London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202307207)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307207

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

17 April 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 response to the resident’s reports of a mice infestation at her property.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, her tenancy began on 18 July 2011. The property is a second floor, 1 bedroom flat. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
  2. According to the landlord, the resident reported an issue with mice at her property in May 2022. The landlord has indicated this was raised when dealing with a separate complaint at the time. It raised a works order for its contractor to assess the mice issue on 16 May 2022, they attended on 18 May 2022 and placed 4 bait trays underneath the kitchen kickplates. A report detailing required proofing works was received by the landlord on 24 May 2022. This report highlighted 2 possible entry points in the kitchen and bathroom.
  3. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 31 May 2022, she said numerous jobs were ongoing at her property and she now had a mice infestation. She stated she would not pay rent as she felt “unsafe and disgusted” at the property.
  4. The landlord issued an initial stage 1 response on the same day, 31 May 2022. This included:
    1. It apologised the resident needed to complain to get her issues addressed.
    2. It confirmed it had received a quote from a pest control contractor for proofing works and would ask this be approved as soon as possible. It said it would update the resident on this.
    3. It had asked the housing lead to contact the resident back.
  5. The landlord provided a further stage 1 response on 17 June 2022, it said:
    1. Its pest control contractor would attend again on 24 June 2022 to carry out another treatment.
    2. On 15 July 2022, a plumber and carpenter would attend to remove the sink. Pest control would also attend this day to carry out proofing work.
    3. It offered £100 in recognition of the distress an inconvenience caused by the delays in completing the repairs.
  6. The resident emailed the landlord on 23 June 2022 and advised she was not happy with its response; she gave the following reasons:
    1. The compensation amount did not cover the rent of the property which she alleged to be “unliveable”.
    2. The situation had “heavily affected” her wellbeing.
    3. In addition to the infestation, she had experienced a doorbell which set on fire, a leaking boiler, a bathroom riddled with damp, water stains to ceilings throughout the property and a broken toilet.
  7. The landlord recorded the resident’s request to escalate her complaint on 27 June 2022. It did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint until 28 March 2023.
  8. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 24 April 2023. This included:
    1. It apologised for the delay in its response, it said it was experiencing a backlog due to an increase in complaints and staffing changes.
    2. It awarded £90 compensation to apologise for these delays.
    3. It confirmed 2 failed appointments had been scheduled for the proofing works to be completed. On 1 occasion the landlord had to cancel, and the other was recorded as a no access.
    4. The proofing works were completed on 26 October 2022 which was the earliest all operatives were available to attend again.
    5. It apologised for the works being delayed, confirmed that its contractor records did not indicate the property was unhabitable, and it was not recommended to offer temporary accommodation.
    6. It therefore would not waive the rent for the time the resident was not living in the property but recognised the inconvenience and distress that was caused.
    7. It confirmed the £100 offered at stage 1 had been applied as an adjustment to the resident’s rent account in June 2022.
    8. It offered a further payment of £120 to recognise the distress and inconvenience until the proofing work was completed.
    9. It also apologised for the lack of contact from its housing lead, it said there was a lack of response due to staff changes. It offered a further £100 compensation for the lack of communication.
    10. It provided the details of its insurers for the resident to make a claim for her personal items which she said were damaged due to the mice.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident told the landlord that some of her belongings were damaged by the mice. The Scheme states “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure”. The Ombudsman does not have the jurisdiction to award damages, nor does it have the necessary expertise to assess liability and determine loss, these should be referred to the landlord’s insurers. Unlike the courts or insurance companies, we are not able to make a legally binding determination on whether the landlord has been negligent or whether it is liable for damages. The resident may wish to seek independent advice if she wishes to pursue this further.
  2. The resident has said she considers that the situation she experienced with the mice infestation impacted her wellbeing. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, it is beyond the authority of the Ombudsman to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the complaint and the resident’s wellbeing. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been adversely affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident reports that they experienced because of any errors by the landlord.

Mice

  1. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns by adhering to its policies, procedures, and any agreements with the resident, and that the landlord acted reasonably, taking account of what is fair in all the circumstances of the case.
  2. The landlord’s Pest Policy says that the landlord is responsible for dealing with mice infestations in the properties it manages. It is also responsible for blocking and filling holes following pest removal treatment. It is not disputed that the landlord was responsible for the treatment of the infestation, once it was aware of the mice infestation, it promptly raised an order for its pest control contractor to attend.
  3. According to the landlord, it received a report for required proofing works from its contractor on 24 May 2022. This report highlighted potential entry points in the bathroom and kitchen which required sealing. The landlord arranged to carry out the required work on 15 July 2022 but had to cancel this on the day due to staff sickness. Its pest control contractor still attended on this day and checked the previously laid bait trays. According to the pest control report, no bait was found to have been taken at this appointment. The landlord advised the resident on 25 July 2022 that it had rearranged the appointment for 8 August 2022. It is evident that the resident had to chase the landlord for an update within this time.
  4. The appointment arranged for 8 August 2022 was recorded as a no access. The resident said that she contacted the landlord on 7 August 2022 after receiving the text reminder, no records have been provided to evidence this. The resident further emailed on 9 August 2022 explaining she was not at the property. Where there are conflicting accounts, as is the case here, the Ombudsman cannot conclude that there was failure by the landlord.
  5. The works were completed on 26 October 2022. Overall, it took the landlord 5 months to seal the suggested entry points. During this time, it is evident the landlord was in contact with the resident about the repairs. The resident made the landlord aware she was not staying at the property on 17 June 2022 and that she would not pay the rent for the time she was away from the property. In addition, she requested the landlord move her to a “safe and clean” property on 21 October 2022. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s claim that the property was unhabitable until its delayed stage 2 response which was not reasonable.
  6. A further element of the resident’s complaint was regarding the landlord’s communication. In particular its failure to call the resident back. Within its initial stage 1 response on 31 May 2022, the landlord confirmed it had asked a property lead to contact the resident, it further reiterated this on 17 June 2022. On 10 August 2022, the evidence suggests the resident had still not received a call back, this amount of time is not reasonable and caused the resident time and trouble in pursuing this. It is not clear when/if the resident received her call back. The landlord apologised for this in its stage 2 response on 24 April 2023. It advised there had been staff changes and offered £100 compensation for its failure to contact the resident back.
  7. In summary, the landlord responded promptly to the residents reports of mice, its pest control contractor attended within 48 hours, and it arranged for the required works to be completed within 8 weeks. It was unfortunate this appointment had to be cancelled; however, the pest control contractor had reported that no bait had been taken at this time. The landlord rearranged the appointment for 17 working days later, which was then recorded as a no access. The work was eventually completed 12 weeks later, on 26 October 2022. It is evident that the resident was experiencing additional issues at the property throughout this time which added to her frustration with the landlord.
  8. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account 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 as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  9. On 17 June 2022, the landlord awarded the resident £100 for the distress, time, effort, and inconvenience this had caused her. On 24 April 2023, within its stage 2 response, the landlord awarded a further £220. Overall, a total award of £320 compensation was offered to the resident for its response to her reports of a mice infestation. This is considered reasonable redress for the time taken to complete the proofing work at the property. The Ombudsman would have made a finding of some level of maladministration was it not for the steps the landlord took to put things right, by accepting its failing, apologising, and offering reasonable compensation. 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 as well as our own guidance on remedies.

Complaint

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. At stage 1, the landlord says it will respond to complaints within 10 working days. At stage 2, the landlord says it will respond within 20 working days of the resident’s escalation request. At both stages, it says it may extend by an additional 10 working days but would notify the resident for the reasons why.
  2. The landlord’s initial investigation at stage 1 demonstrated that it was focussed on trying to resolve the mice issue for the resident. It provided an initial response on 31 May 2022 advising of its position and advised it would update the resident again. It did so on 17 June 2022, 11 working days later. It was appropriate for the landlord to follow up with the resident as it said it would.
  3. Based on the evidence seen by this service, it is clear the resident requested for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process on 23 June 2022. The resident requested an update on numerous occasions about her complaint. The landlord advised on 10 August 2022 that the complaint had been escalated but there was a backlog due to “a new approach”. It is good that the landlord provided an explanation to the resident however it should have been able to give a timescale for when she could expect her complaint be responded to and kept the resident up to date with any changes to this. It was not reasonable for the landlord to say she would be contacted when her complaint had been allocated and then have to wait 7 months for it to do so.
  4. There was a 211 working day delay by the landlord in issuing its stage 2 complaint response. It did not issue its stage 2 complaint response until 24 April 2023. This delay was significantly outside its policy timescale and the expected timescales detailed in the Complaint Handling Code. This was unreasonable and unnecessarily delayed the resident to bring her case to this service. Notwithstanding this, the substantive issue of the complaint had concluded, therefore there was no obvious additional adverse effect on the resident caused by this delay.
  5. The landlord acknowledged this delay in its stage 2 response and offered £90 compensation. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In this case, the landlord’s lack of communication around the resident’s complaint alongside the significant delay equates to service failure. The financial offer of redress did not go far enough to put things right for the resident and the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a further £100 to recognise its communication failures during its delayed complaint response.

Determination

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s view, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to its response to the resident’s reports of a mice infestation at the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of this report to:
    1. Pay the resident £100 compensation for its communication failures identified within its complaint process.
    2. Pay the resident £90 for the 9-month delay in providing its stage 2 response.
  2. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £90. This amount (less any amount already paid by the landlord as part of its previous offer) must be paid within 4 weeks of the date of this determination. It is to be paid direct to the resident and not offset against any rent arrears as per the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.
  3. The landlord should provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above orders within 4 weeks.

Special Investigation

  1. In July 2023, the Ombudsman published a special investigation report regarding this landlord, which included a number of recommendations for improvement around its handling of complaints. As part of the special investigation, the Ombudsman requested that the landlord provide an action plan to address the report’s recommendations. In addition, as part of case 202321860 more recently, the landlord was asked to carry out a review in order to establish why there is such a significant delay addressing complaints and provide a report setting out how this will be addressed. As such, and in view of the date of this complaint in comparison to the published report and above-mentioned case, the Ombudsman will not make any orders that may duplicate what has already been asked of the landlord.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident its original offer of £300 compensation made during its complaint process if it has not already done so. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress is based on the understanding that this compensation will be paid.