London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202228344)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228344

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

30 May 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 handling of:
1. Lift repairs.
2. Antisocial behaviour (ASB).
3. A request for the reimbursement of removal costs.
4. Reports of pests.
5. Condensation, damp and mould in the building.
6. Cleaning of communal areas.
7. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident held an assured tenancy, beginning on 20 September 2021. The resident has advised that she moved out of the property in November 2022. The property is a 2-bedroom, fifth-floor flat that the resident shared with her child, who is asthmatic. The landlord is a housing association.

Relevant legislation, policy and procedure

The landlord has a repairing obligation under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep the structure and exterior of the dwelling house in good repair.
The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard that may require remedy.
The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms that services within the block include, lift maintenance and servicing, grounds maintenance, communal cleaning and bulk refuse collection.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy confirms it is responsible for addressing pest infestations and the maintenance of communal areas and lifts. For emergency works the landlord will attend within 24 hours. For routine repairs, the landlord aims to complete the work at the earliest mutually convenient appointment.
The landlord’s handling of ASB, hazards in communal areas and inspections are set out in the estate management operating procedure, it states:
1. Signs of ASB must be recorded on the estate inspection application (including graffiti, bulk rubbish, smells of drugs). This includes the type and location of the ASB. The landlord should check if there is a live ASB case and if not, create one in accordance with the ASB policy and procedure.
2. Estate inspections take place either monthly, bi-monthly or quarterly. Follow-on actions should take place within 5 days of an inspection.
The landlord’s ASB policy sets out how it will work to prevent and handle ASB. Reports will be logged, and risk assessed. If, after review, the landlord is unable to act, it will explain this to the resident and provide signposting to relevant agencies or information.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. It will provide a stage 1 response in 10 working days and a stage 2 response in 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy allows for discretionary payments. Where a resident can evidence they incurred reasonable extra costs because of service failure, this should be reimbursed.

Summary of events

On 27 September 2021 the resident asked for an update on the lift repair as she had white goods arriving. After speaking with the landlord, on 28 September 2021 the resident emailed a summary of conversation, noting:
1. The lift was broken when she viewed the property and she had been assured by the landlord it would be repaired before she moved it. The lift was not fixed on 12 September 2021. She had asked for this to be followed up, and for confirmation that the lift would be replaced in November 2021.
2. The lift was not fixed on 12 September 2021. She had asked for this to be followed up, and for confirmation that the lift would be replaced in November 2021.
3. She had asked for the contact details for the community police officer and for information about the CCTV that would be installed.
4. She had asked if the landlord could provide financial assistance for the additional removal costs caused by the lift being out of service.
On 29 and 30 September 2021 the resident asked for a response to her email.
On 30 September 2021 the resident told the landlord the lift had not worked since she moved in and asked for a breakdown of the service charge.
On 5 October 2021 thelandlord said the resident’s email would be discussed during the forthcoming starter tenancy home visit. The visit was subsequently rescheduled to 20 November 2021 and the landlord offered a separate meeting on 20 October 2021. The meeting did not take place as the landlordattended the wrong address. In an email exchange on that date, the resident said her main concern was the lift, moving costs and the cleaning of the block.
In an email exchange between the resident and landlord on 22 October 2021, the resident expressed concern that the lift was not working as she had heavy items to move into her property. The landlord said contractors had attended on 22 and 23 October 2021 and had advised the lift was working. It said the lift had been vandalised and therefore the contractor might not attend. The resident responded on 28 October 2021, and said she had an oven and fridge arriving the next day.
On 3 November 2021 the landlord said the lift was working. The resident said it was still broken and sent pictures of the lift display.
On 18 November 2021 the resident told the landlord that a sofa had been set on fire outside her property. The resident explained that she and her daughter were scared and asked for an urgent update on the planned CCTV installation, community police officer attendance, fire extinguisher checks and a neighbour who had been reported smoking on the landing.
The landlord has said it carried out a welcome visit via phone on 2 December 2021 and the resident did not report any issues with the lift.
On 15 December 2021 the resident reported graffiti, black mould and faeces in the communal stairwell, and provided images. She also asked when the lift replacement would start as the landlord had promised a new lift by February 2022.
The landlord responded on 16 December 2021. It said a contractor would attend about the mould on 5 January 2022, there would be additional cleaning and the graffiti would be removed. It went on to say the police had increased patrols, a quote for CCTV had been obtained, and lift installation was delayed but would be complete by April 2022. The resident expressed thanks for the update but flagged that the lift was routinely out of service. She also reported her neighbour for smoking in the communal landing area.
On 17 December 2021 the resident confirmed a cleaner had attended, but the graffiti remained and asked if it could be painted over. The landlord said it was unclear if this could happen before Christmas.
On 7 January 2022 the resident asked when the contractor would attend about the mould, which was spreading. The landlord said it would check if the contractor had attended on 5 January 2022. The resident asked again on 10 January 2022 and the landlord said the appointment had been rescheduled but no further date given.
On 4 February 2022 the resident asked for an update on the lift.
On 14 February 2022 the resident asked for an update on the damp and mould, as this was now also on the landing. The landlord said the work may need to go to a tendering process before a contractor was allocated.
On 18 and 19 February 2022 the resident told the landlord the cleaners had not attended and said there was food, rubbish, and urine on the stairs. The resident also asked for an update on the lift and said that her daughter had severe asthma and was struggling to get up the stairs.
On 28 February 2022 the resident reported seeing rats outside the building. She said drug users and prostitutes visited her neighbour’s property.
On 17 March 2022 the resident reported individuals smoking ‘crack’ on the stairs in the building.
On 18 March 2022 the resident complained to the landlord that she had reported the following issues, but no action had been taken:
1. The lift had not worked for over 2 years.
2. She reported a sighting of rats on 22 February 2022.
3. She felt unsafe because of a fire, drug addicts and loiters.
4. The building was damp, and condensation was resulting in mould and making the stairs wet and dangerous.
The landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint on 18 March 2022 and confirmed it would investigate the reports of ASB, the state of the walls in the building, the fire alarm system, and communication issues. It asked the resident to highlight if anything had been missed. In response the resident said the standard and lack of communal cleaning, homeless people accessing the building and drug use were also issues.
On 24 March 2022 the resident told the landlord cleaners had not attended since 21 March 2022 and provided pictures of litter, dirt, and a mattress in the communal area. The landlord said it would contact the cleaning company to check if it had attended.
On 27 March 2022 the resident reported seeing rats. She asked the landlord to confirm that pest control would attend. The resident asked again on 28 March 2022 and the landlord said itwould respond with details of a plan to deal with the rats.
On 31 March and 1 April 2022, the resident asked if pest control had attended. The landlord confirmed it had and said it was awaiting the report.
The landlord provided a stage 1 response 31 March 2022. It upheld the complaint and said it would arrange, or had arranged the following:
1. Lift replacement on 30 May 2022, with work completed by 25 August 2022.
2. Installation of 3 CCTV cameras on the ground floor.
3. Request extra “safer neighbourhood” police patrols.
4. ASB case opened, and letter sent to perpetrator.
5. Pest control to attend and treat throughout the year.
6. Assessment of internal walls in the communal stairwell.
7. Regular fire system inspections and faults reported.
On 30 March 2022 the landlord wrote to residents advising them the “lift renewal programme” would take place between 30 May and 26 August 2022.
On 31 March 2022 the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated.
On 14 April 2022 the property manager told the resident pest control would attend regularly, lift work would commence at the end of May 2022, the communal stairwell would be cleaned and the safer neighbourhood team would increase their patrols.
On 8 June 2022 the resident sought an update on the lift repairs and was advised by the landlord that it was awaiting a delivery of parts.
On 12 June 2022 there was a fire at the building and the resident was moved to temporary accommodation.
On 13 June 2022 an ASB caseworker contacted the resident. They apologised for the issues raised previously by the resident not receiving the appropriate response.
Between 13 June and 17 June 2022, the resident and landlord exchanged emails about subsistence payments, which the resident said were inadequate and needed to be paid in advance.
On 17 June 2022 the landlord told residents it was investigating reports of ASB and encouraged residents to provide evidence. It said the lift had been out of service repeatedly, due to vandalism and mechanical issues. Lift replacement was due to take place in May 2022, but was now delayed until September 2022. The resident responded on 19 June 2022, telling the landlord she had complained about these issues since October 2021. She said she was suffering from PTSD following an incident in November 2021, when a sofa was set on fire outside her door. On 21 June 2022 the resident chased the landlord for a response to her email. The landlord said it hoped to provide an update by the end of the day. On 22 June 2022 the resident sought assistance from her MP.
On 22 June 2022 the resident returned to the building to feed her cat. She emailed the landlord to report drug users entering the neighbour’s property.
On 28 June 2022 the landlord told residents it had a temporary solution to get the lift back into service, which it anticipated could be effective from 4 July 2022.
On 6 July 2022 the landlord told the resident that she could return to her property. In response, the resident said she had attempted, unsuccessfully to contact the landlord multiple times. She said the landlord had not resolved the broken lift or the ASB. The resident explained that her and her daughter had suffered considerably due to the conditions at the building, which had affected them physically, mentally, and financially.
On 11 July 2022 the landlord told the resident’s MP her complaint had now been escalated to stage 2.
On 21 July 2022 the resident asked for an update on the lift repair, the duration of the waking watch, and the name of her housing officer.
At the residents’ meeting on 27 July 2022 the landlord said:
1. Residents had not received an acceptable standard of service.
2. Lots of residents had reported ASB and concerns for their safety.
3. A resident had raised concerns about condensation and ventilation in communal areas.
4. The lift replacement would begin on 21 September 2021 with the work expected to complete on 23 December 2021.
5. It had been called 104 times over the previous 2 years with reports of the lift being out of service, largely because of vandalism.
6. It would compensate residents for the lift being out of service.
7. The replacement works meant there would be no lift for 12-15 weeks. The landlord would consider how it could assist residents during this period.
On 29 July 2022 the landlord told the resident’s MP the lift was working. It said there had been 1 ASB incident since reoccupation of the building and the landlord had taken “swift and robust” legal action. The resident had stated she wanted a permanent relocation, and the landlord was looking for alternative accommodation. It said the resident returned to the property on 5 July 2022.
On 9 August 2022 the resident’s MP told the landlord that the resident’s stage 2 complaint remained open.
On 5 September 2022 the landlord compensated residents £300 for the distress and inconvenience of the lift disrepair.
On 13 September 2022 the resident asked for the landlord to follow up on a report of rats and for rubbish around the building to be removed. She asked when the lift would be removed.
On 14 September 2022 the landlord said the rat problem had been raised with all relevant parties and that lift works would commence on 15 September 2022.
On 3 February 2023 the resident asked the landlord for an update on her complaint.
The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 6 February 2023. It upheld the resident’s complaint, noting:
1. The lift was working until 31 August 2021 and was repaired on 3 October 2021. It was out of order when the resident moved in. Several repairs were required while the resident lived at the property. On all but 4 occasions the repair was completed with the landlord’s 20-day service level agreement.
2. It found one occasion the resident emailed about the lift and CCTV and did not receive a response.
3. £300 was paid to the resident’s account on 5 September 2022 for the time the lift was out of service.
4. The resident had not provided a receipt for removal costs (despite previous requests from the landlord regarding reimbursement).
5. Following the resident’s report of mice on 25 January 2022 pest treatment was carried out on 26 February 2022 and no further reports were received.
6. CCTV was installed in March 2022.
7. There were no reports of damp, mould, or condensation at the property.
8. The landlord had increased the frequency of cleans.
9. It had requested the safer neighbourhoods policing team attended more frequently.
10. The ASB case was dealt with in accordance with its policy. A dedicated point of contact was provided and it was concluded there was insufficient evidence of ASB.
11. Following the fire, the resident received a permanent transfer.
12. In addition to the compensation awarded previously for the lift, the landlord offered a further £180 for the repair delays and £200 for the delayed complaint response.

Assessment and findings

Scope of assessment

The resident has referenced how the landlord’s handling of issues at the building had affected her and her daughter’s physical and mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, however, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused.

Landlord’s handling of lift repairs

The lift was not working when the resident moved into the property and worked intermittently thereafter. The resident has provided this Service with emails sent to the landlord reporting that the lift was broken, chasing repair updates, and seeking information on lift replacement. These show the resident contacted the landlord multiple times between 10 September 2021 and 18 March 2022, at which point she submitted a formal complaint. It is concerning that the landlord has not provided this evidence to this Service. It is reasonable to expect the landlord should have accurate and complete repair and customer service records to enable it to fulfil its repair obligations. The absence of these records is inappropriate.
On 28 September 2021 the resident sought confirmation that the lift would be replaced in November 2021. This Service has not seen a response to the resident’s email. On 31 March 2022 the landlord told residents the replacement work would begin on 30 May 2022. The evidence seen by this Service suggests work had not commenced on 12 June 2022 at the time of the fire at the block. The replacement was then delayed until 21 September 2022. This Service has seen 2 updates from the landlord to residents during this period, a letter sent on 31 March and a residents’ meeting on 27 July 2022. In accordance with the tenancy agreement, the landlord is required to maintain the lift. If the lift could not be kept in good repair and replacement was required, the landlord should have communicated this to residents and provided clear, timely and accurate information on the how it was seeking to resolve the issue. The landlord acted unreasonably in not providing this regular and timely communication.
At the meeting on 27 July 2022 the landlord said that it had been contacted 104 times over 2 years due to the lift being broken. The repair records provided to this Service do not reflect this figure and do not set out when and for how long the lift was out of service. As set out previously, it is incumbent on the landlord to have accurate repair records. The absence of these records is inappropriate.
The landlord said most of the problems with the lift were caused by vandalism. Its estate management operating procedure requires that signs of ASB be recorded on the estate inspections and handled in accordance with its ASB policy and procedure. The landlord acted inappropriately in providing no evidence to demonstrate that it dealt with vandalism to the lift in this manner.
At the meeting on 27 July 2022 the landlord set-out potential measures it could take to mitigate the impact of the lift being out of service for 12-15 weeks during the replacement works. However, this Service has seen no evidence that the landlord considered mitigation measures prior to this meeting, which was unreasonable. The resident had told the landlord that her daughter had severe asthma and could not climb 5 flights of stairs. As a result, the resident had to carry her child to and from her property. The landlord did not display empathy for the resident’s situation or consider how it could mitigate the impact on the household of the lift being out of service. This was unreasonable.
When there are failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (an apology and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord apologised to residents on 27 July 2022 for the failings and subsequently credited residents’ service charge accounts with £300, which it said was the equivalent of servicing and maintenance costs over the previous 2 years and a discretionary uplift. In its stage 2 response the landlord awarded a further £180 for the repair delays. However, it did not provide an apology. The complaint response described “several repairs” being required while the resident lived at the property, 4 of these it said took longer than 20 days. As set out previously, it is not possible to verify this figure from the repair records provided to this Service. However, the cumulative impact on the resident of the multiple instances of disrepair was pronounced. The landlord failed to apologise or provide a proportionate redress for the specific impact on the resident and her daughter to reflect the numerous failures in its service provision.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of lift repairs. Orders are therefore made for the landlord to apologise and to pay the resident a further £100 compensation (for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience). This is in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance and our Dispute Resolution Principle of ‘putting things right’.

Landlord’s handling of ASB

The resident has said that she reported incidents of vandalism, arson, loiters, graffiti and drug use to the landlord. The resident has provided this Service with emails sent to the landlord reporting these issues. It is concerning that the landlord has not provided the same extent of evidence to this Service. The landlord should have accurate records to enable it to follow and demonstrate it has followed the appropriate policy and procedure. The absence of these records is inappropriate.
On 18 November 2021 the resident reported that a sofa had been deliberately set on fire outside her door. The landlord’s ASB policy stipulates that reports will be logged, and risk assessed. This Service has seen no evidence the landlord followed these steps. The failure to follow established policy and processes is is inappropriate.
On 15 December 2021 the resident reported graffiti. The landlord’s estate management operating procedure states that signs of ASB, such as graffiti, must be recorded and handled in accordance with the landlord’s ASB policy and procedure. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord handled the resident’s report in accordance with its operating procedure. This further failure to follow its procedure is inappropriate.
On 17 March 2022 the resident reported individuals smoking crack on the communal stairs. The landlord told the resident it would investigate. The landlord has not however, provided evidence that it conducted the promised investigation. The failure of the landlord to respond to reports of ASB, and to record what (if any) action it took, is inappropriate, particularly due to the extensive complaint history and its awareness of the issues at the building.
The landlord’s complaint response on 31 March 2022 said an ASB case had been opened and a letter sent to the perpetrator. It is unclear which instance of ASB the landlord was referring to. The resident’s complaint referred to unspecified individuals using drugs, so the landlord’s response does not correlate with the resident’s complaint. The landlord acted unreasonably in not setting out clearly the information about the ASB case and its response.
On 22 June 2022 the resident reported drug users entering her neighbour’s property. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s report or handled it in accordance with its ASB policy and procedure. The landlord acted inappropriately in not following its ASB policy. It was particularly unreasonable of the landlord not to respond to the resident as on 17 June 2022 it had asked residents to provide it with evidence as it was investigating ASB at the building.
The landlord concluded in its stage 2 complaint response that the ASB had been dealt with in accordance with its policy. However, an ASB caseworker apologised to the resident on 12 June 2022 for the landlord not responding appropriately to the issues she had raised. It was therefore unreasonable for the landlord to conclude that the resident’s reports were handled appropriately.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of ASB. The landlord did not adhere to its estate management operating procedure or ASB policy. It did not undertake the required risk assessments and has provided no evidence that it exhibited understanding or empathy to the issues the resident and her daughter were subject to. Orders are therefore made for the landlord to apologise and pay £400 compensation (for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience). This is in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance and our Dispute Resolution Principle of ‘putting things right’.

A request for reimbursement of removal costs

As set out previously, the lift was not working when the resident moved into the property. The resident subsequently asked the landlord to reimburse the additional moving expenses incurred as a result. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that where a resident can evidence they incurred extra costs because of service failure, these can be reimbursed. The landlord acted appropriately in asking the resident to provide a receipt to claim the removals costs.
Overall, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for the reimbursement of removal costs.

Reports of pests

On 22 February and 27 March 2022 the resident reported seeing rats outside the building. The landlord’s repairs policy confirms it is responsible for addressing pest infestations. In its stage 1 response on 31 March 2022 the landlord said that pest control would attend and treat the affected areas throughout the year. The landlord acted appropriately in confirming it would arrange for the issue to be addressed.
The evidence provided by the landlord shows that pest control attended on 20 October 2022, 26 October 2022, 10 November 2022, 25 November 2023, 21 January 2023, 21 July 2023. The first attendance was 140 days after the landlord’s complaint response. The landlord’s repairs policy does not set out target timelines. However, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to have actioned the response much sooner in view of the nature of the pest and its commitment to addressing the issue throughout the year and therefore the delay of over 6 months to action its commitment in its stage 1 response was unreasonable.
The landlord’s stage 2 response said that following the resident’s reports of mice on 25 January 2022, pest control attended on 26 February 2022 and no further reports were received. It is unclear why the response referred to mice, as the resident reported rats. Furthermore, the landlord’s response was unreasonable because it received further reports about rats on 27 March 2022 and in September 2022.
Overall, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of pests. Orders are therefore made for the landlord to apologise and pay £75 compensation (for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience). This is in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance and our Dispute Resolution Principle of ‘putting things right’.

Condensation, damp and mould

The resident reported black mould on the communal stairs on 15 December 2021. The landlord’s repairs policy states that non-urgent repairs will be actioned at the earliest convenient appointment date. The landlord responded appropriately in advising the resident on 16 December 2021 that a contractor would attend on 5 January 2021 to address the mould.
The repair records provided to this Service do not include the resident’s report. It is imperative that a landlord maintains accurate and complete records to enable it to fulfil its repairs obligation. It is inappropriate that the landlord’s repair records do not contain the resident’s report.
The resident chased the landlord for an update on 7 January, 10 January, and 14 February 2022, as the contractor had not attended. In response to the latter enquiry the landlord said the work might be delayed due to a tendering process. The landlord acted unreasonably in not adhering to the original appointment time, failing to reschedule the appointment in a timely manner and adequately explain why a damp inspection was subject to a tendering process.
On 18 March 2022 the resident complained that the building was damp, and condensation was causing mould on the communal stairs. The landlord has an obligation under the HHRS to consider whether mould problems amount to a hazard that may require remedy. In its stage 1 response the landlord said it would conduct an assessment. This Service has seen no evidence of an assessment or resulting report. This is inappropriate.
In its stage 2 response on 18 March 2023, the landlord said there were no reports of damp, mould, or condensation at the property. However, the resident’s complaint was about the issues affecting the communal stairs at the building not within her property. The correspondence set out previously demonstrates the resident did report the issue. It was inappropriate that the landlord incorrectly characterised the issue. This meant that 14 months after the resident’s initial report the landlord had taken no action. The landlord’s inaction and mischaracterisation of the issue was unreasonable based on the clear issues of complaint raised by the resident.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of condensation damp, and mould. There is no evidence that the landlord acted on the resident’s reports and conducted an assessment. Its record keeping was inadequate, and it misrepresented the issue in its complaint response. Orders are therefore made for the landlord to apologise and to pay the resident £250 compensation (for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience). This is in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance and our Dispute Resolution Principle of ‘putting things right’.

Issues with communal cleaning

On 15 December 2021 the resident reported mould and faeces on the walls of the communal stairs. The landlord acted reasonably in arranging for cleaners to attend on 16 December 2021.
On 18 and 19 February 2022 the resident told the landlord the cleaners had not attended and there was food, rubbish, and urine on the stairs. This Service would expect the landlord to check the quality and standard of cleans. The landlord acted unreasonably in not responding to the resident’s report.
On 24 March 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to report that cleaners had not attended since 21 March 2022. The landlord said it would check attendance with the cleaning company. The landlord has not however, provided the relevant cleaning diary sheets or inspection records to this Service. The landlord acted unreasonably in not demonstrating that it assessed the cleanliness of the communal area, ascertained if remedial action was required and acted accordingly.
In its stage 2 response the landlord said it had increased the frequency of cleans at the building. The landlord has not provided details of the SLA, nor has it set out how and when the frequency of cleans were increased. Given the resident’s concerns about the frequency and standard of cleaning at the building, the lack of records or evidence of supervisory quality checks means that landlord’s conclusion that there was no service failure was unreasonable.
Overall, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to issues with the communal cleaning. Orders are therefore made for the landlord to apologise and to pay the resident £75 compensation (for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience). This is in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance and our Dispute Resolution Principle of ‘putting things right’.

Complaint handling

The resident submitted a formal complaint on 18 March 2022. The landlord responded, 10 working days later on 31 March 2022. The landlord acted appropriately in providing a response within its target response time.
The stage 1 response was inadequate as:
1. Contrary to paragraph 5.6 of the Complaint Handling Code 2022 (the Code), it did not address all issues raised by the resident, nor did it set out how the complaint had been investigated and why it was upheld.
2. Contrary to paragraph 5.6 of the Code, it did not set out the complaint definitions.
3. Apart from the lift replacement, the response provided no timelines for when the proposed resolutions would be affected.
On 31 March 2022 the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated. The resident reiterated the request on 7 July 2022, 17 July 2022 and 3 February 2023. The landlord provided a stage 2 response 215 working days later, on 6 February 2023. The landlord acted inappropriately in exceeding its target response time by 195 working days.
The stage 2 response was inadequate as:
1. The information provided regarding the lift repairs and replacement did not correlate with that provided at the residents’ meeting, or the repair records provided to this Service.
2. There is no evidence that the landlord conducted a robust investigation.
3. Information cited in the response was inaccurate:
  1. It states incorrectly there was 1 email from the resident about the lift that did not receive a response.
  2. It states incorrectly that there were no reports of pests after 25 January 2022.
  3. It states incorrectly that there were no reports of damp and mould.
4. Although the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint, it did not apologise for its failings.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord’s complaint responses were incomplete, inaccurate and the stage 2 response extremely late. The landlord failed to use the complaints process to affect enduring resolutions to the issues reported by the resident. It failed to acknowledge or consider the effect of the issues on the resident and her daughter. The compensation awarded by the landlord was not commensurate with the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. Orders are therefore made for the landlord to apologise and to pay the resident further £200 compensation. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance and our Dispute Resolution Principle of ‘putting things right’.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of lift repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a request for the reimbursement of removal costs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of pests.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of condensation, damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to reports of issues with the communal cleaning.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The lift worked only intermittently during the time the resident lived in the property. This was hugely inconvenient to the resident and her daughter. The landlord’s repair records were inadequate. It did not apologise to the resident in its complaint response, the compensation awarded was inadequate and it failed to show empathy or understanding of the impact of the issues on the resident.
The landlord did not adhere to its ASB policy or estate operating procedure. It did not undertake the required risk assessments and did not exhibit understanding or empathy. The landlord’s recordkeeping was inadequate. It did not apologise for its failings.
The landlord acted appropriately in asking the resident to provide a receipt for removal expenses.
The landlord acted appropriately in arranging for pest control to attend. However, the ongoing attendance commenced too late. The landlord said incorrectly that after 25 January 2022 it received no further reports of rats at the building, and it did not apologise for its failings.
The landlord did not act on the resident’s reports of damp, mould and condensation. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord conducted an assessment. Its record keeping was inadequate, and it stated incorrectly that it had received no reports of damp and mould.
The landlord has provided no evidence that it checked the frequency and standard of cleaning at the block. It has provided no evidence that the frequency of cleaning was increased in response to the resident’s reports.
The landlord’s complaint responses were incomplete, inaccurate and its stage 2 response was extremely late. It failed to use the complaints process to affect enduring resolutions to the issues reported by the resident. It failed to acknowledge or consider the effect of the issues on the resident and her daughter.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to provide a written apology for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be provided by a senior manager.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to pay £1,100 compensation to the resident, comprising:
1. £100 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s handling of lift repairs.
2. £400 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s handling of ASB.
3. £75 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s handling of reports of pests.
4. £250 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s handling of condensation, damp and mould.
5. £75 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s handling of communal cleaning.
6. £200 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s complaint handling.

The compensation should be paid directly to the resident and must not be paid to a rent or service charge account.