a surveyor “discussed further treatment” and “appoint a specialist contractor to carry out an assessment throughout your home” and also speak to its Lettings Team to “review your housing needs”. It also acknowledged the resident’s request for compensation, which she made during a call which took place on an unspecified date.
On 9 December 2020, the landlord provided the resident with a Stage One complaint response. It advised it had carried out an investigation regarding it had handled the resident’s “reports of…outstanding repairs particularly damp issue in your home” and her “report of pest infestation”, an aspect which was not part of the resident’s original complaint and is not being considered in this investigation. It noted the resident wanted compensation and for the landlord to move her to a new property to resolve the complaint. It also noted the resident had made a previous complaint in October 2019, to which it had already responded, but which addressed the same issues she had reported to this Service in October 2020.
The landlord made the following comments and findings:
1. It noted the resident believed that “ongoing damp” in her home could be caused by water ingress through an external wall and that each room in her property suffered from “heavy damp”. She stated previously mould treatment carried out by the landlord had not worked and she was “still experiencing mould on (her) clothes, shoes and belongings”.
2. It noted the resident had also raised concerns regarding a basement window which a landlord operative had advised her needed to be fitted with a grill.
3. Regarding her housing situation, it noted that in October 2019 it had advised the resident was “actively” registered on the HomeSwapper website (for Mutual Exchanges) and was an “active transfer applicant”. It clarified she remained active on its transfer list but advised that 4-bedroom properties rarely became available in her borough as the demand was “huge and…far outweighs the supply” (of available properties).
4. It also clarified it had a nomination arrangement with the Local Authority which resulted in it handing over a percentage of its properties to applicants on the Authority’s own housing register. It provided a link for the Housing Moves website, a scheme which aimed to assist residents move to other boroughs, although it noted the resident had since advised she wished to remain in her current area.
5. The landlord confirmed the resident’s details had been added to its Mobility spreadsheet, although it clarified this was “not a waiting list but simply a list…of…residents wishing to move…. (who) can easily be contacted” by the landlord in the hope of identifying possible property exchanges. It also confirmed the resident had not had an overcrowding priority awarded, but this had now been requested.
6. Returning to the reported damp and mould, the landlord advised it had raised an order on 2 December 2020 for a contractor to “inspect and investigate your external wall for any signs of water ingress” which may be causing damp and the contractor would contact her directly to arrange an appointment. The landlord would “comment further” once it received the contractor’s report.
7. Regarding compensation, the landlord advised it had already made an offer to the resident and was waiting for her response. It therefore stated it was “unable to uphold (her) request for compensation…(as) another member of staff…is already discussing this with you”.
The resident responded to the landlord the same day and sought to clarify that her complaint was regarding “ongoing damp issues” within her home, her request to be “moved into a property suitable for myself and four children”, ventilation issues and assessing whether the basement room in her property “is really a storage room or a bedroom”. She queried the purpose of her name being added to the landlord’s ‘Mobility’ list and stated she had not informed the landlord there was an ongoing issue with mice, but she had “informed (the landlord) of issues that occurred last year…to give you a background understanding of what’s been happening”. She stated the landlord had advised her the previous week it would “be dealing…separately” with any compensation award related to mice issues.
The landlord wrote again to the resident on 10 December 2020 to clarify the scope of the current complaint advising why it had addressed reports of a mice infestation and that it would not be paying compensation for this. It apologised for any “misunderstanding”. Regarding her housing situation, the landlord advised it had already explained why it had added her to its Mobility list and offered to provide further details, although this appeared to consist of simply repeating what it had advised in its Stage One response. It also offered an apology for the fact her housing registration details had not been updated to reflect an overcrowding priority when she had contacted it in 2019 and reiterated this had now been done. Finally, it advised it had chased the damp contractor that day and asked them to contact the resident to arrange an appointment “without further delay”.
Records show a contractor attended the property on behalf of the landlord’s Healthy Home Team on 18 December 2020. The contractor fed back to the landlord that there were “cracks in external wall – allowing water ingress – needs repair” and “rear render is loose could be allowing water ingress into the kitchen”. It summarised that “possible water penetration from the outside brick wall” needed “looking into” as it was a potential cause of damp in the property. It also noted that the bedroom window had “started to rot”. However, records show it cancelled a follow-up visit to apply mould treatment (‘Clean and Shield’) as it had been unable to get in touch with the resident. Records show this was later re-raised and an appointment was booked on 22 March 2021.
On 21 December 2020, the resident advised the landlord her housing registration still did not appear to have been updated with an overcrowding priority. She stated her application was showing a three-bed need, rather than a four bed and, after speaking to the landlord regarding this on 14 December, she had been told she would be contacted by 21 December 2020, but this had not happened. As a result, she stated she was unable to bid for properties.
Records show the landlord later re-raised an order for its contractor to carry out mould treatment on 22 March 2021.
The resident made further contact with this Service on 15 June 2021, advising she had not received any further contact from the landlord since it issued its Stage One response and clarifying email the following day. She advised she was still residing in an overcrowded property and did “not understand why the landlord has not made a priority move (for) her”. She stated the property remained affected by damp, some repair issues had been outstanding for over a year (the nature of the repairs was not noted) and she had been unable to escalate her complaint. This Service wrote to the landlord the same day, requesting it respond to the resident’s concerns regarding repairs and overcrowding.
The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 21 June 2021 and advised its “new approach” to investigating complaints at Stage Two was “taking longer than we expected” and apologised for the likely delay and any inconvenience this caused. It wrote to her again two days later and stated it understood the resident remained “dissatisfied” and that her complaint regarded its handling of “water ingress into the property, resulting in damp and mould”, “outstanding repairs”, its “handling of overcrowding at the property” and her “dissatisfaction with how the landlord communicated with you”. It advised it would write to her again by 21 July 2021 with its “decision and to let you know the next steps”.
On 20 July 2021, the landlord provided its Stage Two response. It stated it understood that, following her contact with this Service, the resident was unhappy with its previous response and remained concerned about its handling of repairs, the overcrowding at her property and how it had communicated with her. It noted that, to resolve the complaint, the resident wanted to be moved to a new property, for the landlord to “complete all outstanding repairs” and for it to “communicate effectively” with her.
The landlord advised it had completed a review of the case and outlined the following findings:
1. It had originally spoken with the resident regarding her housing options in November 2019 and following this it added her details to its Mobility spreadsheet. It noted it had “clarified the process” of the spreadsheet in its Stage One complaint response.
2. It acknowledged that following further correspondence from the resident in October 2020 in which she advised she felt “unsupported” by the landlord regarding moving to a new property, it identified that her application had not been updated with a priority for overcrowding, which it should have been. It clarified this had since been amended but acknowledged her application “should have been checked to ensure it met the correct criteria”. It apologised that it had not been done at the time and for any inconvenience this caused.
3. It reiterated it had provided relevant advice regarding rehousing options and explained about the possibility of moving via a mutual exchange scheme. It also encouraged the resident to consider widening her search area to include areas other boroughs to increase the chance of her finding a larger property.
4. Regarding repair issues at the property, the landlord referred to the resident’s previous complaint which it stated had been raised on May 2019 and regarded the repair issues referred to in paragraph 9 of this report. It noted the complaint had been “resolved on 17 December 2020” and the resident had been advised of how to escalate her complaint to Stage Two if she remained unhappy with its response. It noted compensation had been offered, although it stated this had been accepted by the resident.
5. However, the landlord noted that “before your original complaint was finalised…your new complaint was logged following information provided by (this Service)”. The new case, the subject of this investigation, regarded “damp and mould”, “mice infestation”, “window grill” and “moving home”.
6. It advised “various repair orders and cases have previously been logged in attempts to resolve the damp and mould concerns” and noted that, following a repair to the guttering at the property, the resident had been referred to the landlord’s Healthy Homes Team (HHT), who “handle all damp and mould cases”. It noted the HHT worked alongside a damp and mould specialist contractor, who visited the property in December 2020 to carry out a survey and made a number of recommendations, including a further inspection of some external walls, a rotten window that would “require further attention” and advice to the resident on how to ventilate the property and declutter the home.
7. The landlord noted the contractor had advised it was unable to contact the resident to organise a “clean and shield” application to areas affected by mould despite “frequent attempts”. An appointment was eventually arranged for March 2021. The landlord further advised that, at the time, it was only carrying out emergency or urgent repairs due to Government coronavirus restrictions and it therefore determined it would “re-raise” repairs related to the external rendering and window once “normal day-to-day repairs resumed”. However, it acknowledged it did not do this and offered an apology.
8. It advised that, as some repairs remained outstanding, it would refer the complaint back to a Customer Relations Officer “so that an action plan can be implemented”. The landlord referred again to the compensation it awarded following the resident’s previous complaint regarding issues with guttering but advised it had identified further service failures while reviewing the new complaint (although it did not specify what these were) and therefore made an offer of £200 compensation “by way of apology”. It also awarded an additional £20 for the delay in issuing its Stage Two complaint, which it stated was due to “staff changes” and advised the resident of her right to escalate her complaint to this Service if she remained unhappy.
The resident made further contact with this Service on 24 August 2021 to advise she remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. She acknowledged it had carried out some works, including mould treatment, and had advised it would attend in September to complete a window repair. However, she felt it had not considered her request to be rehoused.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould and repairs including a bedroom window

It is not disputed the resident has raised concerns about damp and mould affecting her property on several occasions, and the landlord’s repair records reflect this. However, as noted above this investigation will consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports in the 12 months prior to her October 2020 complaint.
Landlord repair records indicate that, after contact from the resident, an order was raised on 10 January 2020 to “inspect property for damp and mould (and) also check living room as air vent was removed”. While the inspection is marked as having been completed on 24 January 2020, the landlord’s records do not include details regarding findings or recommendations made during any inspection. This is not appropriate and means the landlord is not able to adequately evidence how it responded to the matter. While records show a further order was raised on 6 Match 2020 for a contractor to quote for installation of an air vent/air brick in the resident’s living room, it is not clear why it was over two months before a quote was sought. The order is ultimately marked as having been completed on 2 April 2020. In the absence of any explanatory information, this appears to be an unreasonable delay.
There are no further repair records regarding the reported damp and mould until after the resident logged a further complaint in October 2020, ten months later. This is not appropriate, and the landlord is not able to evidence the actions it took to carry out further investigation of the issue for a significant length of time. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the landlord did not treat the resident fairly through its response to her latest reports in January 2020.
However, when it provided its Stage One complaint response on 9 December 2020, it acted reasonably in setting out actions it would take to try and investigate the damp and mould issue further. It advised it would arrange for a damp specialist to attend the property and carry out a survey and it organised this promptly, with the survey taking place on 18 December. Records show the contractor made a number of recommendations to the landlord following the survey, including that there were cracks in the external wall and loose rendering which were allowing water ingress. However, after receiving the report, there is no indication that the landlord had follow-up on the recommendations by the time it issues its Stage Two complaint response in June 2021, over six months later. This amounted to a further unreasonable delay.
While the landlord advised in its complaint response that, “at the time” it was only undertaking emergency works rather than “day-to-day” repairs, there is no evidence the resident was advised of this at the time. Internal landlord correspondence from 23 February 2021 acknowledged the specialist’s report and noted that orders needed to be raised to “attend to the rendering” and rotten bedroom window, however this was not done. While the landlord acknowledged its failure to raise these orders once it had begun carrying out day-to-day repairs again and apologised for this in its complaint response, this was not appropriate.
Indeed, repair records indicate works to carry out external pointing and rendering repairs were not ultimately re-raised until July 2021 and only completed on 23 August 2021. This amounted to an avoidable and significant delay. Regarding the windows, repair records indicate that, as of October 2021, works were still listed as “outstanding” and “all windows need inspecting” and a request to “complete agreement of works” was noted. While the landlord wrote to the resident on 17 August 2021 to offer an appointment to inspect “all your windows” on 21 October 2021, this is despite the resident advising this Service that a window repair was scheduled to take place in September 2021. It also remains unclear what the result of the inspection was and what, if any, works were raised following this inspection. That the matter was not resolved, over ten months after the specialist’s survey in December 2020, is evidence of unreasonable delay.
These gaps in the landlord’s repair records are again concerning. Regardless of this, there was also a significant delay in the landlord attending to works that were first recommended in December 2020. While this Service acknowledges that landlords were, during certain periods in 2020 and 2021, only attending properties to carry out emergency repairs, this does not explain such a lengthy delay which would have caused the resident considerable inconvenience. It is of concern that it remains unclear if the works have been completed and an order has been made at the end of this report for the landlord to clarify then current status of these repairs and/or inspections.
While it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise in its Stage Two response for service failures, it should have been more specific regarding the failures it had identified and the compensation it offered – £200 – does not adequately reflect the failings in this case, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, amounts to maladministration. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, while the landlord noted in correspondence with the resident on 17 August 2021 that she had refused its offer, it could have taken the opportunity to review the amount originally offered so it could take into account the further delays she had experienced. That it did not do so was a missed opportunity for the landlord to “put things right” in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. An Order has therefore been made at the end of this report for the landlord to pay an increased amount of compensation to the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be rehoused

From the information seen by this Service, the landlord has generally responded fairly to the resident’s request to be rehoused. While the resident advised it, and this Service, that she sought a move to another property as a resolution to her complaint, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this would have been an outcome the landlord was not able to provide. That it did not so was therefore not evidence of service failure.
The advice it provided the resident in its complaint responses and general correspondence appears to have been reasonable and an attempt to treat the resident fairly. This Service acknowledges the pressures of social housing and that larger properties are in particular demand, so it was reasonable of the landlord to advise the resident that demand for four-bedroom properties outstripped supply, particularly in her borough, and it was appropriate that it sought to manage her expectations.
It acted reasonably by advising her of the steps it had taken, which included adding her name to its internal Mobility spreadsheet and it attempted to explain what the purpose of this was. However, it could have been more helpful when it provided a further explanation following its Stage One response which effectively repeated the same information. It also provided reasonable advice about Mutual Exchanges and appropriately signposted her to the Local Authority’s housing list.
However, there was service failure by the landlord when it failed to update her application with an overcrowding priority. It was appropriate that its complaint responses acknowledged this and offered an apology for the error, but it should have considered whether this had caused any further detriment to the resident, such as through missing out on any available properties due to having an incorrect banding (before the landlord suspected its Choice Based Lettings list).

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould and repairs including a bedroom window.
2. Service failure regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be rehoused.

Reasons

There were significant delays in the landlord’s responses to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property, from January 2020 onwards. There are gaps in its repair records and, while it is acknowledged that some delays can be attributed to working restrictions caused by the coronavirus pandemic, these do not account for the periods of time where the landlord has not been able to evidence the actions it took to progress the issue.
There were then further delays following the damp survey report it arranged in December 2020, whereby recommendations made by its specialist were not acted on for several months, in some cases taking over ten months to complete recommended works. While the landlord’s Stage Two response acknowledged service failures, the apology and amount of compensation offered did not adequately reflect the level of disruption the delays would likely have caused.
The landlord generally responded appropriately to the resident’s request to be rehoused and provided reasonable advice. However, it failed to update her housing application appropriately and did not give proper consideration to how this could have affected her attempts to apply for other properties.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

The landlord should, within four weeks of the date of this determination, pay the resident a total of £650 compensation, consisting of:
1. £500 for the identified failings in its handling of her damp and mould reports and associated repairs. For clarity, this replaces the £200 offered by the landlord in its Stage Two response.
2. £100 for its failure to update her housing application.
3. £50 for the failings in its complaint response. This replaces the £20 offered by the landlord in its Stage Two response.

Recommendations

Although the issue was not originally included within the resident’s October 2020 complaint, as it was raised during subsequent correspondence and not responded to, the landlord should write to the resident to outline its position regarding the assessment of her property as a one or two-bedroom flat. If another body ultimately determines the property size, the landlord should clearly signpost her to the relevant authority and consider providing assistance with arranging any assessment.