London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202120914)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120914

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

20 January 2023

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s response to reports of a moth infestation in the property, and its subsequent compensation offer.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. The resident moved into the property in October 2018. She began reporting in at least early 2019 that the property had a moth infestation. The landlord explained to her that it was not responsible for dealing with pests such as moths or silverfish. In June 2021, the landlord assisted the resident in applying for a personal support fund (PSF), to help the resident with costs related to replacing her carpet due to moth damage. The resident submitted a complaint on 10 November 2021. She explained to the landlord that she was unhappy with the delay in receiving funding from the PSF, as well as with the landlord’s failure to treat the moth infestation. She has stated that her personal belongings had been damaged by the moths, and that she would like to be compensated.
  3. The landlord responded on 6 December 2021. It explained that there had been delays in gaining the support funding due to some uncertainty that the resident wished to remain in the property. Once the resident had decided to remain, it had sent a flooring specialist to the property on 16 October 2021 to provide quotes for a new floor. It explained that a synthetic carpet would be laid in the property to stop the moths from causing further damage. It would also undertake some repairs to stop the moths from coming into the property. The landlord explained that claims for damaged items needed to be submitted to its liability insurer. However, it stated that it would consider if any further compensation was due to the resident for any inconvenience caused. On 10 December 2021, the landlord stated that the carpet was being paid for by the PSF to the value of £500, therefore, it would not be awarding any further compensation.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 10 December 2021. She disputed that the funding for the carpet should be offered in-lieu of compensation, as she had applied for the funding before submitting her complaint about the delays. The landlord informed the resident on 23 December 2021 that her compensation claim for the damaged items had been referred to its liability insurers. In February 2022, the landlord undertook repairs to the property to stop the moths coming into the property, and laid a new synthetic carpet. In March 2022, the landlord’s insurers rejected the resident’s compensation claim, stating that the landlord had not been negligent in its handling of the moth infestation.
  5. The resident continued to chase the landlord for a response to her request for compensation. After intervention from this Service, the landlord sent another stage one response on 28 April 2022. Despite having already responded to the complaint, it stated that it could not find a record of the moth infestation. It raised a repair report with its pest controller and asked the resident to again make a claim with its insurers for the damaged goods. The landlord’s pest controller subsequently attended and sprayed the property on 31 May 2022 and 12 July 2022.
  6. The landlord sent its final response on 12 July 2022. It stated that it was not responsible for pests such as moths within the properties, but as a good will gesture it had replaced her carpet. It also stated that it had sent out its pest controller on three occasions. It explained that her insurance claim had been rejected, as there was not sufficient evidence to show that the moths had been an issue prior to her moving in 2018. While it did not accept that it was liable for the moth damage, the landlord offered the resident £300 compensation (£250 for the time and effort pursuing the case and £50 for the delay in its complaint handling).
  7. In her complaint to this Service, the resident has stated that she does not believe the landlord fulfilled its duty of care in eradicating the moths when she first reported them in 2019. She would like £700 compensation and for a long-term solution to the moth problem.

Assessment

Scope of investigation

  1. Under paragraph 41 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which concern matters which do not relate to the actions or omissions of a member of the Scheme.
  2. The resident placed an insurance claim for her personal possessions which had been damaged due to the moth infestation, however, this was not accepted. The Ombudsman is unable to comment on the outcome of the insurance claim as this Service can only consider the actions of the landlord, and the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over the landlord’s insurers.

The landlord’s response to reports of a moth infestation in the property, and its subsequent compensation offer.

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that the landlord is responsible for infestations of rats, mice, cockroaches, squirrels, fleas, pharaoh ants, bedbugs, wasps and pigeons. It is also responsible for blocking and filling holes following pest removal treatment. The resident is responsible for all other pests (such as moths) within the property.
  2. According to the above repair policy, the landlord is not responsible for moth infestations within resident properties. Therefore, it was not obligated to undertake measures to exterminate the resident’s moth infestation in this case. It would only have been responsible if there had been evidence to show that it was aware of the moth problem, prior to the resident moving into the property in 2018. However, within the evidence available to this Service, there is no record of any reports being made of an infestation prior 2019, by which point the resident was already in-situ. This does not mean that there was not a moth infestation, but that there is insufficient evidence to show that the landlord had enough knowledge of the issue to be held responsible.
  3. As the landlord was not obligated to treat the moth issue when the resident was living in the property, it’s response to the resident’s reports was very reasonable. It supported the resident in applying for the PSF, which is a discretionary fund that the landlord uses to support residents that are struggling financially. It awarded the resident the equivalent of £500 in the form of a new synthetic carpet for her living room, which it laid in February 2022. As the fund is discretionary, it was up to the landlord to decide how much to award and when to provide this support. This Service would not assess any amounts offered, or the timescale it took to implement, as the landlord was not obligated to provide any funding to the resident from the PSF.
  4. The landlord attended the property in February 2022 and plugged any gaps that the moths could be using to get into the resident’s home. It also sent a pest controller to the property, who undertook pest extermination in May and July 2022. Again, the landlord was not obligated to exterminate the moths, so this was a reasonable gesture that went beyond its obligations.
  5. The landlord acted reasonably in its complaint response by explaining that typically damaged personal items needed to be claimed for on its insurance and signposted the resident to its liability insurers. In its final response it explained clearly to the resident why her insurance claim had been rejected. It also assessed the resident’s request for compensation. Despite rejecting liability for the moth issue, it ultimately offered her £250 compensation for her time and effort in pursuing this case. This was a very reasonable as there was no evidence to suggest that the landlord had acted inappropriately in how it had handled the resident’s reports of the moth infestation. It had also already sent pest control to the property and replaced the resident’s carpet which it was not required to do so, and so had already far exceeded its obligations in this matter.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will respond within ten working days of the resident’s complaint. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, the landlord must escalate the complaint and provide a final response with 20 working days.
  2. The landlord’s responses were delayed and outside of the timescales stated above. The resident submitted a complaint on 10 November 2021, with the landlord responding on 6 December 2021. After the resident escalated her complaint on 10 December 2021, the landlord failed to send a final response. After intervention from this Service, the landlord sent another stage one response rather than a stage two response on 28 April 2022. This was not appropriate as this was five months after the resident had escalated her complaint. Additionally, this Service’s complaint handling code (the code) states that if the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction it should be progressed to the next stage in accordance with the landlord’s procedure. The landlord should have responded with a final response within the correct timescales, once the resident had escalated her complaint in December 2021.
  3. In the landlord’s second stage one response in April 2022, it stated that it could not find a record of the moth infestation internally. From the evidence provided to this Service, it is clear that records did exist. In-line with general good customer service, the landlord should have ensured that it had checked its records thoroughly before responding. This would have shown that it did have records of repair reports regarding the moth problem, and that it had already responded to the resident’s complaint at stage one in December 2021.
  4. The landlord responded to the resident at stage two on 12 July 2022. It acted appropriately by acknowledging that it had failed to escalate her complaint to stage two of its procedure, which had ultimately caused delays. It offered £50 compensation to the resident. This was proportionate to the inconvenience suffered by the resident.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s response to reports of a moth infestation in the property, and its subsequent compensation offer.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint regarding the landlord’s complaint handling satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1.  The landlord should consider:

c. Assessing the training it provides to staff on its repair responsibilities, to ensure that staff are aware of the full extent of its obligations.  

d. Assessing if further training is required for staff in complaint handling.